Features

SLFP – What fate awaits it

Published

4 years ago

2021/09/15

By Gunadasa Amarasekera

The reason for the SLFP leaders to celebrate its 70th birth Anniversary, I believe was promoted by a desire to make a comeback out of the depths to which it has sunk in recent times. Despite the desire to come back, has it the vitality, the elan left to do so? This is a question to be asked not only by the SLFPers themselves, but by the vast majority that happens to be the children of ’56 and also by all those who are interested in the well- being of the country-the nation. To answer this question, one needs at least a brief analysis of its genesis, its history and its past performance.

The biggest misfortune the SLFP has faced and is facing even today is its inability to identify itself, understand why it came into being. Except for a discerning few, most of the present generation including our so- called intellectuals and even those who have undertaken to lead the Party, lack this understanding.

For many, even today, it is a quirk of fate; for some elitist groups it’s the result of a demagogy spawned by a disgruntled few. Very few have addressed their minds to find an answer. GC Mendis was one among the few who sought to delve deep to seek an answer. He saw it as a lapse on the part of the main civilised political stream which allowed the barbaric tide languishing at the periphery to overtake it!

However, the die- hard SLFPers see it as nothing but the creation of its great leader-SWRD Bandaranaike – Bandaranaike with his slogan of ‘Sinhala in 24 hours’ was able to sway the masses, achieve victory and create history. Little do they realise that it is not the leaders that create history; instead it is history that creates leaders. Bandaranaike did not create a new party as such; he only delivered what was created by history, and played the role of the midwife or the obstetrician. This historical perspective has eluded those devotees of Bandaranaike.

The SLFP is a party that is different from all other parties that have emerged after Independence. The UNP was founded on the liberal ideology of the West, the Socialist parties were founded on Marxism, which once again was a product of the West. The SLFP, on the contrary, has its origins in the soil; it is rooted in the Sinhala Buddhist civilisation, which has nourished this nation over the centuries. This can be ascertained from the historical background that gave birth to this party.

After the Uva-Wellassa rebellion, the national liberation movement gave up the armed struggle and opted for a non-violent path. By then the renaissance movement initiated by Asarana Sarana Saranankara, during the Dutch period, had permeated to the rest of the country, especially to Ruhuna. It produced the intelligentsia, the educated Sangha community who were to spearhead the movement. Two great seats of learning – Vidyodaya and Vidyalankara were established by the pupils of Sarankara.it was this background that made Anagarika Dharmapala emerge by the end of the 19th century. It was he who took the message to the masses with a number of cultural movements. In his travels across the country, he realised that those villagers, the peasants, though living in poverty, had retained a civilisational consciousness inherited from a past; he also realised that this civilisational consciousness which lay dormant could be awakened in his fight against imperialist forces. By the beginning of the twentieth century the British ruler realised the threat imposed by Anagarika. The IGP said there was a likelihood of Anagarika surrounding Colombo one morning with ‘his barbaric hordes’. The rulers with the help of the comprador class and the deracinated members of the National Congress groomed by them were determined to take Anagarika off the stage, silence him and destroy his movement. They succeeded in doing so, but failed to destroy the seeds sown by him in the minds of the vast masses. Those seeds took root and flourished unnoticed with the passage of time, the nourishment needed was produced by the indigenous intelligentsia, the writers, novelists and poets of the time – sanga-veda-guru – the forces of ’56, came out of that milieu.

