Connect with us

Features

In Sri Lanka’s own interests

Published

on

by Neville Ladduwahetty

India’s External Affairs Minister, Dr. S. Jaishankar during his recently concluded visit to Sri Lanka is reported to have stated at a Joint Press Conference that ‘It was in Sri Lanka’s own interest that expectations of the Tamil people for equality, justice, peace and dignity within a united Sri Lanka should be fulfilled and Delhi insists on the importance of the 13th Amendment in fulfilling those expectations’ (The Island, January 7, 2021).

Assuming the accuracy of the reported statement, its content has significant implications on the State and Nation of Sri Lanka.   For instance, why are expectations for “equality, justice, peace and dignity” limited only to the Tamil people?   If that is the case, by implication it must mean that all other citizens of Sri Lanka other than the Tamil community do not have similar expectations because they already enjoy equality, justice, peace and dignity in Sri Lanka.   This is a factually skewed assessment on the part of Dr. Jaishankar, because he must surely know that citizens in all countries throughout the world, including Sri Lanka, regardless of which community they belong to, and/or whether they are majorities or minorities, experience inequality, injustice and lack of peace and dignity in one form or another and that India is no exception.   Therefore, what is so exceptional about the Tamil community?   

By insisting on the importance of the 13th Amendment in fulfilling expectations of the Sri Lankan Tamil community, Dr. Jaishankar has underscored the link between the 13th Amendment and the expectations.   However, since the 13th Amendments impacts only on the smaller portion of the Tamil community living in the Northern and Eastern provinces, the fulfilment of expectations would be limited only to them.   What about the expectations of the larger portion of the Tamil community living outside the Northern and Eastern provinces along with the rest of the communities in Sri Lanka?   For India to be concerned only with this smaller proportion of the Tamil community and not with the decidedly larger portion of the Sri Lankan citizenry has the potential to endanger India’s interests in Sri Lanka from a geostrategic perspective.           

Furthermore, when Dr. Jaishankar states that it is in Sri Lanka’s own interest to ensure that the expectations for equality, justice, peace and dignity within a “UNITED Sri Lanka”, he as India’s Minister for Foreign Affairs has added a new amendment to the 13th Amendment that impacts on the hallowed unitary structure of the Sri Lankan State.   When the 13th Amendment was introduced in 1987, Sri Lanka was unitary and remains so today.   To state that the precondition for the fulfilment of expectations of the Tamil people requires the structure of the Sri Lankan State to be changed from being unitary to one that is “united” amounts to naked interference in the internal affairs of the Sri Lankan State in violation of the principles of the Non-Aligned Movement in which India was a founding member.   If this is how India’s policy of “neighborhood first” manifests, the neighborhood, and in particular Sri Lanka, should be more circumspect in its dealings with India than it had been in the past. 
 

THE “NEIGHBOURHOOD FIRST” POLICY
 

When Dr. Jaishankar says that it is Sri Lanka’s own interest to fulfill the expectations of the Tamil community, he, as the foremost spokesperson for India, is washing India’s hands off of any responsibility for orchestrating a forced intervention and imposing a system of governance under the 13th Amendment, that is totally unsuitable for Sri Lanka.   The net effect of the legacy left behind is a frustrated Sri Lankan nation, struggling to make the best of an inappropriate system of governance. 

Is Sri Lanka in a position to introduce a system of governance that serves all communities better?  According to comments made by former president Sirisena, the answer is NO.   During the course of a recent interview, he stated: “The 13th Amendment is a product of the Indo-Lanka Accord of 1987.   The Provincial Council Act is a product of the 13th Amendment.   So I know that it is not so easy to abolish provincial councils…. Abolishing provincial councils is like playing with fire” (The Island, January 2, 2021).

This is the trap Sri Lanka finds itself in.   This trap and the manner in which it was set by India, did not deter India from engaging in acts that violated the very principles it subscribed to and expected others to live by, despite being an influential founding member of the Non-Aligned Movement with the principles:
 

  • Mutual respect for each other’s territorial integrity and sovereignty
  • Mutual non-aggression
  • Mutual non-interference in domestic affairs
  • Equality and mutual benefit
  • Peaceful co-existence. 

