From the East India company to the US Peace Corps: Understanding the present through the lens of history
By Nila Bala (Balananthini Balasubramaniam)
United Kingdom
21 September 2026
There is a profound difference between merely observing an event and understanding the historical architecture within which that event takes place.
The arrival of 34 new U.S. Peace Corps trainee volunteers in Sri Lanka in September 2026 is therefore not simply an educational story. It is also an opportunity to examine how foreign governments, institutions and international organisations have interacted with Sri Lankan society across different historical periods.
The purpose of this analysis is neither to romanticise foreign engagement nor to portray it automatically as a threat.
It is to ask a more intellectually serious question:
WHAT HAPPENS WHEN A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT-SPONSORED INSTITUTION BECOMES EMBEDDED, EVEN TEMPORARILY, WITHIN LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AND COMMUNITY LIFE?
To answer that question responsibly, one must begin with history, examine the legal and institutional framework, identify the stated objectives, distinguish evidence from speculation, and then consider the implications for the communities concerned.
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
1. THE HISTORICAL BACKDROP:
FROM THE EAST INDIA COMPANY TO BRITISH CROWN RULE
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Foreign intervention in Sri Lanka did not begin in the twenty-first century.
The Sri Lanka National Archives records that, following centuries of Portuguese and Dutch involvement along the coast, the territories under Dutch control were acquired by the British East India Company in 1796.
In 1802, those territories came directly under the British Crown.
In 1815, the Kandyan Convention transferred the sovereignty of the Kandyan Kingdom to the British. Article 4 transferred sovereignty, while Article 5 contained British undertakings concerning the protection of Buddhism and its customs.
These developments fundamentally altered the island's political, administrative and economic structures.
The historical significance is therefore considerable.
Sri Lanka's experience demonstrates that foreign involvement can take radically different institutional forms across different periods:
• commercial power;
• military power;
• colonial administration;
• diplomatic engagement;
• development assistance;
• humanitarian intervention;
• educational cooperation;
• and contemporary people-to-people programmes.
However, historical precision is essential.
THE EAST INDIA COMPANY WAS NOT THE U.S. PEACE CORPS.
The institutional purposes, legal foundations, political contexts and operating models were fundamentally different.
The East India Company's role must be understood within the history of European imperial expansion.
The Peace Corps belongs to a very different historical period and institutional framework.
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
2. WHAT IS THE U.S. PEACE CORPS?
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
The U.S. Peace Corps was established in 1961 during the presidency of John F. Kennedy.
Its stated mission is to promote peace and friendship by placing American volunteers in communities abroad, where they collaborate with local partners in areas including education, health, agriculture, community economic development, environment and youth development.
The Peace Corps therefore cannot historically or institutionally be equated with a colonial trading company.
Nevertheless, it is entirely legitimate for researchers to examine the wider phenomenon of foreign state-sponsored institutions operating within local communities.
That examination should begin with evidence rather than assumption.
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
3. 1962:
THE PEACE CORPS FIRST ARRIVES IN CEYLON
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
The Peace Corps opened its programme in Ceylon in 1962.
The organisation's historical records indicate that American Volunteers worked in several fields, including education, health, agriculture and community development.
This is significant because the original Sri Lankan programme was considerably broader than English-language education alone.
It formed part of the wider development and international-exchange environment of the Cold War era.
Understanding that context is important.
The Peace Corps was established during a period in which the United States was expanding its international engagement through a combination of diplomacy, development assistance, educational exchange and people-to-people programmes.
That does not, by itself, establish that every Peace Corps activity constitutes political intervention.
It does, however, provide the appropriate historical context in which the organisation should be studied.
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
4. 1970:
THE FIRST SUSPENSION
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
The Peace Corps programme in Sri Lanka was suspended in 1970.
This episode demonstrates an important principle:
Foreign volunteer programmes do not operate in a political vacuum.
Their continuity is inevitably affected by the political, security and institutional conditions of the host country.
The history of Peace Corps operations in Sri Lanka therefore provides an unusually useful case study of how international volunteer programmes interact with domestic political circumstances.
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
5. 1983:
THE RETURN AND THE TRANSFORMATION OF THE PROGRAMME
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Peace Corps returned to Sri Lanka in 1983 following an invitation from the Sri Lankan Government.
The renewed programme placed substantially greater emphasis on education, particularly English-language teacher development.
District English Language Improvement Centres became an important component of this engagement.
Peace Corps Volunteers worked with Sri Lankan educators and teacher trainees, introducing communicative approaches to English-language teaching.
This period is particularly relevant to understanding the contemporary programme because the educational relationship was not simply about placing foreign teachers in classrooms.
It involved the development of relationships with Sri Lankan teachers, teacher trainers and educational institutions.
The effects of such programmes should therefore be assessed not merely by counting Volunteers, but by examining institutional outcomes and long-term educational impact.
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
6. 1998:
SUSPENSION DURING THE CIVIL WAR
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
In 1998, Peace Corps suspended its programme in Sri Lanka amid the deteriorating security environment associated with the country's civil war.
Peace Corps itself records that the programme was suspended because of increasing violence and security concerns.
This provides another important historical lesson.
International programmes may be described as educational or humanitarian, but their geographical reach and operational continuity remain closely connected to security and political conditions.
