Features
How television came to Sri Lanka

JRJ, Anandatissa and Upali Wijewardene were among key players
When JRJ was the Minister of State in the Dudley cabinet of 1965 he advocated the introduction of Television to the country. This was typical of his bold thinking and awareness of what was going on around us in the world, which was not a great characteristic of the Dudley cabinet. His suggestion was shot down by Dudley’s media advisors led by Neville Jayaweera who went on to describe the offer of TV as ‘A gift of a Rhinoceros’.
Soon after that JR’s powers over the media were withdrawn by Dudley and he decided to bide his time. One of his earliest acts as Prime Minister in 1977 was to initiate action on introducing TV. Since colour television is today the main media outlet in the country let me narrate how Jayaweera’s ‘brute’ came to be installed.
It began when JRJ called Minster Wijetunga and me to his office and told us that Anandatissa de Alwis, who was then Speaker, had informed him that Upali Wijewardene was talking to the Japanese about introducing TV as one of his investments. JRJ wanted us all to to put our heads together and bring in TV as a national venture since the SLBC was the monopoly radio broadcaster at that time and the subject had been assigned to our Ministry.
The following day the Speaker Ananda invited my minister, Upali and me to his chambers in the old Parliament to discuss JRJs order. Fortunately the three main protagonists – my minister, Ananda and Upali were all friends from much earlier and the discussion was very fruitful apart from the fact that we knew the PM was taking a personal interest in the matter.
There was a strong bond of friendship between Ananda and Upali. The latter had begun his business in a small way by taking over a failed business which belonged to his wealthy maternal uncle Sarath Wijesinghe. This was a small scale business of making sweets under the Delta brand. However the UK returned Upali knew that demographically this group of consumers were bound to grow with the youth segment in our population increasing exponentially.
He turned to the leading advertising agency of that time J Walter Thompson of which Ananda was the managing director. At that time most businessmen did not look to advertising as a necessary ingredient of marketing. Ananda was an advertising genius who had first branded the UNP Youth League as a progressive and fashionable offshoot of the Grand Old Party.
At that time there were only three advertising specialists in the country. They were Ananda, Reggie Candappa and Tim Horshington. Their main media outlets were Lake House, Times and Radio Ceylon. All three had good contacts in these offices having worked there earlier as journalist, layout artist and announcer respectively. They were also Bohemians and irreverent types who knew everybody and could see the sun go down in congenial company.Later all three befriended me, especially Ananda who became my minister and Reggie who made me a member of the exclusive Colombo Club of which he was a live wire. Ananda was a magnificent speaker on the social circuit and a raconteur who knew all the inside stories of political and social life in Colombo from the time of Independence.
Lately in his career, I was considered his protege and became part of his listener’s club and many of the revelations in my autobiography owe their origins to those intimate, fabulous drinking and eating sessions usually held at Ranjit and Lucille Dahanayake’s residence in Colombo 3. Upali, whose horse racing activities were encouraged by Ranjit, who was earlier a jockey and later a gentleman rider, was a frequent visitor at the Dahanayake residence, and an equally expansive story teller.
The idea of entering the publishing business came to Upali at these conversations. As he himself acknowledged in an article I had asked Gamini Wijetunga who was the editor of ‘Desathiya’ our official magazine, to interview Upali who was then the Director General of the Greater Colombo Economic Commission [GCEC] now the Board of Investments, since many had heard about him, frequently critically, but did not really know about his background.
We published a cover story on him and ‘Desathiya’ was not only sold out but it also created a sensation because the leading politicians wanted to keep Upali out of the limelight. Immediately Premadasa and Ronnie protested through their mouthpieces, but our minister feigned ignorance knowing that the big chief was not averse to a little inhouse mischief.
Upali never forgot Gamini Wijetunga and would frequently telephone him to get his advice. Typically Premadasa wanted to do something quickly about this perceived challenge. He started his own magazine which was a carbon copy of ‘Desathiya’ but much better funded through his housing department. He recruited Gunadasa Liyanage at an attractive salary with perks, to be the editor of his magazine.
Since up to then Liyanage had been a fan of Ronnie de Mel, we suspected that he and the PM had closed ranks against our magazine and Gamini Wijetunga in particular. This encounter triggered a spate of ‘Desathiya’ clones loyal to Ronnie, Lalith, Gamini, Ranil and many others, freely using their publicity budgets.