Today India is not encumbered by inconvenient principles.   India is now a key member of the QUAD with the U.S., Japan and Australia.    Until the recent visit all leaders of India including Prime Minister Modi who visited Sri Lanka advised Sri Lanka to implement the 13th Amendment.   For the first time, what is being “insisted” upon is not only the implementation of the 13th Amendment, but also that it should be within a “UNITED” Sri Lanka.  
 

These expressions reflect the new India backed up by the new relationships of the QUAD.   Blinded by the backing of the new relationship, India would not want to be seen by its partners in the QUAD as being weak by admitting that its experiment in Sri Lanka has failed.   Therefore, they are bound to keep on pressuring Sri Lanka with proposals how to make devolution more meaningful.  In such a background attempting to transform current arrangements would be met with such resistance that it may amount to “playing with fire”. 
 

Continued attempts to make provincial councils under the 13th Amendment work is not in keeping with India’s policy of “Neighbourhood First” because the 13th Amendment is strictly meant to fulfill the expectations of only the Tamil community in the Northern and Eastern Provinces.  It does not constitute the neighbourhood of India.   Since it is in India’s own geostrategic interests to cultivate the neighbourhood, India has to cater to the interests of the larger segment of the Sri Lankan nation which for all intents and purposes constitutes the real neighbourhood as recognized by other sovereign States.  
 

What India is yet to realize and admit is that the 13th Amendment has not served the people of any community whether they be Tamil, Sinhala, Muslim or any other, because of the fundamental unsuitability of the structural arrangement imposed on Sri Lanka by India.   This fact was confirmed by former President Sirisena in the interview referred to above.   He stated: “the 30-year experience of running provincial councils has not yielded desired results in terms of developing all parts of the country”.   According to him: “From a development perspective, I think a set up at the district level like a District Development board would work better than provincial councils given the fact that we are a small country”.
 

Realistic pragmatism requires that India rethinks its priorities because its current emphasis does not amount to its stated policy of “neighbourhood first”.   Instead, the current policy as far as the 13th Amendment in Sri Lanka is concerned amounts to “India First”, in the neighbourhood. 

DENIAL of RIGHTS to DEVELOPMENT
 

There is a consensus in Sri Lanka that the provincial council system is an unsuitable mechanism to address the needs of the people.   Despite this realization successive Sri Lankan governments have failed to present a formal statement to the leadership of India that because of the unsuitability of the existing provincial council system, Sri Lanka needs to develop an alternative.   If India is opposed to an alternative that suits Sri Lanka, India should be informed that Sri Lanka would be engaging in an exercise to find an alternative, because what is at stake is the denial of a right to human development of millions in Sri Lanka brought about by India’s intervention in the internal affairs of a sovereign State that introduced a system of governance that does not serve the interests of people in Sri Lanka.  
 

Having so stated, Sri Lanka should set up a mechanism to develop an alternative to provincial councils with a mandate to develop a proposal to ensure the delivery of goods and services to all communities in the periphery independent of all parochial political and other considerations.   Such an alternative should be based on inputs from the people in the periphery, and definitely not on inputs from the political leaders of all hues as has been in the past.   Furthermore, such a proposal should have the flexibility to function whether the arrangement at the center is Parliamentary, or Presidential.   
         

Hoping that the framers of the new constitution would give the needed attention to develop an alternative to the existing provincial council system together with other weighty and controversial issues, is not only to complicate the daunting task of constitution making but also to rob the attention the alternative should deserve.   Therefore, since the exercise of developing a system to ensure that those at the periphery are served requires the engagement of persons with skills and experience of a sort that is different to those conversant with constitutions and how governments function, the task of developing an alternative to provincial councils should be carried out independently.
 

India must surely be aware that the provincial council system introduced under the 13th Amendment has failed to fulfill intended expectations.   Despite this for India to continue to insist that the 13th Amendment is implemented by every visiting dignitary is being disingenuous to a neighbor, under a policy of “neighbourhood first”.  Since the insistence on the 13th Amendment denies the fundamental right to human development of millions in Sri Lanka, India must he held accountable and responsible for their fate.       
    