Except the young Bandaranaike, who had returned from UK, no other leader was aware of the silent revolution initiated by Anagarika. It was that awareness that made Bandaranaike establish the Sinhala Maha Sabha in 1934.The Sinhala Maha Sabha produced the blue print needed for the formation of the SLFP in 1951. The Sinhala Maha Sabha has suffered great injustice being labelled a chauvinistic Sinhala caucus. The truth is far from it. The SMS envisaged a political organisation that would not only look after the economic needs but also the cultural aspirations of the people who had suffered at the hands of the colonials. It addressed its mind to the unity of different communities and as a prerequisite to that unity it emphasised the need to unite the Sinhalese who were divided by political affiliations, by religion, caste and creed. It maintained that; it is only then, that other groups could be brought in as stake holders, participating in a common civilisation. This is possible when there is a non- antagonistic symbiotic relationship between these cultures and civilisations. (I think this a point that Huntington missed when he considered /assumed culture and civilization as one and the same.) This, I believe was the state of affairs in this country prior to the advent of the foreigner. This is so, even today at the village peasantry level, and this is what prompted President DB Wijetunge, a great villager himself, to make that most misunderstood statement -comparing the Sinhala nation to a tree around which the other ethnic groups should wind themselves for their survival. I believe this vision of the Sinhala Maha Sabha is more relevant today when the so -called reconciliation at the expense of the major community has failed miserably. It was a mistake on the part of Bandaranaike to have dissolved the Sinhala Maha Sabha when he joined the UNP; ironically what made Bandaranaike form the SLFP was the rejection of the proposals of the Sinhala Maha Sabha at the Madampe sessions by the UNP.

The great victory achieved by the SLFP in ’56 was not one that was anticipated by many. I don’t think that even Bandaranaike anticipated it; his close friend and founder member of the Party, Bernard Aluwihare left the party on the eve of the elections saying that he was not prepared to carry the coffin. There is a story I have heard from a reliable source that is symbolic of the situation and the quandary faced by the great leader and the nation. Bandaranaike, after a hectic election campaign had retired early to bed, the night, the election results were to be announced. He had told the family members, not to put him up; the family members though overjoyed by the results, had remained silent till the following morning. When they heard his footsteps coming down the stairs they rushed to announce the victory- Bandaranaike had stopped coming down and sat on the steps, silent, wrapped in deep thought for a long period.

I think this premature victory had its ill-effects on the party; it had the vision, but lacked the political structures, institutions, and the economic policies that were needed to translate the vision into praxis. Though it spoke of a nebulous middle path, a socialism of its own, there were no concrete plans to achieve those ends. I believe Bandaranaike had the vision, the intellect, to translate that vision. His death––a result of a conspiracy still unraveled––denied him that opportunity.

Sirimavo Bandaranaike was able to implement some of the policies that were envisaged by her husband. But she had no holistic agenda. The Marxists who were with her, were partly responsible for it; they were interested not in a nationalist plan but a Marxist agenda. Some of the results were horrendous, such as taking away the lands of the locals; indiscriminate nationalisation followed by corruption, discouraging local entrepreneurship, austere measures –hal polu. miris polu and bread queues that made life impossible for the middle class, and the poor.

The situation was seized by the old fox JR to present the coalition as an adharmista evil force. What was ironical is that he was able to use the same lingo, the same terms dharmista which formed the core moral and ethical values of the SLFP. But this debacle suffered by the SLFP was temporary, it was no threat to its survival.

However, it was Chandrika Kumaratunga who assumed the leadership of the Party who was capable of thwarting) its survival.

It was Chandrika Kumaratunga who was able to destroy for the first time, the Sinhala Buddhist cultural foundation on which the SLFP was built. It was no longer the Party of the Sinhala majority-the backbone of the SLFP. It was turned into a multi-ethnic, multi-racial, multireligious, multi-cultural party. Having transformed it, she was prepared to hand over North and East to Mr Prabhakaran for 10 years; invited the Norwegians to divide the country in the name of reconciliation, and was ready to execute the P-Toms together with Prabhakaran. She confessed later that the decision she made to dissolve Parliament was a mistake, which action was what allowed the war to be continued.

In all these, Chandrika Kumaratunga was ably supported by Mangala Samaraweera, with his thavalam and sudu nelum campaigns. I do not wish to believe that she extended her blessings to Samaraweera to co-sponsor the traitorous resolution by the US against our country.

The greatest harm inflicted on the SLFP was the derailing and destroying the economic policies followed by it from its inception. Though they may have not been clearly defined, they were always anti-imperialist, pro nationalist and pro socialist. Sirimavo Bandaranaike was always guided by her civilisational consciousness, she never allowed imperialist powers to exploit this country, she was fearless and bold enough to nationalise the American oil companies in spite of the threats of that super power. Her government cleared all the debts we had accumulated, JR Jayewardene reversed all this with his open economy -a euphuism for neo colonialism.

