Features
JVP or SJB in pole-position?
by Kumar David
By all accounts the JVP’s star is rising; everybody says so. We have had similar scenarios before where it seemed the JVP was at peak but the outcome in the subsequent election was disappointing. Will it be the same again? No one can say till the results of local government (LG) or provincial council (PC) elections, due early and later this year, respectively, are known. The regime like a headless chicken is scampering to foil elections; it fears the JVP or SJB, or both will do well while pro-government entities will flop. But election forecasting is black-magic; let us watch. If the government does badly at LG or PC polls a new game begins. Or before that president and regime may scrap elections; this danger is real but I will not pursue that line of thought today though Burkina Faso became the latest domino to fall to the military on Sunday. Still, unbelievably all Sri Lankas’s entities, political and civilian are sleep walking into the abyss. The political and economic situation today is reminiscent of January 1962 at the time of the attempted coup .
Back to my topic. The SJB must sell to the people the conventional liberal-democratic, market-economy; the conventional capitalist development strategy. People are accustomed to it; this has both advantages and disadvantages. The big obstacle is that Sajith will not agree to dump the presidential system though a majority of people of all races and faiths are fed up with it. The JVP-NPP has a harder sell despite belief that a new broom will sweep cleaner. There are two things to do; one, better present the alternative state and economic strategy, the key word is alternative; second, convince people that the wild old ways are gone. The bad old days are heavy laden with two problems; a proclivity to foolhardy violence and an unsound position on the national question. I have said my part, for now, about how it can spruce up the alternative constitutional and economic outlook in my columns of 2, 9 and 16 January on the NPP manifesto, therefore will give that a slip today. I will comment on the “bad old days” conundrum in this column.
There is a reserve of voters who would like to vote JVP-NPP but remain reluctant because of recollections of 1971 and 1989; either personal recollections or they know all about it. This means that not only one-foot-in-the-grave old folk but younger voters too are put off by the gonibilla stories. How can the JVP change this? It’s not going to be easy; words, apologies and promises cut no ice in the cut and thrust of practical politics. But a point to note is that this stain has not rubbed off on the NPP which did not exist in those bad old days, and more important, now includes people who at risk to life and limb fought that madness. Were they to wield authority now, they will not permit anything of this sort to recur. Hence one adjustment that will help reassure voters is if the NPP wields significant power in the alliance with a degree of authority to veto decisions. Does this sound as if I am whistling for the tail to wag the dog? Maybe it does, but cross transfer of leading personnel will be reassuring. There will have to be an NPP presence in the leading bureaus and committees of the JVP. If the JVP says “No” it needs to explain how it intends to win public confidence that the ultra-left excesses of yesteryear will not be repeated.
My suggestion of cross-fertilisation of personnel will provoke dissent but the JVP leadership needs to face facts. Recently the JVP established a Consultative (or Advisory) Council of significant people; three of them of long Marxist political vintage I know well (Lal Wijenayake, Prof Vijaya Kumar and Dr Michael Fernando). I am sure there are others who are important. Such persons can serve a better purpose if they are not on peripheral advisory councils but in JVP ‘hard-core’ decision making bodies. I say this bearing in mind the future of the JVP not the NPP. The former not the latter is the crucial element in the relationship and balanced power sharing is needed for the benefit of the JVP. JVP leaders participate in NPP gatherings and no doubt report back to the party but this is not the same thing.
I had an email from an ex-LSSP comrade Jumpy who is in a sense an ally of the JVP-NPP alliance. He said “I read your piece on Sunil Handunetti in Colombo Telegraph with interest. The JVP has not changed and is using the NPP as a mask. I know you will not agree”. True, I do not agree with Jumpy but the perception of lurking post-election left-authoritarianism in the mind of the electorate and democratic leftists must be addressed. The JVP must take structural steps to change the perception. This is a more general need than simply promising not repeating 1971 and 1989 type ultra-left excesses. The examples of Nicolo Maduro and Daniel Ortega renew such fears in the public mind at every turn.
The SJB does not suffer from perceptions of internal power imbalances, although the ex-UNP wing is predominant. The role of other partners is clear and the Front is seamless to outsiders. The presence of influential leaders with clout who do not have the same organisational genesis as Sajith – Champika Ranawaka for example – establishes a more equitable power distribution. The JVP will not gladly accommodate my suggestions for changes in power relationships, but honestly, I don’t see a way forward for the NPP and more significantly for the JVP except by opting for a less-closed, less old-fashioned semi-Blanquist structure. I hope for constructive comments from others; there is time enough for reconsideration and discussion.
