by Viran Maddumage Assistant Lecturer & PhD (Reading) Department of Human Geography and Migration, Macquarie University, Australia and Sanduni Rathnayake Lecturer (Probationary) Faculty of Law, General Sir John Kotelawala Defence University Can a scholarship programme help heal…
by Viran Maddumage Assistant Lecturer & PhD (Reading) Department of Human Geography and Migration, Macquarie University, Australia and Sanduni Rathnayake Lecturer (Probationary) Faculty of Law, General Sir John Kotelawala Defence University Can a scholarship programme help heal a divided society? At first glance, the idea seems ambitious. Yet one of Europe’s most celebrated educational initiatives was created with precisely that aspiration. Long before Erasmus+ became synonymous with international student exchanges, it represented something far more profound: a belief that education could bridge historical divisions, foster mutual understanding and lay the foundations for lasting peace. Nearly four decades later, that vision offers valuable lessons not only for Europe but also for countries like Sri Lanka, where the search for sustainable social cohesion remains unfinished. Today, Erasmus+ is recognised as the European Union’s flagship programme for education, training, youth and sport. Since its launch in 1987, it has enabled millions of students, academics, educators and young professionals to study, teach, train and collaborate across borders. What began as an exchange programme, involving just 3,200 students from 11 European countries, has grown into one of the world’s largest educational mobility initiatives, benefiting more than nine million participants, while extending partnerships well beyond Europe. Its success, however, cannot be measured simply by the number of scholarships awarded, or universities connected. To understand why Erasmus+ has become one of Europe’s greatest success stories, one must return to the continent that gave birth to it. Europe, in the 20th century, was defined as much by division as by cooperation. Two World Wars devastated entire societies, leaving behind fractured economies, broken political relationships and generations shaped by conflict. Countries that now cooperate closely, within the European Union, had once fought devastating wars against one another. Germany itself became the most visible symbol of post-war division, split into East and West as ideological tensions hardened during the Cold War. Rebuilding roads, industries and institutions was only part of Europe’s challenge. Rebuilding trust proved far more difficult. Political agreements could establish new alliances, but they could not erase decades of suspicion, or guarantee, that future generations would see one another as partners, rather than adversaries. It was in this context that the idea of European integration steadily gained momentum, during the 1950s. Economic cooperation was recognised as essential for prosperity, but European leaders increasingly understood that lasting unity demanded something deeper. If peace was to endure, citizens, not merely governments, needed opportunities to learn from one another, engage across cultures and develop a shared sense of belonging. Education emerged as one of the most effective instruments for achieving that vision. Universities became spaces where young Europeans could encounter perspectives beyond their own national histories. Academic exchange was no longer viewed simply as an educational experience but as an investment in peace itself. Every student who crossed a border carried back more than academic knowledge; they returned with friendships, cultural understanding and a broader appreciation of Europe’s diversity. Erasmus became one of the most enduring expressions of that philosophy. Rather than treating education as an isolated national endeavour, it positioned learning as a shared European project, capable of strengthening social cohesion, alongside economic development. The classroom, in many respects, became an arena where reconciliation could take root more naturally than through political negotiation alone. Over the years, that vision expanded significantly. What began as a higher education exchange programme has evolved into Erasmus+, supporting vocational education and training, school education, adult learning, youth initiatives and sport. It facilitates not only student mobility but also research collaboration, professional development, volunteering and institutional partnerships that connect universities, civil society organisations, businesses and public institutions across national boundaries. The programme’s ambitions extend well beyond academic achievement. At its core lies the conviction that lifelong learning contributes not only to individual advancement but also to stronger, more resilient societies. Education becomes a driver of innovation, economic opportunity, civic participation and social cohesion, creating benefits that extend far beyond university campuses. Over the years, that vision expanded significantly. What began as a higher education exchange programme has evolved into Erasmus+, supporting vocational education and training, school education, adult learning, youth initiatives and sport. Today it enables millions of learners, educators and institutions to collaborate across national boundaries through academic exchanges, research partnerships, professional training and community engagement. At its heart, however, Erasmus+ remains guided by a simple idea: that education can be a powerful instrument of social transformation. By encouraging mobility, fostering institutional cooperation and creating opportunities for people from different cultures and backgrounds to learn together, the programme has become one of the European Union’s most enduring investments in social cohesion. Its emphasis on inclusion, multilingualism, democratic values and international partnership reflects a broader understanding that education is about shaping societies as much as it is about educating individuals. Europe’s experience offers an important insight. Lasting peace cannot rest solely on political agreements, or economic growth. It also depends on creating opportunities for people to meet, learn and build relationships across the boundaries that once divided them. That insight resonates far beyond Europe. Sri Lanka’s history is different, but the challenge is strikingly familiar. Although we are a single island nation, we remain a society shaped by multiple and often overlapping divisions. Ethnic tensions, linguistic disputes, regional inequalities and uneven access to opportunity have all left lasting marks on the national consciousness. Decades of civil conflict claimed thousands of lives, displaced communities and interrupted generations of economic and social progress. While the guns have long fallen silent, building a genuinely cohesive society remains an unfinished task. Much of Sri Lanka’s post-war discourse has understandably centred on constitutional reform, political settlements and economic recovery. These remain indispensable. Yet reconciliation cannot be legislated into existence. It must also be experienced. Trust is built through sustained interaction, shared experiences and opportunities for people to encounter one another beyond the identities that have historically separated them. This is where education can become more than a means of acquiring qualifications; it can become a means of rebuilding society itself. An Erasmus-inspired model offers an important way of thinking about that possibility. Its greatest lesson is not that students should study abroad, but that educational mobility has the power to transform individuals and, over time, societies. When young people leave familiar environments, study alongside peers from different backgrounds and return with new perspectives, they bring back more than degrees. They return with networks, confidence and a greater appreciation of diversity. These are precisely the kinds of social capital that divided societies often struggle to cultivate. For Sri Lanka, mobility should not be understood only in international terms. It should begin at home. Many young people, particularly those from rural and economically disadvantaged communities, have limited opportunities to study or train outside their immediate surroundings. A national scholarship and exchange programme could enable students from Jaffna to spend a semester in Matara, undergraduates from Monaragala to undertake research in Kandy, or vocational trainees from Batticaloa to work alongside institutions in Colombo. Such exchanges would expose students to different communities, cultures and lived realities within their own country before connecting them with opportunities overseas. This is not merely an educational investment; it is an investment in social cohesion. Mobility broadens horizons, but it also improves employability by exposing students to new skills, institutions and professional networks. Erasmus+ has consistently demonstrated that graduates with international and intercultural experience are better prepared for an increasingly interconnected labour market. A Sri Lankan model could similarly strengthen both human capital and national integration, ensuring that access to opportunity is determined less by geography than by potential.