Chandrika never tried to get back to the economic policies of the SLFP, she was happy with the neo liberal policies of JRJ. Under the pretext of giving a human face, she embraced them gladly. However, what is most disappointing and damaging was that Mahinda Rajapakse who followed her als o continued with the same policies when he had the opportunity to change them.

The result of these contradictory, harmful trends, was the loss of vision, direction and loss of ideology, resulting ultimately in the loss of confidence of the people. The SLFP became a headless body-a kawandaya. No attempt was made to recover the lost head; what was attempted was to graft the heads of liberal donkeys and heads of Marxist horses, adding insult to injury. ( In my address at the Bandaranaike Commemoration I pointed this out.)

It was left to President Sirisena to complete the task and finish off the Party. He did so by doing the very opposite of what the founder of the Party did 70 years ago, by making the SLFP an appendage of the UNP, and taking it back to the folds of the UNP. The last supper (of hoppers) at the Temple Trees was followed by the crucification of the kawandaya.

This was the fate of the SLFP; the fate that awaits it today, cannot be much different.

What is really worrying is not so much the demise of the kawandaya, but its repercussions. Ranil Wickremasinghe may have thought that it was a superb strategy on his part to embrace Sirisena. He would have thought embracing Sirisena means destroying his opponent the SLFP for good. Little did he realize that it was the embrace of death, that it would kill his party as well as himself. He had ultimately secured a dishonorable grave for his grand old party after 75 years. In spite of all these repercussions, one would say that not everything is lost. The two main parties in their death throes have thrown up two saplings; the Pohottuwa and the Telephone which would carry on their mission. It would be extremely naive to believe in such a fantasy. The Pohottuwa will wither away before it blossoms, and the telephone will be dead before it answers the call.

Ultimately, we are left with a political dessert, a wasteland with no hope and nothing in sight as visualised by the poet – “What are the roots that clutch, what branches grow out of this this stony rubbish,”. All signs are there, that we are fast approaching that stage. (On the other hand the poet may be wrong where this resplendent isle of ours is concerned… that stony rubbish can produce heroes out of clowns and comedians as well as politicians to lead us.)

However, let me not end what I have to say only with this dismal picture to the children of ‘56, who had pinned their faith on this party and now feel betrayed and let down. There is no need to lose faith. The SLFP as a party may be dead, but not the ideology that gave it birth, it’s alive. It’s that ideology that made 6,900,000 of you to vote Gotabaya to power. That ideology founded on our centuries old civilisation as old as the Chinese civilisation will die only with the death of our civilisation. That it has not suffered such an untimely death is proved beyond all doubt by the victory of Gotabaya.

In 1959, three years after ’56, I wrote an article to that prestigious- now obsolete -journal Sanskrithi; I made the observation — that you the children of ’56 are the ones who would come to power and redeem this country. As you know that has not come to pass, it has remained a dream. The blame lies with you. You, living through dark times, especially after ’77, did not realise that what is needed is an enlightened dialogue, an intellectual engagement to prepare you for such a task. As a matter of fact, there had not been such a dialogue since Independence for you to get ‘connected to it’. What was there, was the despicable politics of power-hungry politicians to which you too became a prey. You thought the answer was in the barrel of the gun which wiped out a whole generation of you -that should have been a lesson to you.

I hope this present discussion on ‘the role of the children of ‘56’ would open your eyes to the need for such an intellectual engagement and an enlightened dialogue based on the civilisational ideology and the civilisational consciousness that it has generated, which you have not lost. It is only then, and then only that you can claim to seek power.

(Based on the contribution made on zoom seminar ‘On the role of the Children of 56.)

All News Advertisement

Features

US-CHINA RIVALRY: Maintaining Sri Lanka’s autonomy

Published

4 hours ago

2025/12/19

Thilina Walpola

During a discussion at the Regional Center for Strategic Studies (RCSS) in Sri Lanka on 9 December, Dr. Neil DeVotta, Professor at Wake Forest University, North Carolina, USA commented on the “gravity of a geopolitical contest that has already reshaped global politics and will continue to mould the future. For Sri Lanka – positioned at the heart of the Indian Ocean, economically fragile, and diplomatically exposed- his analysis was neither distant nor abstract. It was a warning of the world taking shape around us” (Ceylon Today, December 14, 2025).