IN INDIA’S OWN INTEREST       
     

India’s stated policy is “Neighbourhood First”.   Explaining the concept, Amb. (Retd) V.P. Haran at the Central University of Tamil Nadu stated: “Policy of Govt. of India towards neighbors is encapsulated in the phrase, ‘Neighbors First’. This policy priority holds true for almost every country in the world. For, anything that happens in one country will affect the other countries in the neighborhood.   Former PM Dr. Manmohan Singh once said, ‘the real test of foreign policy is in the handling of neighbors’. We often hear political leaders say that India wants a peaceful, prosperous and stable neighborhood.  Reason is simple.  This means less trouble for us and will enable us to focus on development, without distraction. Neighborhood diplomacy is challenging and difficult but one that is satisfying at the end” (July 14, 2017).
 

If as stated above, India’s peace prosperity and stability depends on the stability of its neighbors, it is in India’s own interest that there is peace, prosperity and stability in Sri Lanka.   The question then becomes, could there be prosperity in Sri Lanka under a system spawned by the 13th Amendment that denies the right to human development to the entire population of Sri Lanka because of the systemic unsuitability of the system imposed by India?   Furthermore, how could there be stability in Sri Lanka when the overwhelming majority is disadvantaged by the system of provincial governance introduced by India?   
 

India’s interest in the Tamil community in Sri Lanka is driven by India’s own internal imperatives because of the perception that a Tamil community in Sri Lanka with fulfilled expectations would not give cause for instability in Tamil Nadu on account of Tamils in Sri Lanka.   However, the context in which such notions thrived has changed.  Therefore, India has to think beyond internal parochial interests.   Having joined the QUAD India has to act as a global player.   To do so India has to reset its sights and see nation-states as whole entities and not as made up of ethnic communities which means India has to address the concerns of the rump of sovereign States   As far as Sri Lanka is concerned, this is to accept that the model imposed by India has failed, and that India should not to stand in the way of Sri Lanka developing an alternative to the provincial council system, because it is in India’s own interest to do so.   
 

CONCLUSION
 

The comment by India’s External Affairs Minister, Dr. S. Jaishankar Joint Press Conference was that ‘It was in Sri Lanka’s own interest that expectations of the Tamil people for equality, justice, peace and dignity within a united Sri Lanka should be fulfilled and Delhi insists on the importance of the 13th Amendment in fulfilling those expectations’.  
 

For a seasoned diplomat to use words such as fulfilling expectations within a UNITED Sri Lanka and to INSIST on the importance of the 13th Amendment means that the gloves have come off.   As it is with the U.S. using human rights issues in Sri Lanka to contain China’s influence in Sri Lanka, India is using the 13th Amendment coupled with Japanese funds to get involved in Sri Lanka to dilute Chinese influence in Sri Lanka.  
 

This is the background in which Sri Lanka has to act.  After thirty plus years of denial of the right to human development of the citizens of Sri Lanka as a result of the provincial councils set up under the 13th Amendment that was imposed in violation of principles of the Non-Aligned Movement of which India was a founding member, the people of Sri Lanka cannot afford to wait any longer.    Therefore, the people who elected this President and this Parliament should prevail on the government to submit a formal statement to India that Sri Lanka would engage in an exercise to develop an alternative to the existing system.      
   

The repeated references to the 13th Amendment demonstrate that India’s take on Sri Lanka has not changed.  Even after a lapse of nearly thirty plus years and the passing away of most of the major actors associated with Tamil politics in India and Sri Lanka, India continues to see Sri Lanka from the perspective of Tamil politics.   In the meantime, the global landscape has changed dramatically with the ascendance of formidable global players that view Sri Lanka’s strategic location as being vital to their geostrategic interests.   They view Sri Lanka as a nation-state and not as one made up of communities as demonstrated by India.   This difference in perspective is not in India’s own interest.   Therefore, in keeping with India’s own policy of “Neighbourhood First”, it is in India’s own interest to change its take on Sri Lanka, and to recognize it as being a sovereign nation-state and not one made up of disparate communities, if India is not to be seen as “India First in the Neighbourhood”.



Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Features

Own the car or let the App drive?