Our canny Sinhala journalists encouraged this magazine spree because they were offered salaries and perks way beyond their newspaper emoluments. It also sparked off an undesirable tendency among ministers to set up within media enterprises their own ‘moles’ who were like agents looking after the interests of their unofficial paymasters.
Any evening visit to a minister’s residence or party headquarters would find these ‘paid hirelings’ hanging around to brief their benefactors and more often to create havoc in party circles by spreading gossip. Unfortunately that tendency has now multiplied with a permissive ‘political culture’ where moles are wined and dined and are even found carrying out errands for their newspaper owners.
Ananda’s advertising acumen made the ailing Delta toffee business to turn around and become a money spinner. Upali invented a special type of container for the toffees, held dealer conventions for boutique owners, increased the advertising budget and brought in radio jingles. He started newspaper contests and started attacking rival products like `Bulto’ toffees which had captured a major market share.
The rise of Delta created in Upali a fascination for modern advertising and publicity. Later he became a spectacular media baron who turned his personality into a great bargaining chip in negotiations with banks and other financial institutions. With Delta restored to health, Upali attacked Kandos. Kandos was a middle level company based in Kandy (hence Kandos), which used the cocoa grown in the Kundasale area to make chocolates.
Its majority shares were owned by an old world Burgher gentleman who did not have the resources to take the company to the next level. Then Upali started his trade mark investment approach by acquiring a minority shareholding. He then quietly bought up more small shares and with a strong platform launched an aggressive attack –on the main shareholder. The old man who did not have the resources to fend off this attack gave in and sold his shares to Upali.
Having acquired control of Kandos, Upali invested in good managers and another Ananda led publicity campaign. He borrowed from banks on the strength of the Kandos balance sheet and went international with his product. Seeing that his cocoa supplies from Kundasale were both insufficient and expensive he entered Malaysia at a time when it was soliciting new investments. With his Cambridge and UK credentials which impressed the Anglophile Malaysian upper class he entered the much larger consumer market in that country.
I remember visiting supermarkets in Kuala Lampur and Singapore at that time and feeling proud when Kandos products were prominently displayed in them. From buying cocoa it was a logical next step to buy cocoa estates to safeguard his supply chain. Upali then bought cocoa and tea estates in Malaysia and Sri Lanka through his well-established technique of quietly accumulating shares till he could make a pitch for controlling the company. In all this he was advised on the media side by Ananda who became one of his favourite ‘elders’.
In the last days of the Dudley administration JRJ and Ananda as his Permanent Secretary, had backed Upali when he started to link up with emerging Japanese Companies instead of trying to enter the already saturated import market from the UK. The Japanese were fast moving up in global trade while UK- the sick man of Europe – was on a downward spiral, not least because Japan was beating them at their own game.
Upali started to assemble radios with parts imported from Japan. When that became a success he started to assemble Mazda cars. With typical panache Upali donated the first three Mazdas to come off his assembly line in Homagama to his mother, JRJ and NM Perera. It is not difficult to imagine that NM Perera’s name was suggested by the mischievous JRJ – Ananda combine. To his credit NM as Finance Minister backed Upali to the hilt.
Partly because Ananda and I interested him in media Upali started a newspaper publishing house. As was his wont he wanted to start right at the top. He brought the latest printing technology. He also unhesitatingly raided the journalistic staff of other newspapers by offering them higher salaries. He brought an Englishman as a consultant following his father’s brother D.R. Wijewardene who had done the same when he established Lake House.
When Upali heard that I was leaving for Singapore we met in Ranjit Dahanayake’s house where he offered me double my Singapore salary to work for him. I refused because I was not a working journalist. Long after his death, on the invitation of the Editor of the Island newspaper I wrote the following memoir about Upali and the beginning of that landmark paper.
“While felicitating `The Sunday Island’ on its 15th anniversary, I recall the early days when Upali Wijewardene set up his newspaper group. The Ministry of State of which Anandatissa de Alwis was Minister and I was Permanent Secretary, was located in the Indian Bank building in the Fort area. We moved there because it was in close proximity to both Lake House and the Times building which housed the leading newspapers of the day.
“The Investment Promotion Board (GCEC) was housed in the fourth and fifth floors of the same building. So we would often meet Upali Wijewardene and his Media Manager Vijitha Yapa who later became the first editor of ‘The Island’. I remember that Mr. Wijesiriwardene, son of the famous Mr. D.B. Rampala, was also a member of Upali’s team that did the preliminary work in setting up the paper.