Sri Lanka is known for ignoring warnings as it did with the recent cyclone or security lapses in the past that resulted in terrorist attacks. Professor De Votta’s warning too would most likely be ignored considering the unshakable adherence to Non-Alignment held by past and present experts who have walked the halls of the Foreign Ministry, notwithstanding the global reshaping taking place around us almost daily. In contrast, Professor DeVotta “argued that nonalignment is largely a historical notion. Few countries today are truly non-aligned. Most States claiming neutrality are in practice economically or militarily dependent on one of the great powers. Sri Lanka provides a clear example while it pursues the rhetoric of non-alignment, its reliance on Chinese investments for infrastructure projects has effectively been aligned to Beijing. Non-alignment today is more about perceptions than reality. He stressed that smaller nations must carefully manage perceptions while negotiating real strategic dependencies to maintain flexibility in an increasingly polarised world.” (Ibid).

The latest twist to non-alignment is Balancing. Advocates of such policies are under the delusion that the parties who are being “Balanced” are not perceptive enough to realise that what is going on in reality is that they are being used. Furthermore, if as Professor DeVotta says, it is “more about perception than reality”, would not Balancing strain friendly relationships by its hypocrisy? Instead, the hope for a country like Sri Lanka whose significance of its Strategic Location outweighs its size and uniqueness, is to demonstrate by its acts and deeds that Sri Lanka is perceived globally as being Neutral without partiality to any major powers if it is to maintain its autonomy and ensure its security.

DECLARATION OF NEUTRALITY AS A POLICY

Neutrality as a Foreign Policy was first publicly announced by President Gotabaya Rajapaksa during his acceptance speech in the holy city of Anuradhapura and later during his inauguration of the 8th Parliament on January 3, 2020. Since then Sri Lanka’s Political Establishment has accepted Neutrality as its Foreign Policy judging from statements made by former President Ranil Wickremesinghe, Prime Minister Dinesh Gunawardena and Foreign Ministers up to the present when President Dissanayake declared during his maiden speech at the UN General Assembly and captured by the Head Line of Daily Mirror of October 1, 2025: “AKD’s neutral, not nonaligned, stance at UNGA”

The front page of the Daily FT (Oct.9, 2024) carries a report titled “Sri Lanka reaffirms neutral diplomacy” The report states: “The Cabinet Spokesman and Foreign Minister Vijitha Herath yesterday assured that Sri Lanka maintains balanced diplomatic relations with all countries, reaffirming its policy of friends of all and enemy of none”. Quoting the Foreign Minister, the report states: “There is no favouritism. We do not consider any country to be special. Whether it is big or small, Sri Lanka maintains diplomatic relations with all countries – China, India, the US, Russia, Cuba, or Vietnam. We have no bias in our approach, he said…”

NEUTRALITY in OPERATION

“Those who are unaware of the full scope and dynamics of the Foreign Policy of Neutrality perceive it as being too weak and lacking in substance to serve the interests of Sri Lanka. In contrast, those who are ardent advocates of Non-Alignment do not realize that its concepts are a collection of principles formulated and adopted only by a group of like-minded States to meet perceived challenges in the context of a bi-polar world. In the absence of such a world order the principles formulated have lost their relevance” (https://island.lk/relevance-of-a neutral-foreign-policy).

“On the other hand, ICRC Publication on Neutrality is recognized Internationally “The sources of the international law of neutrality are customary international law and, for certain questions, international treaties, in particular the Paris Declaration of 1856, the 1907 Hague Convention No. V respecting the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers and Persons in Case of War on Land, the 1907 Hague Convention No. XIII concerning the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers in Naval War, the four 1949 Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol I of 1977 (June 2022)” (Ibid).