Published

on

The real cost of daily travel in urban Sri Lanka

For many middle-class Sri Lankans, the private car still carries connotations of stability, dignity, and upward mobility. Yet in today’s Sri Lanka, with petrol at Rs. 434 per litre, following the Ceylon Petroleum Corporation’s revision, effective 30 May, 2026, loan-to-value ratios tightened to 40% requiring a 60% down payment, and ride-hailing apps now joined by app-based three-wheelers, the question of whether to own a car has become sharper than ever. The answer is not emotional but economic: for ordinary day-to-day travel, is it actually cheaper and wiser to own a car, or to let the app do the work?

Take a generic urban Sri Lankan commuter making a 40 km daily round trip to office and back, with routine errands built in. That is about 880 km a month across 22 working days. At that level of usage, the arithmetic becomes surprisingly clear: for a large group of moderate urban users, app-based mobility, whether a car or a three-wheeler, is financially smarter than owning a car, unless the non-financial benefits of ownership matter deeply enough to justify the premium.

The Sri Lankan distortion:

cars cost too much

In most developed economies, cars are consumer durables. In Sri Lanka, they behave more like luxury financial assets. A moderate vehicle, such as a Toyota Raize or Honda Civic, often costs several times what a comparable car would in a developed market, once taxes, import restrictions, and scarcity are priced in.

Assume a moderate privately used car priced at 10 million. Under the Central Bank’s current 40% LTV directive, the buyer may borrow only 40% against the vehicle’s value, requiring a 60% down payment of 6 million and a five-year lease on the remaining 4 million. At a typical Sri Lankan leasing rate of 14% per annum, the monthly lease instalment comes to approximately 93,000. A moderate petrol vehicle averages around 12 km per litre in urban traffic. At Rs. 434 per litre, fuel cost alone is  36 per km, or 31,800 per month for 880 km. Add insurance of 12,000 and a conservative 4,000 for routine running costs, and total cash outgoings reach approximately 140,800 per month.

But cash outgoings alone understate the true cost. The 6 million down payment, if invested elsewhere at 9% per annum, would generate approximately 45,000 per month in foregone return. Adding this opportunity cost, the full economic cost of the moderate car rises to 185,900 per month, or 211 per km.

The app alternatives: car or three-wheeler

Urban Sri Lankan commuters today have many distinct app-based mobility options, each serving different journey types and comfort preferences.

Uber and PickMe (car hire): A premium car hire through Uber or PickMe costs approximately 150 per km. For 880 km of monthly travel, that comes to 132,000 per month. Compared with the moderate owned car at 185,900, the app saves 53,900 per month, or 61 per km. On purely financial terms, the app wins decisively.

App-based three-wheelers: App-based three-wheelers currently charge approximately 110 per km. For 880 km, that is 96,800 per month, saving 89,100 per month and 101 per km compared with the moderate owned car. The tuk-tuk app is the most economical of the three mobility options for short urban trips, though clearly unsuitable for highway travel, poor weather, carrying passengers in formal settings, however, it represents a compelling financial case.

Non-financial advantages of ownership

Transport decisions are never purely accounting exercises. A private car offers privacy, immediate availability, flexibility, and family utility in ways that no app can fully replicate. With your own car, you can leave when you want, stop when you want, change route mid-journey, carry files or groceries without thought, respond to emergencies, and avoid the uncertainty of waiting for a driver to accept your ride. It also becomes a family coordination tool: school drop-offs, medical visits, elderly passengers, unplanned errands, and weekend travel all become easier. In psychological terms, ownership buys autonomy. No app-based alternative, whether car or three-wheeler, provides that.

The hidden burden of car ownership and app limitations

Yet the same car creates stress. Urban Sri Lankan driving is rarely relaxing. Congestion is exhausting, lane discipline is weak, and parking is a recurring headache. Every daily driver absorbs cognitive fatigue that accumulates invisibly over months.

Uber and PickMe remove the burden of driving, fuelling, and servicing. But they introduce their own friction: waiting times, driver cancellations, surge pricing during peak hours or rain, and inconsistent vehicle quality. App three-wheelers add further constraints, limited luggage capacity, exposure to weather, and social context limitations. The app does not eliminate inconvenience; it transforms driving stress into coordination stress.