“I clearly recall the contretemps over the telecasting of a news item about the Upali Newspapers, on the first day ‘Island’ and `Divaina’ hit the streets. I asked the TV organization which came under the State Ministry to give it maximum publicity. For the first time Sri Lankan viewers could see on their small screens the giant presses rolling, newspapers being bundled and finally being sold on the street.
“We also carried interviews with readers who naturally welcomed a new fresh-looking newspaper.
This newscast raised the ire of several bigwigs including Prime Minister Premadasa who was suspicious of Upali’s moves, particularly because the latter had said in his usual provocative way that he would like to be the next President of Sri Lanka.
“There was even talk that President J.R. Jayewardene was backing Upali, which may have caused some heartburn among politicians who fancied themselves as JRJ’s successors. They all complained to I lie President regarding this alleged `abuse’ of the media. Though I heard of these moves by some ministers it did not worry me overmuch since my Minister Anandatissa de Alwis was quite satisfied with this broadcast.
“The following day I was summoned to Ward Place and the President wanted to know why we had featured the Upali Press. I was sharp enough not to bring political opponents into the picture and merely stated that Lake House people were upset by this. I replied that the launching of a new national newspaper was news and that by any standard it merited inclusion in the day’s news bulletin. President JRJ good naturedly accepted this explanation, particularly my statement that the Chairman, Lake House cannot be the arbiter of TV news selection.
“Perhaps to satisfy our critics he added sternly that in future the same high degree of sympathy should be shown to other newspapers when they came out. When I told him of this outcome, Anandatissa merrily rang up Upali and had a good laugh.
“All this goes to show that governments of all hues are apt to keep a wary eye on what newspapers do. There are many reasons for this. Perhaps the most important is the government’s desire to set and dominate the agenda of public discussion. They are very happy when newspapers, particularly the state media, adopts the governmental agenda. Equally they are most dismayed when newspapers, particularly those like 1he Island which have strong opinions, begin to set the agenda.
“What we need now therefore is the emergence of a political culture which recognizes the role of dissent. It is a culture which is difficult to establish. Nevertheless, we have to persevere since it is the bedrock of democracy”.
First Steps for Television
This was the background to the first meeting on introducing TV which was held in the Speaker’s room in early 1978, attended by Ananda, Wijetunga, Upali and me. Upali, with his Japanese connections, had already contacted the Nippon Electrical Company [NEC]. He suggested that we go for the Japanese product as it was based on ‘state of the art’ technology.
The following day the Minister and I met JRJ in office. The PM said that he wanted TV to be a state venture supervised by the Media Ministry. He agreed that we should look to Japan for TV technology. Accordingly, I was asked to negotiate with the Japanese Embassy in Colombo and also speak to the Finance Ministry for budgetary provision to procure the equipment.
At about the same time, when there was public discussions about introducing TV, two young men were also investigating the possibility of setting up a private TV station. They were Anil Wijewardene, son of Sivali who was D.R. Wijewardene’s eldest son and Shan Wickremesinghe son of Nalini, the eldest daughter of D.R. Wijewardene. They were both therefore the nephews of JRJ who was happy that this duo were planning to set up their own TV station.
From time to time he would ask Minister Wijetunga for a progress report on their project, but I knew that he was being regularly briefed by the young men who had easy access to him. In fairness it must be said that they did not cut corners and were diligently seeking the several approvals necessary for the project.
Since Wijetunga was keen to get the goodwill of his boss I kept an eye on their progress. This was not difficult because Shan at that time was my immediate neighbor in Siripa road, where many of the immediate relatives of the Wijewardene’s had their imposing residences.At this stage we had a stroke of luck. The Japanese Ambassador here was Ochi who had been earlier an official of the Japanese Finance Ministry. Before that he had been an executive of the Nippon Electrical Company. It is well known that Japanese Ambassadors have close ties with their corporate world. Ochi was a quintessential ‘Economic Club’ man and was very positive about Japanese involvement in bringing TV to Sri Lanka.
By this time the German and French Ambassadors were also making overtures through their local agents, to be the suppliers. I could use these offers to leverage concessions from the Japanese. Then Ochi, who was determined to win the contract, dropped it bombshell. In order to secure the project for his friends in NEC he said that he will get the whole project for us free of charge. It will come as an outright grant.
I realized the value of his offer and quickly informed JRJ about it. At first he refused to believe that this was possible. A grant of this magnitude was quite extraordinary. But he was pleased when I told him that they were giving it in appreciation of his contribution at the San Francisco peace conference. Before this offer was nailed down the Ambassador and I had to indulge in some obfuscation.