“A few Key issues addressed in this Publication are: “THE PRINCIPLE OF INVOILABILITY of a Neutral State and THE DUTIES OF NEUTRAL STATES.

“In the process of reaffirming the concept of Neutrality, Foreign Minister Vijitha Herath stated that the Policy of Neutrality would operate in practice in the following manner: “There is no favoritism. We do not consider any country to be special. Whether it is big or small, Sri Lanka maintains diplomatic relations with all countries – China, India, the US, Russia, Cuba or Vietnam. We have no bias in our approach” (The Daily FT, Oct, 9, 2024).

“Essential features of Neutrality, such as inviolability of territory and to be free of the hegemony of power blocks were conveyed by former Foreign Minister Ali Sabry at a forum in Singapore when he stated: “We have always been clear that we are not interested in being an ally of any of these camps. We will be an independent country and work with everyone, but there are conditions. Our land and sea will not be used to threaten anyone else’s security concerns. We will not allow military bases to be built here. We will not be a pawn in their game. We do not want geopolitical games playing out in our neighbourhood, and affecting us. We are very interested in de-escalating tensions. What we could do is have strategic autonomy, negotiate with everyone as sovereign equals, strategically use completion to our advantage” (the daily morning, July 17, 2024)

In addition to the concepts and expectations of a Neutral State cited above, “the Principle of Inviolability of territory and formal position taken by a State as an integral part of ‘Principles and Duties of a Neutral State’ which is not participating in an armed conflict or which does not want to become involved” enabled Sri Lanka not to get involved in the recent Military exchanges between India and Pakistan.

However, there is a strong possibility for the US–China Rivalry to manifest itself engulfing India as well regarding resources in Sri Lanka’s Exclusive Economic Zone. While China has already made attempts to conduct research activities in and around Sri Lanka, objections raised by India have caused Sri Lanka to adopt measures to curtail Chinese activities presumably for the present. The report that the US and India are interested in conducting hydrographic surveys is bound to revive Chinese interests. In the light of such developments it is best that Sri Lanka conveys well in advance that its Policy of Neutrality requires Sri Lanka to prevent Exploration or Exploitation within its Exclusive Economic Zone under the principle of the Inviolability of territory by any country.

Another sphere where Sri Lanka’s Policy of Neutrality would be compromised is associated with Infrastructure Development. Such developments are invariably associated with unsolicited offers such as the reported $3.5 Billion offer for a 200,000 Barrels a day Refinery at Hambantota. Such a Project would fortify its presence at Hambantota as part of its Belt and Road Initiative. Such offers if entertained would prompt other Global Powers to submit similar proposals for other locations. Permitting such developments on grounds of “Balancing” would encourage rivalry and seriously threaten Sri Lanka’s independence to exercise its autonomy over its national interests.

What Sri Lanka should explore instead, is to adopt a fresh approach to develop the Infrastructure it needs. This is to first identify the Infrastructure projects it needs, then formulate its broad scope and then call for Expressions of Interest globally and Finance it with Part of the Remittances that Sri Lanka receives annually from its own citizens. In fact, considering the unabated debt that Sri Lanka is in, it is time that Sri Lanka sets up a Development Fund specifically to implement Infrastructure Projects by syphoning part of the Foreign Remittances it receives annually from its citizens . Such an approach means that it would enable Sri Lanka to exercise its autonomy free of debt.

CONCLUSION

The adherents of Non-Alignment as Sri Lanka’s Foreign Policy would not have been pleased to hear Dr. DeVotta argue that “non-alignment is largely a historical notion” during his presentation at the Regional Center for Strategic Studies in Colombo. What is encouraging though is that, despite such “historical notions”, the political establishment, starting with President Gotabaya Rajapaksa and other Presidents, Prime Ministers and Ministers of Foreign Affairs extending up to President AKD at the UNGA and Foreign Affairs Minister, Vijitha Herath, have accepted and endorsed neutrality as its foreign policy. However, this lack of congruence between the experts, some of whom are associated with Government institutions, and the Political Establishment, is detrimental to Sri Lanka’s interests.