The same philosophy applies to institutional partnerships. One of the defining strengths of Erasmus+ lies in its ability to connect universities, schools, vocational institutes, businesses and civil society organisations through collaborative projects. Knowledge is not confined within institutional walls but shared across disciplines, sectors and borders. Sri Lanka’s universities have long produced talented graduates and important research, yet stronger collaboration between higher education institutions, industry, local communities and international partners could generate far greater social and economic impact. Educational cooperation should become a national strategy rather than a collection of isolated initiatives. Equally significant is the programme’s commitment to inclusion. Sri Lanka’s inequalities are not confined to ethnicity alone. They are also geographical, economic and educational. Access to quality higher education and international opportunities remains uneven, with students from rural districts often facing barriers that extend well beyond academic ability. An Erasmus-inspired initiative would, therefore, need to place inclusion at its centre, ensuring that students from historically underrepresented communities are not merely invited to participate but actively supported to do so. Excellence and equity should not be competing priorities; each strengthens the other. Language presents another compelling lesson. Sri Lanka’s own history reminds us that language is never simply a means of communication; it can also become a marker of identity, opportunity and exclusion. The language question has occupied a central place in the country’s political history, shaping relationships between communities for decades. Erasmus+, by contrast, treats multilingualism as one of Europe’s greatest strengths. It promotes the idea that linguistic diversity should connect rather than divide societies. Sri Lanka’s continued investment in Sinhala, Tamil and English education should, therefore, be viewed not only as an educational objective but also as a nation-building project. A multilingual citizen is often better equipped to understand perspectives beyond their own community, reducing barriers that have historically fuelled misunderstanding. Perhaps the most important lesson, however, lies in the values that underpin the programme itself. Erasmus+ is built upon respect for human dignity, equality, inclusion and the rights of minorities. These principles are not peripheral to the programme; they define it. Sri Lanka’s future, likewise, depends upon nurturing a national identity that complements rather than competes with cultural, religious and ethnic identities. Educational exchange can help cultivate that shared civic identity by creating spaces where diversity is encountered as an everyday reality rather than an abstract ideal. Looking beyond our own borders, such a programme could also redefine Sri Lanka’s place within the region. South Asia continues to grapple with many of the same challenges that Europe once faced, historical grievances, political tensions, social inequalities and limited educational mobility across borders. Sri Lanka is well positioned to lead conversations on regional educational cooperation by establishing an exchange and scholarship model that welcomes students from neighbouring countries, while creating opportunities for Sri Lankan students to study throughout Asia and beyond. In doing so, the country could position itself as a regional hub for higher education, research collaboration and intercultural dialogue. Such an initiative would strengthen not only universities but also Sri Lanka’s international standing. Educational diplomacy has become an increasingly important component of foreign policy across the world. Countries that attract students, foster academic partnerships and invest in knowledge exchange often build influence that extends well beyond conventional diplomacy. For Sri Lanka, investing in educational mobility would, therefore, represent an investment in both domestic reconciliation and international engagement. Europe’s experience offers no blueprint that can simply be transplanted to another society. History, politics and culture differ too greatly for simple imitation. But the principles that shaped Erasmus+, mobility, inclusion, cooperation, multilingualism and respect for diversity, are remarkably adaptable. They speak to universal challenges faced by societies seeking to transform historical divisions into shared futures. Sri Lanka has long recognised education as a pathway to social mobility. The next step is to recognise its potential as a pathway to social cohesion. If Europe could use educational exchange to help overcome the divisions left by war, Sri Lanka can draw inspiration from that experience to imagine its own model, one rooted in our history, responsive to our realities and ambitious enough to invest not only in better graduates, but in a stronger, more united nation. (Views expressed in this article are personal.)