The grant could be given according to Japanese law only of it served a public purpose and a commercial TV station would not pass that test. So we prepared a request for a TV station for the promotion of education. Even now the original agreement carries that objective, even though it has been observed in the breach from the beginning of transmissions. One of the studios in Rupavahini is specially designed to facilitate the making of educational programs and we did start broadcasting lessons in English and Mathematics which won awards at international competitions.
After he was convinced that we were getting the latest type of TV station as a grant, JRJ summoned us and the Japanese Ambassador to President’s House for a final announcement and a celebratory meal. A photograph taken at this historic meeting is reproduced in this book. In it, with the President is Minister Wijetunga, Ambassador Ochi, Sivali Wijewardene [representing his son Anil] Shan Wickremesinghe, Eamon Kariyakarawana [representing SLBC] and me.
After that official meeting it was all systems go and we started working on the project in earnest. I liaised with my friend Akiel Mohammed, Director of External Resources of the Finance Ministry, to finalize details of the grant which was to be announced in the forthcoming budget. In the meanwhile we had to take some urgent decisions. The first was to get the land adjoining SLBC released for the proposed TV station.
At that time it was used as their playground by the Ladies Hockey Club of Colombo. Hidden on a side was an illegal ‘hooch’ bar which was patronized by the artistes and officials of the SLBC. They were not amused when their favourite ‘water hole’ was given a quit notice. However they soon relocated in a place even closer to the studios and there was satisfaction all round.
A more serious problem arose regarding building the main office and the studios. Normally even in our foreign funded projects the practice was for the local side to provide the land and buildings. I knew that if our PWD was to be given this task there would be inevitable delays and the opening would have to be postponed. That was our experience with other projects.
So I requested the Japanese side to include the design and construction of the TV premises in the grant aid. After some discussion the Japanese agreed and we were spared the necessity of asking for supplementary estimates and work plans from our officials. I was happy with the success of my negotiations, and we began the project without delay.
Reshuffle
At this stage JRJ decided to reconstitute his Cabinet. This was partly because Ranjan Wijeratne, who as Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, had complained that his Minister EL Senanayake who was a senior in the Cabinet, was inefficient and perhaps somewhat lacking in rectitude. There was a talk of lack of transparency in tenders for the purchase of fertilizer.Anyway the President’s plans for rapid agricultural growth which he signaled by appointing Wijeratne, who was an agriculturist of high repute, was not being realized. So he made EL the Speaker, a post which had much prestige and no tenders. At the same time he had to respond to the tourist trade which was complaining of a lack of cooperation from the Minister of Tourism Mrs. Kannangara who was constantly fighting with her Secretary Balasuriya who was a senior CCS officer.
In a smart move he brought in Anandatissa de Alwis to the Cabinet as Minister of State and assigned the subject of tourism to that Ministry. He transferred Wijetunga to the important Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications which showed that he appreciated our role in promoting TV. Wijetunga was keen that I accompany him as Secretary to his new Ministry. But the President decreed that I should remain in the media ministry with Ananda and continue with the TV project.
He added the portfolio of tourism to our Ministry, because Ananda had presided over that subject as Secretary to JRJ in the Dudley Cabinet. Mrs. Kannangara’s Ministry was abolished. Since Balasuriya was my neighbor at Siripa road this was an embarrassment to me especially since my two daughters were taking piano lessons from Mrs. Balasuriya who was a well-known teacher. Among the other children who were Mrs. Balasuriya’s proteges was Sajin Vass Gunawardena who was something of a musical prodigy then. As the mischievous son of our University friend Abey Vass Gunawardena, Sajin was in and out of our house in Siripa Road.
Features
Leadership, Ethics & Non-compromise – I

Navigating the Winds of Change:
(Keynote address delivered at the first Award Ceremony of the ‘The Bandaranaike Academy for Leadership & Public Policy on 15 February 2025 at Mihilama Medura, BMICH, Colombo)
I have been made to understand, today marks the awards ceremony of the first cohort of students at the ‘The Bandaranaike Academy for Leadership & Public Policy.’ So, it is a happy day for all those graduating in a world where immediate work and life circumstances are not generally marked by happiness.
I apologize for starting on a seemingly morose note, but we are in more dire straits – as a nation and as citizens – than we have ever been since Independence. And much of this unhappiness stems directly from decisions taken by people we have considered leaders. In many cases, we have also elected them – repeatedly. But I am not talking only of public leaders who are often visible, but also of people away from the public eye, in leadership positions, such as in public and business organizations, kin networks, schools and formal and informal groups, who also take decisions that affect others – and often in life-changing ways.