If as Professor DeVotta warns, the future Global Order would be fashioned by US – China Rivalry, Sri Lanka has to prepare itself if it is not to become a victim of this escalating Rivalry. Since this Rivalry would engulf India a well when it comes to Sri Lanka’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEC), Sri Lanka should declare well in advance that no Exploration or Exploitation would be permitted within its EEC on the principle of inviolability of territory under provisions of Neutrality and the UN adoption of the Indian Ocean as a Zone of Peace.

As a measure of preparedness serious consideration should be given to the recommendation cited above which is to set up a development fund by allocating part of the annual dollar remittances to finance Sri Lanka’s development without depending on foreign direct investments, export-driven strategies or the need to be flexible to negotiate dependencies; A strategy that is in keeping with Sri Lanka’s civilisational values of self-reliance. Judging from the unprecedented devastation recently experienced by Sri Lanka due to lack of preparedness and unheeded warnings, the lesson for the political establishment is to rely on the wisdom and relevance of Self-Reliance to equip Sri Lanka to face the consequences of the US–China rivalry.

by Neville Ladduwahetty ✍️

Features

1132nd RO Water purification plant opened at Mahinda MV, Kauduluwewa

Published

4 hours ago

2025/12/19

Thilina Walpola

Sponsors (senior management from M/S Perera and Sons), Principal and SLN officials at Opening of RO Plant

A project sponsored by Perera and Sons (P&S) Company and built by Sri Lanka Navy

Petroleum Terminals Ltd
Former Managing Director Ceylon Petroleum Corporation
Former High Commissioner to Pakistan

When the 1132nd RO plant built by the Navy with funds generously provided by M/S Perera and Sons, Sri Lanka’s iconic, century-old bakery and food service chain, established in 1902, known for its network of outlets, numbering 235, in Sri Lanka. This company, established in 1902 by Philanthropist K. A. Charles Perera, well known for their efforts to help the needy and humble people. Helping people gain access to drinking water is a project launched with the help of this esteemed company.

The opening of an RO plant

The Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) started spreading like a wildfire mainly in North Central, North Western and Eastern provinces. Medical experts are of the view that the main cause of the disease is the use of unsafe water for drinking and cooking. The map shows how the CKD is spreading in Sri Lanka.

School where 1132nd RO plants established by SLN

In 2015, when I was the Commander of the Navy, with our Research and Development Unit of SLN led by a brilliant Marine Engineer who with his expertise and innovative skills brought LTTE Sea Tigers Wing to their knees. The famous remote-controlled explosive-laden Arrow boats to fight LTTE SEA TIGER SUCIDE BOATS menace was his innovation!). Then Captain MCP Dissanayake (2015), came up with the idea of manufacturing low- cost Reverse Osmosis Water Purification Plants. The SLN Research and development team manufactured those plants at a cost of one-tenth of an imported plant.

The writer with his PSO’s daughter

Gaurawa Sasthrawedi Panditha Venerable Devahuwe Wimaladhamma TheroP/Saraswathi Devi Primary School, Ashokarama Maha Viharaya, Navanagara, Medirigiriya

The Navy established FIRST such plant at Kadawatha-Rambawa in Madawachiya Divisional Secretariat area, where the CKD patients were the highest. The Plant was opened on 09 December 2015, on the 65th Anniversary of SLN. It was an extremely proud achievement by SLN

Areas where the RO plants are located

First, the plants were sponsored by officers and sailors of the Sri Lanka Navy, from a Social Responsibility Fund established, with officers and sailors contributing Rs 30 each from their salaries every month. This money Rs 30 X 50,000 Naval personnel provided us sufficient funds to build one plant every month.

Observing great work done by SLN, then President Maithripala Sirisena established a Presidential Task Force on eradicating CKD and funding was no issue to the SLN. We developed a factory line at our R and D unit at Welisara and established RO plants at double-quick time. Various companies/ organisations and individuals also funded the project. Project has been on for the last ten years under six Navy Commanders after me, namely Admiral Travis Sinniah, Admiral Sirimevan Ranasinghe, Admiral Piyal de Silva, Admiral Nishantha Ulugetenna, Admiral Priyantha Perera and present Navy Commander Vice Admiral Kanchana Banagoda.