The relationship of the JVP to the national minorities is also tricky. It appeared from Anura Kumara’s statements that the JVP was reassessing its reactionary position on the national question and close to admitting that its association with state forces that brutalised Tamil civilians during the civil war was wrong. However, that apart from Anura no other JVP leader has said anything similar or attempted to mend fences with the Tamils, Ceylon or Upcountry. (Forgive me if I am ill informed). Sunil Handunetti’s interview with Sirimantha Ratnasekera, Sunday Island, 16 Jan seemed to confirm my fears. His topic was opposition to “India’s plan to capture the Trinco oil tank farm and to take forward its expansionist intentions”. This is not a matter on which I have views; I have not studied it. What startled me was his next comment.
“The government has been compelled to sign this agreement. It is Déjà vu of the Indo-Lanka agreement which was pushed down the throat of Lanka on July 29, 1987. India got the JR Jayewardene government to sign the agreement by coercion. They dropped ‘parippu’ here, violating our air space. They sent an army of 150,000 while Sri Lanka’s army had only 72,000 cadre strength. This time they have used economic means for coercion”.
Let’s take a long view. I think it is correct to say that this is the opinion of four in five of Sinhalese people. However, I am also certain that four in five of Tamils distrust and fear the military and are pleased with the ‘parippu’ drop. (Many, from unpleasant experience however, are livid with the IPKF). Now I am not asking which view is correct; that’s not my point at all. The crucial matter is that there is not one uniform consciousness or common stance of the two communities on an event as serious as this. There are two different consciousnesses! And this is so in respect of much else of the conversation about ethnicity. A left party needs to take the fullest cognisance of this.
This puts a certain onus on the left about how to navigate these waters. I think the LSSP from the inception up to about 1960, and the Vama Samasamaja movement from its inception and the NSSP in its early days (I have no idea what the NSSP stands for anymore) did navigate this issue with leftist, liberalist and Marxist common-sense. However, it is difficult to believe that a conversation of depth and seriousness has taken place within the JVP on the “national question”. This perhaps is why the views of different leaders is disjointed and at times discordant. The JVP would do itself a favour if it set aside a goodly period of time and commissioned a thoroughgoing discussion of what its theoretical stance on the Tamil minority question is. What the NPP’s manifesto says is perhaps adequate for electoral purposes but a serious-minded party must have a thoroughly worked-out understanding, not bitty comments by this leader or that. The JVP needs to evolve from a robust and radical political party and reach the stature of an alternative government.
In other countries, say in North and South America and India there is vigorous dialogue among thinkers and activists about race. In the United States it is framed in terms such as critical race theory, the legacy of slavery and reparations, “black lives matter”, the case made by white supremacists, the looming Trump-Republican threat to curtail voting rights for people of colour, poverty and race, and so on. There is no dialogue of even remotely comparable depth or sophistication in our country. The SJB is sterile and has nothing new or old to say on the matter. The JVP must perforce move forward from a formula position to lively, no-holds barred open internal dialogue; the more open and the more outsiders are invited to participate the more productive it will be.
Features
‘There are no private universities in Sri Lanka’ – some considerations for higher education reform
Academics involved in education policy like to say that there is no such thing as a private university in Sri Lanka. The only ‘universities’ in the country are state universities; anything else offering degrees is a private higher education institution (HEI). This position is technically accurate. Yet, in the discourse and imagination of the public, private universities are very real – people teach in them, students register in them, families pay fees, and such degree holders enter job markets in Sri Lanka and outside.
For decades, activists concerned for public higher education have ignored or resisted looking at private HEIs, as if such scrutiny would taint them. Others have worked in both types of institutions, carrying practices from each to the other. The apex body governing state universities, the UGC, has, meanwhile, ignored the concept of conflict of interest and appointed individuals in private higher education in committees and leadership positions. It is unsurprising then that some of the ideologies informing private higher education appear in reform agendas in the state sector.
This is a good time then to consider the varying types of private HEIs around us, and to take a look at some of the issues within them in the hope that higher education reform agendas will include private, as well as state higher education.
What is a ‘private university’?
First, some clarifications. In the public imaginary, a ‘private university’ is typically an institution that provides a foreign or local degree for which the student makes a payment. But this broad classification encompasses a host of diverse institutions and types of degrees which I detail below.