The founders of this academy must certainly have had a sense that local and global structures of leadership are in relative disarray when they decided that the vision of the academy is to ‘create the next generation of ethical, effective and socially responsible leaders.’ From my vantage point, I would summarize these expectations in three words: Leadership, Ethics & Non-compromise’. These are the ideas I want to talk about today against the backdrop of our country’s vastly transformed political landscape and societal mood.
Let me lay it out there: leadership and its congruent qualities, such as ethics and non-compromise, do not simply emanate from a course or a syllabus. Certainly, conceptual and theoretical aspects of leadership, what ethics mean, when and when not to compromise in an abstract sense can be ‘taught’ through forms of formal instruction. I see that your postgraduate diploma courses such as ‘Strategic Leadership’ and ‘Politics & Governance’ emphasize some of these aspects. Similarly, the course, ‘Executive Credential on Leadership & Public Policy’ appears to emphasize some core concepts that would have to feature in any discussion on leadership, such as ‘Ethical Leadership and Social Responsibility’, ‘Leadership Strategies for a Changing World’, ‘Visionary Leadership’ and ‘Moral Leadership’ which have all been flagged either as course outcomes or focus areas.
But beyond this kind of abstraction in a classroom, leadership and its affiliated characteristics must necessarily come from life and how we deal with its multiple layers in society. A classroom, or a course, is essentially a controlled environment while society is not. The latter, by virtue of its composition, is messy and unpredictable. Leadership, in such situations, is one thing that theory and bookish knowledge alone cannot inculcate in a person beyond a certain point.
It is this, I want to elaborate in my talk today. It has become extremely clear to me that in our immediate living environment, and particularly in politics, across the board, leadership along with qualities like ethics and non-compromise, is woefully lacking. This absence stems from the relentless abuse of the key attributes of leadership which have been buried in the corrupt political system and compromised societal mores we have inherited.
So, let me take you beyond the classroom today and give you a glimpse of situations I have had to encounter. I suggest, you juxtapose these experiences and perspectives against what you have learned in the academy, your schools, your universities, from your parents and elders and your lives in general, and then proceed to fine-tune these or even unlearn your instructions, if needed. I have always found common ground in what American essayist Ralph Waldo Emerson once noted about leadership. He said, “do not follow where the path may lead. Go instead where there is no path and leave a trail.” What he is essentially talking about is the necessity of a vision to be able to lead.
But, more importantly, we must have the commonsense and the political will to distinguish between vision and hallucination, however popular and rhetorically similar both can be. Adolf Hitler had a hallucination of globally disastrous proportions while Nelson Mandela and Mohandas Gandhi had emancipatory visions whose long-term influence far exceeded the geographic and political boundaries of their countries. All three had a large number of followers, with very different consequences. And all of them were leaders, too.
What I want to say at the outset is that mere popularity of a person at a given moment is not an indication of leadership unless it is enhanced and enriched by ethics and the non-compromise of those standards. That is, leadership with morals as opposed to being devoid of them.
In my last professional incarnation, the core idea was to establish a university where none existed, an entity called South Asian University that belonged to the eight nation states of South Asia. It was intended to be a place where no one nation, political or ideological position would dominate; a university where existing conflicts between nation states would not percolate into the classroom. This was a grand vision spawned by a group of people who could lead when it came to ideas of equality in an unequal world.
Interestingly, in the initial years of its existence, it was possible to adhere to these principles and visions as long as there was leadership at important levels of the administration and academic decision-making where these principles were upheld and put into practice. For instance, Indian and Pakistani Independence Days were celebrated within minutes of each other, albeit amidst some tension, but essentially without violence or confrontation. The university did not get involved in any of these, but provided a safe environment. Today, only 14 years later, one cannot see a single Pakistani student on campus.
The iconic lecture series that I helped initiate, ‘Contributions to Contemporary Knowledge,’ which has now been discontinued, was kicked off by a highly successful and well-attended lecture by Gananath Obeyesekere. The Sri Lankan scholar was not invited because of our common nationality, but solely for his reputation reaching across national boundaries and hence was demanded by my Indian colleagues. My job, as a leader, was to make it happen. That is, all these events in the first 10 years of the university’s life established its identity as a South Asian socio-political as well as cultural-knowledge space and not an Indian socio-cultural enclave, though physically located in New Delhi. This was possible because of leadership and clarity of vision at different levels.