Each plant is capable of producing up to 10,000 litres of clean drinking water a day. This means a staggering 11.32 million litres of clean drinking water every day!

The map indicates the locations of these 1132 plants.

Well done, Navy!

On the occasion of its 75th Anniversary celebrations, which fell on 09 December 2025, the Navy received the biggest honour. Venerable Thero (Venerable Dewahuwe Wimalarathana Thero, Principal of Saraswathi Devi Primary Pirivena in Medirigiriya) who delivered the sermons during opening of 1132nd RO plant, said, “Ten years ago, out of 100 funerals I attended; more than 80 were of those who died of CKD! Today, thanks to the RO plants established by the Navy, including one at my temple also, hardly any death happens in our village due to CKD! Could there be a greater honour?

Features

Poltergeist of Universities Act

Published

4 hours ago

2025/12/19

Thilina Walpola

The Universities Act is back in the news – this time with the present government’s attempt to reform it through a proposed amendment (November 2025) presented by the Minister of Education, Higher Education and Vocational Education, Harini Amarasuriya, who herself is a former academic and trade unionist. The first reading of the proposed amendment has already taken place with little debate and without much attention either from the public or the university community. By all counts, the parliament and powers across political divisions seem nonchalant about the relative silence in which this amendment is making its way through the process, indicative of how low higher education has fallen among its stakeholders.

The Universities Act No. 16 of 1978 under which Sri Lankan universities are managed has generated debate, though not always loud, ever since its empowerment. Increasing politicisation of decision making in and about universities due to the deterioration of the conduct of the University Grants Commission (UGC) has been a central concern of those within the university system and without. This politicisation has been particularly acute in recent decades either as a direct result of some of the provisions in the Universities Act or the problematic interpretation of these. There has never been any doubt that the Act needs serious reform – if not a complete overhaul – to make universities more open, reflective, and productive spaces while also becoming the conscience of the nation rather than timid wastelands typified by the state of some universities and some programs.

But given the Minister’s background in what is often called progressive politics in Sri Lanka, why are many colleagues in the university system, including her own former colleagues and friends, so agitated by the present proposed amendment? The anxiety expressed by academics stem from two sources. The first concern is the presentation of the proposed amendment to parliament with no prior consultative process with academics or representative bodies on its content, and the possible urgency with which it will get pushed through parliament (if a second reading takes place as per the regular procedure) in the midst of a national crisis. The second is the content itself.

Appointment of Deans

Let me take the second point first. When it comes to the selection of deans, the existing Act states that a dean will be selected from among a faculty’s own who are heads of department. The provision was crafted this way based on the logic that a serving head of department would have administrative experience and connections that would help run a faculty in an efficient manner. Irrespective of how this worked in practice, the idea behind has merit.

By contrast, the proposed amendment suggests that a dean will be elected by the faculty from among its senior professors, professors, associate professors and senior lecturers (Grade I). In other words, a person no longer needs to be a head of department to be considered for election as a dean. While in a sense, this marks a more democratised approach to the selection, it also allows people lacking in experience to be elected by manoeuvring the electoral process within faculties.

In the existing Act, this appointment is made by the vice chancellor once a dean is elected by a given faculty. In the proposed amendment, this responsibility will shift to the university’s governing council. In the existing Act, if a dean is indisposed for a number of reasons, the vice chancellor can appoint an existing head of department to act for the necessary period of time, following on the logic outlined earlier. The new amendment would empower the vice chancellor to appoint another senior professor, professor, associate professor or senior lecturer (Grade I) from the concerned faculty in an acting capacity. Again, this appears to be a positive development.

Appointing Heads of Department

Under the current Act heads of department have been appointed from among professors, associate professors, senior lecturers or lecturers appointed by the Council upon the recommendation of the vice chancellor. The proposed amendment states the head of department should be a senior professor appointed by the Council upon the recommendation of the vice chancellor, and in the absence of a senior professor, other members of the department are to be considered. In the proposed scheme, a head of department can be removed by the Council. According to the existing Act, an acting head of department appointment can be made by the vice chancellor, while the proposed amendment shifts this responsibility to the Council, based upon the recommendation of the vice chancellor.

