The Troubling Case of the Proposed NEPF ‘Sacrificing Universities for Political Pandering’

The newly proposed NEPF seeks to repeal the Central Government’s constitutional authority to establish and maintain universities, transferring this responsibility solely to the  Provincial Councils

The newly proposed National Education Policy Framework (NEPF) for the period of 2023-2033  is unusually exceptional for several critical reasons. It blatantly disregards the country’s  Constitution with clauses that directly violate its provisions. It advocates for the establishment of  autonomous Provincial Boards of Education, which, according to the Constitution, should only  have an advisory role. Furthermore, it seeks to repeal the Central Government’s constitutional  authority to establish and maintain universities, transferring this responsibility solely to the  Provincial Councils, which have not managed such tasks in the past 36 years since their inception.  Shockingly, it is claimed to be based on the “Principle of Subsidiarity,” challenging the unitary  status of the country. Additionally, it openly acknowledges its ideological stance of weakening the  Center by devolving more power to the Provincial Councils.  

It is now beyond doubt that the NEPF is merely an event of an ill-famed political agenda rather  than the urgent educational reform initiative it claims to be, aimed at achieving economic stability  and development. To understand the political agenda underpinning the NEPF, it is crucial to  examine its ideological foundation based on the “Principle of Subsidiarity.” The acceptance of this  controversial principle in Sri Lankan constitutional history was notably marked by the Yahapalana  government’s attempt to draft a new Constitution. Among the reports that emerged from this  contentious effort were the Report of the Sub-Committee on Centre-Periphery Relations (CPR  report), the Public Representations Committee Report for Constitutional Reforms, and the Interim  Report of the Steering Committee, all of which endorsed this principle despite severe public  criticism at the time. The following excerpt from the CPR report will shed light on this principle: 

“This suggestion was based on the principle of subsidiarity i.e. whatever the lowest level of  governing institution can handle should be left with that body or unit and the rest should go to the  next tier and so on. This notion is contrary to the present model of transferring the political  power from the centre to sub-national units.” 

This present model is nothing but the unitary status of the country. The Yahapalana government’s  attempt to alter this model failed and is now a part of history. However, years later, the same  principle has been endorsed as the ideological stance of the NEPF. This development is not 

surprising given President Ranil Wickremesinghe’s speech in Parliament on August 9, 2023,  urging the advancement of the 13th Amendment. In this speech, the President expressed his  willingness to continue from where he left off during the Yahapalana government, referencing the  interim report that recommended the Principle of Subsidiarity. By doing so, the President made a  fundamental mistake, forgetting that he is now a successor President without the mandate to  resume the previous Yahapalana agenda. Nonetheless, it is evident that the NEPF’s ideological  stance has been derived from that incomplete Yahapalana project. 

In the same speech, the President discussed empowering Provincial Councils to establish  universities. What did the President mean by this empowerment, given that it is already a  concurrent task according to the Constitution, and the Provincial Councils could have done it all  along? The proposals of the NEPF, prepared by a Cabinet committee under his chairmanship,  clarify this. This empowerment means stripping the Central Government’s constitutional authority  to establish and maintain universities and redirecting funds generated by the Center to the  Provincial Councils. It does not involve strengthening the Provincial Councils to generate more  funds, thereby encouraging them to establish universities independently. What a tragic blunder  this is! The country would no longer have national universities, making this perhaps the first policy  framework in the world to prevent the establishment of such institutions. Who will be pleased by this? Only individuals or groups seeking to undermine the Central Government for their own  communal or personal political gain. This political pandering is designed to cater to specific  interests by sacrificing universities and higher education in general. 

If this decision is implemented, it would be disastrous on multiple fronts. More importantly, it is  irreconcilable with the unitary political status of the country. Furthermore, it represents a greater  degree of devolution than the Indian model, where the Central Government retains the authority  to establish and maintain universities. If the framers are willing to implement such a degree of  devolution, approval from the people of this country must be sought. Otherwise, the NEPF sets a  dangerous precedent by exceeding the provisions of the Constitution through policy changes.  Moreover, replacing the University Grants Commission, the apex body for regulating, funding,  and selecting students for universities, with a new institution called the National Higher Education  Commission, which is limited only to maintaining academic standards, further complicates the  situation. Even though it is not directly stated in the NEPF, there are more than adequate reasons to believe that the remaining responsibilities for universities will be handed over to provincial  institutions, most likely the autonomous Provincial Boards of Education. 

Can anyone justify this unprecedented attempt to provincialize universities, thereby neglecting the constitutional authority of the Central Government? Is there any sensible argument for transferring  university education to a political tier that is currently in complete collapse and lacks experience? This is precisely the moment when university education in the country demands a well-defined regulatory system and robust funding mechanisms that preserve greater autonomy. Regrettably,  the government is using universities to empower nearly defunct Provincial Councils, prioritising  political gains over educational integrity. If the government succeeds in this unethical and unconstitutional provincialization of universities, the university community will soon witness  unprecedented corruption, inefficiency, and local political and communal influence, leading to  catastrophic consequences. 

The Provincial Councils are solely authorised to establish universities, even though they rely  heavily on Central Government funding for their regular expenditures. Consequently, it is  inevitable that they will need to draw funds from the Center to establish universities. Transferring  money through an intermediate political tier will almost certainly exacerbate corruption and  inefficiency in the process. Did the framers of this policy consider these potential issues when  granting the Provincial Councils sole authority to establish universities? Ironically, in the same  speech mentioned above, the President addressed the issue of confronting corruption and fraud in  the country. 

As a final remark, no education policy in history has been as politically motivated as this one.  Unless the concerns about weakening the Center’s power are rectified in the NEPF, it will be  recorded as an instance of universities and higher education being exploited for political pandering.

The above is an opinion written by Nalaka Samaraweera of the Faculty of Engineering at the University of Moratuwa.