Even when crude nationalistic ventures were initiated at the apex of the administration or among students, some of us had the sense and authority to not let them proceed. Similarly, when events were organized which were considered anti-Indian by some misguided people, we had the moral and ethical wherewithal and strength to continue nevertheless, on the conviction of our ideas and the correctness of our decisions.
One such instance was the celebration of the work of the Pakistani poet Faiz Ahmad Faiz in 2015, when some Indian students complained we were turning the university into a Pakistani enclave. Yet the event was not cancelled, was again well attended and was very positively reported, including even in the Indian mass media. This is also where the notion of non-compromise played a pivotal role. That is, there was never any expectation of compromise in my mind and those others who helped organize it when we knew quite well this kind of rhetoric might emerge.
Continuing further, the point I want to stress is, leadership cannot and should not be merely based on individual popularity or on narrow personal interests. We see both tendencies when it comes to political leadership in Sri Lanka, our immediate geographic neighborhood, and elsewhere in the world. This is how political dynasties have emerged where families seem to believe that to be in leadership positions is a birthright passed down through divine authority. This misplaced thinking is to the detriment of the rest of us as a direct result of dubious forms of leadership that dynastic politics usually generate.
How can we expect a person to lead a nation or even an electorate in any degree of seriousness, when they fabricate their educational qualifications, when their professional backgrounds are works of fiction, when they have never worked a single day in the real world or when their achievements are in the realms of criminality. We have such leaders right here on our own soil whose political survival we have ensured through our vote and our very pronounced lack of reflective criticality. Our collective tolerance of such ‘leadership’ is shameful and says much about our own intelligence, ethics and apathy.
(To be continued)
Features
USAID and NGOS under siege

by Jehan Perera
The virtually overnight suspension of the U.S. government’s multibillion dollar foreign aid programme channeled through USAID has been headline news in the U.S. and in other parts of the world where this aid has been very important. In the U.S. itself the suspension of USAID programmes has been accompanied by large scale loss of jobs in the aid sector without due notice. In areas of the world where U.S. aid was playing an important role, such as in mitigating conditions of famine or war, the impact is life threatening to large numbers of hapless people. In Sri Lanka, however, the suspension of U.S. aid has made the headlines for an entirely different reason.
U.S. government authorities have been asserting that the reason for the suspension of the foreign aid programme is due to various reasons, including inefficiency and misuse that goes against the present government’s policy and is not in the U.S. national interest. This has enabled politicians in Sri Lanka who played leading roles in previous governments, but are now under investigation for misdeeds associated with their periods of governance, to divert attention from themselves. These former leaders of government are alleging that they were forced out of office prematurely due to the machination of NGOs that had been funded by USAID and not because of the misgovernance and corruption they were accused of.
In the early months of 2022, hundreds of thousands of people poured out onto the streets of Sri Lanka in all parts of the country demanding the exit of the then government. The Aragalaya protests became an unstoppable movement due the unprecedented economic hardships that the general population was being subjected to at that time. The protestors believed that those in the government had stolen the country’s wealth. The onset of economic bankruptcy meant that the government did not have foreign exchange (dollars) to pay for essential imports, including fuel, food and medicine. People died of exhaustion after waiting hours and even days in queues for petrol and in hospitals due to lack of medicine.
PROBING NGOS
There have been demands by some of the former government leaders who are currently under investigation that USAID funding to Sri Lanka should be probed. The new NPP government has responded to this demand by delegating the task to the government’s National NGO Secretariat. This is the state institution that is tasked with collecting information from the NGOs registered with it about their quantum and sources of funding and what they do with it for the betterment of the people. Public Security Minister Ananda Wijepala has said he would deal with allegations over USAID funding in Sri Lanka, and for that he had sought a report from the NGO Secretariat which is operating under his Ministry.
Most donor agencies operating in Sri Lanka, including USAID, have rigorous processes which they follow in disbursing funds to NGOs. Usually, the donor agency will issue a call for proposals which specify their areas of interest. NGOs have to compete to obtain these funds, stating what they will do with it in considerable detail, and the impact it will have. Once the grant is awarded, the NGOs are required to submit regular reports of work they have done. The donor agencies generally insist that reputed audit firms, preferably with international reputations, perform regular annual or even six-monthly audits of funds provided. They may even send independent external monitors to evaluate the impact of the projects they have supported.