The Non-State Higher Education Division (NSHE) of the Ministry of Education has recognised 295 degrees by 32 institutions. Most of these are private companies and include a handful of established, well-known private HEIs that are ‘university like’. The degrees are local degrees conferred by the institutions accredited by the NSHE Division. While private HEIs conferring local degrees must be accredited by the NSHE Division, there appears to be no legal consequence for not doing so. In addition, there are several permutations of the private degree that miss the net of this Division and the Standing Committee on Accreditation and Quality Assurance (SCAQA) that assists this Division.
For one, degrees conferred by foreign universities offered, via these same private HEIs, are not vetted by the NSHE Division. Secondly, there is a growing plethora of private HEIs which have either no physical presence locally or only a dubious presence. The University Grants Commission has notified the public, through their website, that foreign universities listed in the Commonwealth Universities Yearbook and the World Higher Education Database are recognised, but refrained from giving any other details – which degrees? Offered by what modes? These details are not known. Some of the foreign universities in the lists may be legitimate entities in their own land but the degrees conferred locally, in their name, may not adhere to curriculum or teaching specifications of the NSHE Division or the UGC.
Another troubling phenomenon is the ‘top up degree’, which appears to work on the same principle as that of a pre-paid mobile connection: if I have a Diploma or an HND of a sort, I am eligible to complete a course of study which provides me with a degree, usually from a foreign university. The idea that someone who does not initially qualify for a degree programme should be able to work their way towards one is a progressive notion. This is the concept that open and distance learning (ODL) was based on initially, but which is now sadly exploited. ODL models are expected to provide opportunity for learning for those who may be excluded from traditional learning institutions. In Sri Lanka, however, we have seen ODL become a marketplace offering easy to obtain, for-fee qualifications by institutions with little commitment to superior teaching and learning.
Finally, a perusal of the many types of private HEIs and their varied degrees bring to mind another question – how should the private degrees, provided by state institutions (that are not educational institutions), be regulated? Who should do so?
All of these create a host of problems for the public – for hopeful students and parents and trusting employers. For the higher education sector, recruitment of academic staff, too, has become difficult due to this plethora of ambiguous higher education qualifications, as I discussed in a previous Kuppi article (‘Recruiting academics to state universities’).
Some issues in private HEIs – a bellwether for change in state universities
In this second part of this article, I will discuss some aspects of work in private HEIs – albeit the more established institutions – given that such issues may appear in reform agendas in future.
Across state universities, all permanent staff of a specific category are paid according to the same criteria. The picture is not so clear when it comes to private HEIs since they are different entities legally, typically companies. Private HEIs have salary scales and financial incentives that are different to each other. The more established private HEIs reportedly have attractive renumeration packages, possibly a reason for academics of state universities migrating eagerly to such institutions during sabbatical years and on retirement. This may not of course be the case with other less established, or improperly registered HEIs of which we know little. Academic staff of these more accepted private HEIs seem to value the high financial remuneration they receive (in comparison to state universities) as something that makes their work rewarding.
Attractive remuneration is important to sustain the good life and is at times seen as the institution’s way of encouraging good work. Yet, this has implications for the future of the institution: to continue to deliver on promised financial packages, institutions must continue to have large profit margins. One strategy has been to enroll multiple cohorts of students per year, even up to three or four intakes per year. This can result in exploitative work conditions, since staff must cater to all these cohorts in that same year. If there is inadequate staff, employees are further burdened. On the other hand, if there is a sudden drop in enrolments (degrees can go out of fashion) unexpected layoffs occur. Similar to other sectors that employ short-term contract staff – including state universities – in private HEIs, too, individual teachers, who are on short term contracts that need regular renewal, can feel pressured to work under difficult or exploitative conditions.
At the same time, even in the more established private HEIs, work norms differ from those of state universities in that they include promotional work that keeps the institution’s name in the eye of the public. The Marketing (or similarly named) unit comes up in conversations as one of the most important departments. It appears to weigh in on decision-making related to the number of staff, the amount of re-sits per exams, and other pedagogically important matters. This is a worrying example of how financial rationales interfere with pedagogically or academically sound processes, resulting in problematic results in the classroom. On the plus side, junior colleagues, who had experience in both state and private HEIs, also felt that they faced less harassment in private HEIs – primarily due to the private HEIs ability to take swift action in reported cases of harassment. This is a real indictment on state institutions and their reluctance to address chronic issues of harassment in our universities.