The amendment further states that no person should be appointed as the head of the same department for more than one term unless all other eligible people have already completed their responsibilities as heads of department. This is actually a positive development given that some individuals have managed to hang on to the head of department post for years, thereby depriving opportunities to other competent colleagues to serve in the post.

Process of amending the Universities Act

The question is, if some of the contents of the proposed amendment are positive developments, as they appear to be, why are academics anxious about its passing in parliament? This brings me to my first point, that is the way in which this amendment is being rushed through by the government. This has been clearly articulated by the Arts Faculty Teachers Association of University of Colombo. In a letter to the Minister of Education dated 9 December 2025, the Association makes two points, which have merit. First, “the bill has been drafted and tabled in Parliament for first reading without a consultative process with academics in state universities, who are this bill’s main stakeholders. We note that while the academic community may agree with its contents, the process is flawed because it is undemocratic and not transparent. There has not been adequate time for deliberation and discussion of details that may make the amendment stronger, especially in the face of the disaster situation of the country.”

Second, “AFTA’s membership also questions the urgency with which the bill is tabled in Parliament, and the subsequent unethical conduct of the UGC in requesting the postponement of dean selections and heads of department appointments in state universities in expectation of the bill’s passing in Parliament.”

These are serious concerns. No one would question the fact that the Universities Act needs to be amended. However, this must necessarily be based on a comprehensive review process. The haste to change only sections pertaining to the selection of deans and heads of department is strange, to say the least, and that too in the midst of dealing with the worst natural calamity the country has faced in living memory. To compound matters, the process also has been fast-tracked thereby compromising on the time made available to academics to make their views be known.

Similarly, the issuing of a letter by the UGC freezing all appointments of deans and heads of department, even though elections and other formalities have been carried out, is a telling instance of the government’s problematic haste and patently undemocratic process. Notably, this action comes from a government whose members, including the Education Minister herself, have stood steadfastly for sensible university reforms, before coming to power. The present process is manoeuvred in such a manner, that the proposed amendment would soon become law in the way the government requires, including all future appointments being made under this new law. Hence, the attempt to halt appointments, which were already in the pipeline, in the interim period.

It is evident that rather than undertake serious university sector reforms, the government is aiming to control universities and thereby their further politicization amenable to the present dispensation. The ostensible democratis0…..ation of the qualified pool of applicants for deanships opens up the possibilities for people lacking experience, but are proximate to the present powers that be, to hold influential positions within the university. The transfer of appointing powers to the Councils indicates the same trend. After all, Councils are partly made up of outsiders to the university, and such individuals, without exception, are political appointees. The likelihood of them adhering to the interests of the government would be very similar to the manner in which some vice chancellors appointed by the President of the country feel obligated to act.

All things considered, particularly the rushed and non-transparent process adopted thus far by the government does not show sincerity towards genuine and much needed university sector reforms. By contrast, it shows a crude intent to control universities at any cost. It is extremely regrettable that the universities in general have not taken a more proactive and principled position towards the content and the process of the proposed amendment. As I have said many times before, whatever ills that have befallen universities so far is the disastrous fallout of compromises of those within made for personal gain and greed, or the abject silence and disinterest of those within. These culprits have abandoned broader institutional development. This appears to be yet another instance of that sad process.

In this context, I have admiration for my former colleagues in the Faculty of Arts at the University of Colombo for having the ethical courage to indicate clearly the fault lines of the proposed amendment and the problems of its process. What they have asked is a postponement of the process giving them time to engage. In this context, it is indeed disappointing to see the needlessly conciliatory tone of the letter to the Education Minister by the Federation of University Teachers Association dated December 5, 2025, which sends the wrong signal.

If this government still believes it is a people’s government, the least it can do is give these academics time to engage with the proposed amendment. After all, many within the academic community helped bring the government to power. If not and if this amendment is rushed through parliament in needless haste, it will create a precedent that signals the way in which the government intends to do business in the future, abusing its parliamentary majority and denting its credibility for good.