The value of work done by NGOs is that they often take on unpopular and difficult tasks that do not have mass appeal but are essential for a more just and inclusive society. Mahatma Gandhi who started the Sarvodaya (meaning, the wellbeing of all) Movement in India was inspired by the English philosopher John Ruskin who wrote in 1860 that a good society was one that would care for the very last member in it. The ideal that many NGOs strive for, whether in child care, sanitation, economic development or peacebuilding is that everyone is included and no one is excluded from society’s protection, in which the government necessarily plays a lead role.
SELF-INTEREST
Ironically, those who now demand that USAID funds and those organisations that obtained such funds be investigated were themselves in government when USAID was providing such funds. The National NGO Secretariat was in existence doing its work of monitoring the activities of NGOs then. Donor agencies, such as USAID, have stringent policies that prevent funds they provide being used for partisan political purposes. This accounts for the fact that when NGOs invite politicians to attend their events, they make it a point to invite those from both the government and opposition, so that their work is not seen as being narrowly politically partisan.
The present situation is a very difficult one for NGOs in Sri Lanka and worldwide. USAID was the biggest donor agency by far, and the sudden suspension of its funds has meant that many NGOs have had to retrench staff, stop much of their work and some have even closed down. It appears that the international world order is becoming more openly based on self-interest, where national interests take precedence over global interests, and the interests of the wealthy segments of society take precedence over the interests of the people in general. This is not a healthy situation for human beings or for civilisation as the founders of the world religions knew with their consistent message that the interests of others, of the neighbour, of all living beings be prioritised.
In 1968, when the liberal ideas of universal rights were more dominant in the international system, Garrett Hardin, an evolutionary biologist, wrote a paper called “The Tragedy of the Commons”. Hardin used an example of sheep grazing land when describing the adverse effects of overpopulation. He referred to a situation where individuals, acting in their own self-interest, overexploit a shared resource, like a pasture or fishery, leading to its depletion and eventual destruction, even though it is detrimental to everyone in the long run; essentially, the freedom to use a common resource without regulation can lead to its ruin for all users. The world appears to be heading in that direction. In these circumstances, the work of those, who seek the wellbeing of all, needs to be strengthened and not undermined.
Features
Dealing with sexual-and gender-based violence in universities

Out of the Shadows:
By Nicola Perera
Despite policy interventions at the University Grants Commission (UGC), university, and faculty levels, sexual- and gender-based violence (SGBV) is so entrenched in the system that victim-survivors seeking justice are more likely to experience concerted pushback than the empathetic solidarity of their peers. Colleagues and friends will often close ranks, rallying to protect the accused under misguided notions of safeguarding the reputation of, not merely the assumed perpetrator, but the institution. While gender and sexual inequalities, inflected by class, ethnicity, religion, region, and other characteristics, shape the identities of the perpetrator and victim and the situation of abuse, the hyper-hierarchised nature of the university space itself enables and conceals such violence. It’s also important to note that women are not the exclusive victims of violence; boys and men are caught in violent dynamics, too.
Similar to intimate partner violence in the private confines of home and family, violence attributed to the sex and gender of abusers and victims in our universities goes heavily underreported. The numerous power imbalances structuring the university – between staff and students; academic staff versus non-academic staff; senior academic professionals as opposed to junior academics; or, senior students in contrast to younger students – also prevent survivors from seeking redress for fear of professional and personal repercussions. Research by the UGC in 2015 in collaboration with the Federation of University Teachers’ Associations (FUTA) and CARE International Sri Lanka, and more recently with UNICEF in 2021, revealed discomfiting truths about the university as places of work and education. In naming oneself as a survivor-victim, even within whatever degree of confidentiality that current grievance mechanisms offer, the individual may also represent (to some members of the university community, if not to the establishment itself) a threat to the system.
Conversely, an accused is liable to not just disciplinary action by their university-employer, but to criminal prosecution by the state. Via the Penal Code, the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act (2005), etc., the law recognises SGBV as an offence that can take place across many contexts in the private and public spheres. (The criminalisation of SGBV is in line with state commitments to ensuring the existence, safety, and dignity of women and girls under a host of international agreements, such as the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, Vienna Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women, the Sustainable Development Goals, International Labour Organisation conventions regarding non-discrimination in employment, etc.). Specific to the university, the so-called anti-ragging act (the Prohibition of Ragging and Other Forms of Violence in Education Institutes Act of 1998, in addition to UGC circular no. 919 of 2010, etc.) deems SGBV as a punishable offence. The rag is one site where SGBV often finds fluent articulation, but it is hardly the only one: this is not a problem with just our students.