Yet, while we hear much about problems in state universities, we hardly hear of problems that staff in private HEIs face. One rationale for a lack of public expressions by staff is that expressions of discontent might lead to trouble given the importance of reputation for private HEIs. The worry about reputational damage is a growing concern in state universities, too, as evidenced by social media policies and internal conversations on reputational damage, consequent to negative publicity. Institutional worries of reputational damage are harmful in the long run since these impact not only freedom of expression by student and staff, but also research that is possible in and about the education sector.
Some thoughts at the end…
A close look at the private higher education sector is important given its strong presence in the country. Impending reform needs to regulate this diverse array of higher education offerings in the private sector, as well as the state institutions that offer privately-funded options of higher education (a topic for a separate Kuppi on its own). It is time we carefully considered how to build a whole system of higher education out of this broken mess.
Kaushalya Perera is a senior lecturer 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.
Features
Ready for solo spotlight
Singer Nish Peiris is set to take the next big step in her music journey.
The talented vocalist, who has been seen and heard in the scene here for a short while, and was also featured with the now-defunct band, Inner Vision, has announced that she will be fully committing to her solo career, after completing her degree this year.
“I’m finishing my degree this year, and after that I’ll be fully committing to my solo music career,” Nish told The Island.
“I’ve already got a few tours lined up for next year, so I’m really excited for what’s ahead.”
Fans, no doubt, will remember Nish for her smooth voice and stage presence, and the good news is that she is now ready to chart her own path and bring new music to audiences at home and abroad.
With tours already planned for 2027, the year 2026 promises to be an exciting year for the young artiste as she steps into the spotlight on her own.
We wish Nish every success in this new chapter!
Features
Exclusive musical evening for Sri Lankans in Toronto
While Sri Lankan music lovers, in Dubai, are eagerly looking forward to being a part of the action on Saturday, 25th July, with Rajiv Sebastian in the limelight, Sri Lankans, in Toronto, Canada, are equally excited and are anxiously awaiting the arrival of Sri Lanka’s famous singer/entertainer Sohan Weerasinghe.
Having done the needful with The X-Periments, the legendary performer has now embarked on an exciting new chapter – a solo career – and Toronto, Canada, will see him do the needful, on Friday, 31st July, 2026, from 8.00 pm to 12.00 am, at the Angus Glen Golf Club.
Reports indicate that it’s a ‘sold out’ event – naturally with Sohan in the spotlight.
Having built his reputation through years of unforgettable performances, and hits that became part of our musical fabric, Sohan is ready to bring his own vision, sound, and stories directly to the audience, in Toronto, Canada, backed by the phenomenal Toronto Ceymphony Live Band.
Says Gamini Hemalal, who has been instrumental in reviving the Sri Lankan entertainment scene, in that part of the world:
“The countdown begins for the most exclusive musical event of the summer! Join us for a premium night of incredible music, elite hospitality, and a lavish buffet as the legendary Sohan Weerasinghe takes the stage live in Toronto!
“This is a high-end event, designed for those who appreciate exceptional entertainment and great food.”
Gamini, who is also a member of the Toronto Ceymphony Live Band, mentioned that it’s going to be an intimate musical evening with the celebrated Sohan Weerasinghe.
From packed auditoriums to intimate shows, Sohan continues to prove why he remains one of Sri Lanka’s most beloved entertainers.
For decades, Sohan Weerasinghe has been a household name in Sri Lankan entertainment.
Known for his captivating smooth voice and charismatic stage presence, Canada will experience it all on Friday, 31st July.
Next on the list of events, Gamini Hemal is working on, is Halloween night and he says “what we plan to do will be very interesting and unique … with a surprise guest star, as well!”
-
Business3 days ago‘Giving up was never an option’: The fisherman who fought back after losing millions in SL
-
Features3 days agoTwo memorable excerpts from a former SLAF commander’s memoir
-
Latest News3 days agoDavis cup Asia/Oceania Group IV 2026 to be held in Colombo from 20th to 25th July
-
Features3 days agoErdoğan’s New Republic
-
Life style3 days agoTaste of the Swiss Alps comes to Colombo
-
Features7 days agoDirty Money
-
News4 days agoDengue outbreak gallops ahead: Infections surpasses 73,455, leaving 50 dead
-
News4 days agoEvidence recorded in money laundering case against Yoshitha Rajapaksa