There is also the administrative burden of ownership that many buyers underestimate. A car is not just a vehicle; it is an asset management project. Lease payments must be tracked, insurance renewed, service appointments remembered, tyres monitored, and documents maintained. Even a low-maintenance new car carries the persistent fear that one breakdown or accident can create a large unexpected outflow. The app user, by contrast, simply pays for completed trips, no garage anxiety, no debt-linked asset stress, no renewal calendar.

Sensitivity analysis: what if the car is a lower-grade Wagon R?

The picture changes if the household opts for a lower-grade entry-level vehicle. Assume a Suzuki Wagon R or equivalent at 6 million, again with a 60% down payment of 3.6 million and a five-year lease on 2.4 million. At 14% per annum, the monthly lease instalment is approximately 55,800.

The smaller car delivers better fuel economy, around 15 km per litre. At 434 per litre, fuel cost becomes 29 per km, or 25,500 per month for 880 km. Add insurance of 7,000 and running costs of 3,000. Including opportunity cost at 9% on the 3.6 million down payment (27,000 per month), the total economic cost is 118,300 per month, 134 per km.

Now the comparison becomes more nuanced. A lower-grade Uber or PickMe alternative costs around 125 per km, or 110,000 per month for 880 km. The gap narrows dramatically: owning the Wagon R costs only 8,300 more per month, just 9 per km, compared with the app car option. The app three-wheeler at 110 per km (96,800 per month) is still materially cheaper, saving 21,500 per month against the lower-grade owned car. (See Table 1)

So, what should an urban Sri Lankan do?

If you travel alone on routine urban routes, the app three-wheeler at 110/km is the most economical option by a wide margin, saving up to 89,100 per month against a moderate owned car. Its limitation is not financial but practical: unsuitable for families, formal occasions, highway travel, and bad weather, but convenient-no stress.

For families, formal occasions, highway travel, and bad weather and convenient-no stress, Uber or PickMe Moderate car at 150/km delivers private-car comfort without the asset burden, saving 53,900 per month against the moderate owned car. The saving is if you get an economy APP car.

If you need family flexibility, late-night mobility, or privacy, ownership remains rational, but preferably through a lower-grade car around 6 million. At 134/km, the Wagon R-type car is only 9/km more than the app car alternative and 24/km more than a tuk-tuk, a gap that autonomy, family convenience, and immediate availability can legitimately justify.

Therefore, in Sri Lanka’s distorted vehicle market, with fuel at LKR434/lt, a 60% mandatory down payment, the Wagon R-type leased car remains relatively a better choice for a family with moderate earnings.

The private car still offers freedom. But in 2026 Sri Lanka, that freedom comes at very different prices. The real question is how much each household can afford to pay for autonomy, prestige, and convenience, and whether the extra 61/km for a moderate leased car, against a perfectly capable app car, or 101/km against a tuk-tuk app, represents a rational expenditure of household income. For most salaried urban commuters, the honest answer is: probably not.

(The writer, a senior Chartered Accountant and professional banker, is Professor at SLIIT, Malabe.

Views expressed in this article are personal.)

Continue Reading

Features

Justice and democracy in Sri Lanka’s new political era

Published

on

The legal processes are steadily closing in on some of the most controversial cases that have remained as open questions without closure for many years. These include the Easter Sunday bombings of 2019, the Treasury bond scam that erupted in 2015, and a range of corruption allegations that became synonymous with successive governments over the past two or more decades. What once appeared to be stalled investigations are now showing signs of movement through the courts and investigative agencies. Recent developments suggest that these long running cases are entering a decisive phase. In the Easter Sunday attacks investigation, new arrests and investigations have brought renewed attention to allegations that extend beyond the immediate perpetrators and into questions of intelligence failures and possible political complicity. The arrest and detention of former intelligence chief Suresh Sallay under the Prevention of Terrorism Act has intensified public interest in uncovering the full truth behind the attacks.