As the apex body governing higher education in the country, the UGC has not remained insensible to the fact that SGBV harms the lives, rights, and work of students, staff, (and other parties) in university spaces. The Centre for Gender Equity/Equality sits at the UGC level, along with gender cells/committees in individual universities. Universities and faculties have elaborated their own policies and bylaws to address sexual- or gender-based harassment and sexual violence. Although variously articulated, these policies touch on issues of consent; discrimination against a person, or creation of a hostile environment, on the basis of their gender or sexuality; the spectrum of actions that may constitute harassment/violence (including through the use of technology); coerced or voluntary sexual favours as a quid-pro-quo for academic or professional benefits; procedures for making and investigating SGBV complaints; protection of witnesses to an investigation; the irrelevance of the complainant’s sexual history to the complaint at hand. And here begins the inevitable tale of distance between policy, practice, and effect.
Different faculties of the same university may or may not include SGBV awareness/ training in the annual orientation for new students. The faculty’s SGBV policy may or may not appear in all three languages and Braille in student handbooks. Staff Development Centres training new recruits in outcome-based education and intended learning outcomes may or may not look at (or even realise) the politics of education, nor include an SGBV component in its Human Resources modules. Universities may or may not dedicate increasingly stretched resources to training workshops on SGBV for staff, or cover everyone from academics, to administrative staff, to the marshals, to maintenance staff, to hostel wardens.
Workshops may in any case only draw a core of participants, mostly young, mostly women. Instead, groups of male academics (aided sometimes by women colleagues) will actively organise against any gender policy which they construe as a personal affront to their professional stature. Instead, the outspoken women academic is painted as a troublemaker. Existing policy fails to address such discourse, and other normalised microaggressions and subtle harassment which create a difficult environment for gender and sexual minorities. In fact, the implementation of gender policy at all may rest on the critical presence of an individual (inevitably a woman) in a position of power. Gender equality in the university at any point appears to rest on the convictions and labour of a handful of (mostly women) staff or officials.
The effect is the tediously heteropatriarchal spaces that staff and students inhabit, spaces which whether we acknowledge them as such or not, are imbued with the potential, the threat of violence for those on the margins. The effect, as Ramya Kumar writing earlier in this column states, is the inability of our LGBTQI students and staff to be their authentic selves, except to a few confidantes. Since the absence/rarity of SGBV complaints is no evidence that the phenomenon does not exist, perhaps a truer indication of how gender-sensitised our institutions and personnel are, comes back again to the reception of such complaints. Thus, a woman accuser is frequently portrayed as the archetypal scorned woman: abuse is rewritten not just as consent, but a premeditated transaction of sexual relations in exchange for better grades, a secured promotion, and so on. A situation of abuse becomes inscribed as one of seduction, where the accuser basically changes their tune and cries harassment or rape when the expected gains fail to materialise. Especially with the global backlash to MeToo, society is preoccupied with the ‘false accusation,’ even though there is plenty of evidence that few incidents of SGBV are reported, and fewer still are successfully prosecuted. These misogynist tropes of women and women’s sexuality matter in relation to SGBV in university, because Faculty Boards, investigative committees, Senates, and Councils will be as equally susceptible to them as any citizen or juror in a court of law. They matter in placing the burden of documenting abuse/harassment as it takes place on the victim-survivor, to accumulate evidence that will pass muster before a ‘neutral,’ ‘objective’ observer.
At the end of the day, when appointments to gender committees may be handpicked to not rock the boat, or any university Council may dismiss a proven case of SGBV on a technicality, the strongest policies, the most robust mechanisms and procedures are rendered ineffective, unless those who hold power in everyday dealings with students and persons in subordinate positions at the university also change.
(Nicola Perera teaches English as a second language at the University of Colombo.)
Kuppi is a politics and pedagogy happening on the margins of the lecture hall that parodies, subverts, and simultaneously reaffirms social hierarchies.
-
News7 days ago
Oracle Corporation pledges support for Sri Lanka’s digitalization
-
Sports4 days ago
Remarkable turnaround for Sri Lanka’s ODI team
-
Editorial7 days ago
Groping in the dark
-
Opinion7 days ago
Shortage of medicines: Senaka Bibile Policy is the solution
-
Opinion7 days ago
The passing of Sarjana Karunakaran
-
News5 days ago
Speaker agrees to probe allegations of ‘unethical funding’ by USAID
-
Business4 days ago
UN Global Compact Network Sri Lanka: Empowering Businesses to Lead Sustainability in 2025 & Beyond
-
Features4 days ago
Scammed and Stranded: The Dark Side of Sri Lanka’s Migration Industry