The Treasury bond scam has also re-entered the spotlight. The Supreme Court has recently overturned legal obstacles that had prevented prosecutions from proceeding and directed that the case moves forward expeditiously. This has reopened one of the most sophisticated financial scandals in the country’s recent history and brought several prominent political and financial figures back under legal scrutiny. As those implicated in these unresolved cases are leading figures from previous governments, which have spanned both sides of the political divide since Independence, it can well be imagined that there is tremendous opposition to the gradually enveloping legal processes that is both seen and unseen.

These cases that are now being investigated cut across political camps and involve individuals who occupied some of the highest offices in the country. The result is that resistance to accountability is likely to emerge from many quarters. Still to be opened are the thousands of cases of persons gone missing during the war. Presidential Commissions have been appointed with regard to them, but there has been no serious investigations of the type now taking place.

In these circumstances, it can be surmised that the government led by those who are new to power would wish to retain a maximum of power to face the pushback that is bound to emerge from those in the opposition who have wielded power for generations. The government may calculate that this is not the time to disperse authority or reduce the instruments of state power available to it. Instead, it may believe that a period of centralised control is necessary if investigations, prosecutions and reforms are to proceed without interference.

Provincial Elections

It appears that the opposition’s efforts to mobilise the people and public opinion against the government have not been successful so far. One such instance was the attempt to generate opposition to price increases. Although people have undoubtedly been affected by rising prices and economic difficulties, these efforts failed to gather significant momentum. Another attempt came when President Dissanayake predicted that opposition politicians would face imprisonment in the month of May as legal cases progressed, though this has not happened. Critics claimed that such remarks suggested an intention to influence judicial outcomes. Yet this criticism also failed to gain traction among the public. The likely reason is that public memory remains fresh. Many people continue to associate previous governments with economic mismanagement, corruption scandals, abuse of power and the eventual economic collapse. In comparison, the present government continues to enjoy a reservoir of public goodwill and credibility. As long as legal action appears to be based on evidence and proper process, the public seems prepared to give the government the benefit of the doubt.

The government’s deliberate and cautious approach to political reform that would reduce its centralised power needs to be seen in this context. The monthly approval by Parliament of the emergency regulations is justified by the government as due to the continuing need to respond to the devastation caused by Cyclone Ditwah. However, when viewed together with the reluctance to hold provincial council elections on the grounds of electoral reform, the failure to repeal the Prevention of Terrorism Act and the postponement of constitutional reform, they all appear to reflect a preference for retaining maximum control at a politically sensitive moment. There is a logic to this approach. Governments facing major legal and political confrontations often seek stability and control. So does every despot. However, there is also a downside.

When political competition is denied to legitimate outlets, it often finds expression in confrontation, obstruction and polarisation. The advantage of prioritising the conduct of provincial council elections at this time is that it could reduce the political pressures that are building up. The main opposition parties are united in calling for these elections to be held. Conducting them would provide an opportunity for opposition political parties to obtain a measure of democratic representation and political authority at the provincial level. This would be especially true in the northern and eastern provinces, in which the ethnic and religious minorities predominate. It cannot be forgotten that the provincial council system was developed as a constructive response to the ethnic conflict. Elections at the provincial level would create opportunities for a new generation of political leaders to emerge through democratic competition rather than patronage. Many of those now facing legal scrutiny belong to an older generation to whose needs the younger may be less deferential.

Two Pillars

Another reform that could command bipartisan support is the repeal of the Prevention of Terrorism Act. The PTA has once again become controversial because it is being used in situations that extend beyond its original purpose. The detention of former intelligence chief Suresh Sallay under the Act, the continued incarceration of some Tamil detainees from the war period, and the arrest of individuals accused of speech related offences have all revived concerns regarding prolonged detention without trial and excessive executive power. The reason the PTA has been difficult to repeal is that it is closely associated with concerns regarding national security and territorial integrity. Introduced in 1979 as a temporary measure to confront the emerging separatist conflict, it survived through decades of war and has remained on the statute books long after the conflict ended.

At the same time, history shows that extraordinary powers are likely to be misused. Laws that permit detention without trial or broad executive discretion are rarely confined to their original purpose. Governments of different political parties have used such powers against opponents and critics. The temptation to do so is inherent in the possession of unchecked authority. The way forward could therefore be a combination of accountability and reform. The government should continue to support independent investigations and prosecutions in major corruption and security related cases. Demonstrating political will in this regard would strengthen public confidence in the rule of law and reinforce the principle that no individual is above the law. The PTA could be replaced with legislation that amends the Criminal Procedure Code and Penal Code in a manner that addresses legitimate security concerns while complying with democratic norms and human rights standards.

There are also international dimensions to consider. The European Union has repeatedly linked governance and human rights reforms, including reform of the PTA, to Sri Lanka’s continuing access to the GSP Plus trade concession. Progress on these issues would strengthen Sri Lanka’s international standing at a time when economic recovery remains a national priority. The government has a rare opportunity. It possesses a strong electoral mandate, public goodwill and a reputation for integrity that previous governments lacked. It can combine the pursuit of justice in long delayed cases with meaningful democratic reforms that reduce political resistance and broaden public support. At this time, accountability and power sharing are the two pillars which Sri Lankans need to be committed to build a just and democratic society for a better future without delay. Failure now would make for a long period of waiting for the next time.

by Jehan Perera

Continue Reading

Features

Pitfalls and exclusions in academic recruitment

Published

on

Academic recruitment

A public university relies on its teachers in fulfilling its responsibilities to the wider community. While teaching remains the chief responsibility of the academic staff, they also conduct research and play a central role in keeping the university a vibrant space where they and students can freely participate in conversations that concern not just routine classroom education but also society at large. The broader intellectual culture and intellectual integrity of a university thus depend on how its academics perform their functions. Therefore, universities should take the task of recruiting their academics seriously. It is important to ensure that this task is done responsibly, transparently and credibly through a fair, thorough and multi-phased evaluation process.

As both an applicant and a member of selection panels for recruitment, I hold that the recruitment procedures, currently in place in our university system, require radical reforms. Echoing some of the concerns raised by Kaushalya Perera in her Kuppi article on recruitment in March 2026, I focus on the limitations I have observed and experienced, specifically in the recruitment of Lecturer (Probationary) and Senior Lecturer positions. The article also aims to explore how these shortcomings could be addressed.

The Advertisement

Recruitment for Lecturer (Probationary) and Senior Lecturer positions is done through an open-advertisement which also involves an interview with shortlisted candidates. Advertisements are finalised in line with a template issued by the Registrar’s Office. Generally, an initial draft, prepared by the Registrar’s Office, is sent to the relevant academic departments for revisions. The revisions have to be made within the template provided, which allows space for the mention of only specialisation requirements.

It should be noted that not all revisions to the advertisement, suggested by the Department Head, are accepted in the next round. Deans, Vice Chancellors and Registrars, who have very little understanding of the disciplines associated with the position, sometimes reject the changes proposed by the Department. Technocratic in their thinking, they don’t recognise that an academic programme can be taught by persons with specialisation in another overlapping discipline. For instance, a position in English, at a university in Sri Lanka, is very well suited to not just those who have postgraduate qualifications in literary studies but also those who are from the disciplines of Applied Linguistics, Cultural Studies or Translation Studies, as these areas are taught as sub-fields of English studies at most universities in the country. These disciplinary overlaps, even when pointed out by Heads, are often overlooked by our administrators.

In place of this process, dominated by academic administrators and registrars, the advertisement should ideally emerge, from the relevant department, in the form of a comprehensive job description. It should mention the nature of the position advertised, the kind of teaching (and research) expected, how the position relates to other positions in the department, in terms of specialisation and workload, and the ways in which the recruited candidate would contribute to overall institutional development.

There can be no one-size-fits-all model when it comes to recruitment. Individual departments vary in size, strength and specialisation requirements. Departments with sizable academic staff may want to emphasise specialisation during recruitment, whereas smaller departments may prefer generalists who can handle a wide-array of courses. Specifying the rationale for the requirements included in the job description may help potential applicants get an understanding of the position advertised and the selection panel to conduct the evaluation process in a fair manner.

Review of Applications

Once applications are received, we sometimes find promising candidates but with qualifications that don’t carry in their title the name of the discipline or the department in which the position is advertised. Sometimes the disciplines or fields of specialisation that appear in the advertisement and the ones that appear in the qualifications are not identical in nomenclature, even though the research undertaken by the applicant during their graduate studies is strongly relevant to the position advertised. Even when such applications are accompanied by strong and relevant publications, our system does not view them positively. Instead, nomenclatural differences are used to reject promising candidates. Such differences are also used as a pretext when universities want to exclude a candidate for their cultural background, political beliefs or other reasons. Even if academic departments recognise such applications, at the next stage, the administrators of the university try to veto them. We lose inter-disciplinary scholars of high academic standing because of the high-handedness of university administrators.

Selection Panels

Selection panels for academic positions typically comprise the Vice Chancellor, the Dean of the Faculty, the Head of the Department, two academics nominated by the Senate and two members of the University Council. In the case of programmes/disciplines jointly housed under a single department, if the Head comes from a discipline other than the one in which the position is advertised, they may not be able to contribute in an informed manner to the recruitment process. However, some Heads refuse to appoint nominees from the relevant discipline in their place as they view sitting on selection panels as their exclusive privilege.

Sometimes university Senates do not take the appointment of Senate nominees seriously. These appointments are decided in a hurry without serious deliberations at senate meetings packed with numerous agenda items. Sometimes even if the relevant department has suitable academics to serve as Senate nominees, the Senate chooses academics from other departments or disciplines who do not have a nuanced understanding of the requirements of the position advertised and its disciplinary parameters. Sometimes specialists in the relevant discipline may not be available at a university. On such occasions, Senates tend to fill up the positions with academics from other disciplines, instead of inviting external nominees from other universities. At a state university in Sri Lanka, I was interviewed thrice for academic positions by selection panels that comprised not even one specialist from the relevant discipline.

The Marking Scheme

The marking schemes used in recruitment have their own drawbacks. Publications are sometimes evaluated for their quantity rather than quality. The opinion of the subject specialist is not sought or taken seriously when a candidate’s research is evaluated. This is why our universities are saddled with academics who engage in plagiarism or predatory publishing. The evaluation process should be tightened in such a way to bar the entry of those who lack academic integrity.

It is worrying to see that marking schemes and schemes of recruitment penalise applicants who have excelled in their graduate studies and are well-reputed for their recent research and publications just because they did not earn a first-class or second-class upper-division pass at the undergraduate level. Our narrow focus on a candidate’s first degree prevents us from giving due recognition to how that person has gained intellectual depth over the years. Some marking rubrics, which allocate points for eye-contact and posture during the interview, dilute the seriousness associated with the academic position, de-prioritise scholarship and turn the interview process into a stage performance.

Cultural Credibility

In recruitment, many universities look for cultural credibility (a term that I borrow from the work of Sulaxana Hippisley) as an unwritten requirement. Some departments are reluctant to hire applicants who are not their alumni. Some selection panels discriminate against candidates from certain ethnic or religious backgrounds. In some departments, women are rejected because they are likely to go on maternity leave or have more domestic responsibilities than men. Gender and sexual minorities have to mute and censor their identities at interviews because they are likely to face rejection if they openly declare their orientation. We have no policies and procedures in place to ensure recruitment is conducted in an inclusive way that sees diversity as a strength.

The Way-forward

When recruitment fails, the entire intellectual culture of that university takes a hit, and several generations of students are affected. Some of the current problems, related to quality in our higher education system, stem from bad recruitment policies and practices. Instead of trying to address these issues through rigorous and inclusive recruitment practices, we try to seek solutions via band-aids like quality assurance and workshops on curriculum writing and pedagogy for university academics.

In developing alternative recruitment policies and practices, we have to demand that the needs and expectations of individual departments are heard. Our selection panels should include more subject specialists than administrators and council nominees. Most of the evaluation should be completed before the interviews, and interviews should be treated as opportunities to get to know candidates in person and pose clarifying questions rather than as occasions for full-scale evaluation. We have to be open and receptive to new, inter-disciplinary scholarship and cultural, ethnic and gender diversity. If we are unwilling to introspect and bring about these reforms and revise our marking schemes, we will continue to recruit the wrong candidates and thereby fail our students and the wider community.

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

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

by Mahendran Thiruvarangan

Continue Reading

Trending