The history therefore needs to be read in its entirety rather than selectively.
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
7. 2004–2006:
THE TSUNAMI AND CRISIS CORPS
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
The December 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami created an entirely different humanitarian context.
Peace Corps' Crisis Corps — subsequently associated with Peace Corps Response — sent Volunteers to Sri Lanka from June 2005 to assist with reconstruction.
The programme was subsequently closed in August 2006 because of increased security concerns.
Once again, the historical record demonstrates that the nature of foreign engagement can change according to circumstances:
education in one period;
development in another;
humanitarian reconstruction in another;
and later, renewed educational cooperation.
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
8. 2016:
THE GOVERNMENT OF SRI LANKA INVITES PEACE CORPS BACK
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
One of the most important facts in the contemporary history of Peace Corps in Sri Lanka is that the Government of Sri Lanka invited the organisation to return in 2016.
This matters because it establishes an important distinction.
The 2016 return was not simply a unilateral decision by Washington to establish a programme in Sri Lanka.
According to Peace Corps' own official record, the Government of Sri Lanka invited the Peace Corps to return to assist with national development goals, particularly English-language education.
That fact should form part of any serious discussion.
It should neither be ignored by critics nor exaggerated by supporters.
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
9. 2018:
A NEW BILATERAL AGREEMENT AND MINISTRY OF EDUCATION MOU
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
On 26 February 2018, the United States and Sri Lanka signed a new bilateral agreement to re-establish the Peace Corps programme.
Peace Corps states that the programme would focus on English-language education, with Volunteers receiving approximately three months of language, cultural and technical training before beginning two-year assignments. 4
On 9 August 2018, Peace Corps and Sri Lanka's Ministry of Education signed a Memorandum of Understanding to formalise cooperation in English-language education.
This institutional framework is important.
It means that the contemporary programme should not be analysed merely as a group of American individuals arriving in Sri Lanka.
It is a structured programme operating within a bilateral governmental and educational framework.
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
10. 2024:
THE FIRST NEW VOLUNTEER COHORT SINCE 1998
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
On 6 March 2024, Peace Corps Director Carol Spahn swore in 20 new Volunteers — the first new cohort to serve in Sri Lanka since the 1998 suspension.
The organisation described the programme as part of a longstanding educational partnership between the United States and Sri Lanka.
Peace Corps also highlighted the institutional continuity created by earlier generations of Volunteers and Sri Lankan teachers who had worked with them. 7
This is an important dimension of international educational programmes:
Their influence may extend beyond the formal duration of an individual Volunteer assignment through professional relationships, teaching methodologies and institutional networks.
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
11. 2025:
THE PROGRAMME EXPANDS INTO THE NORTH
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
By late 2025, the programme had expanded geographically.
Twenty-three Volunteers were inducted in November 2025, with assignments extending to the Northern and North Central Provinces as well as Uva and Central Provinces.
Contemporary reporting stated that the national Peace Corps presence had reached 53 Volunteers at that stage.
The Volunteers' preparation included Sinhala or Tamil language instruction, cultural training, classroom preparation and practical teaching experience.
This is significant because the programme was no longer confined to an abstract international-development setting.
It was becoming embedded in specific local communities.
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
12. SEPTEMBER 2026:
34 NEW TRAINEES ARRIVE
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
The latest development requires particular attention.
In September 2026, 34 new U.S. Peace Corps trainee Volunteers arrived in Sri Lanka.
Before beginning their two-year assignments, they are undertaking intensive training in:
• Sinhala or Tamil;
• Sri Lankan culture;
• American English-language teaching;
• and community integration.
Following their planned November swearing-in, they are expected to serve in the Northern and North Central Provinces, working alongside Sri Lankan teachers and students.
They will also live with Sri Lankan host families and participate in the communities in which they are placed.
The U.S. Ambassador to Sri Lanka has explicitly described the programme in terms of people-to-people connections and broader bilateral relationships. 10
That statement is important because it identifies an element beyond classroom teaching:
RELATIONSHIP-BUILDING BETWEEN SOCIETIES.
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
13. WHY SHOULD EELAM TAMILS PAY PARTICULAR ATTENTION?
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
The answer should not begin with either suspicion or unquestioning acceptance.
It should begin with QUESTIONS.
The Northern Province is not simply another geographical location.
It has its own linguistic, cultural, religious, demographic, political and post-war historical context.
Therefore, when a foreign government-sponsored organisation places Volunteers in Northern communities for extended periods, working directly with schools, teachers, students and host families, legitimate questions arise concerning transparency, accountability, safeguarding and institutional purpose.
For example:
1. Which districts will receive the Volunteers?
2. Which schools have been selected?
3. Who selected those schools?
4. What criteria were used for site selection?
5. What precisely do the current U.S.–Sri Lanka bilateral arrangements permit?
6. What does the Ministry of Education MOU require?
7. What training do Volunteers receive concerning the history and social realities of the Northern Province?
8. What safeguards exist concerning children's privacy and personal information?
9. What safeguarding procedures govern relationships between Volunteers, pupils and host families?
10. Who supervises Volunteers at school, provincial and national levels?
11. What mechanisms exist for complaints or reporting concerns?
12. How is programme expenditure financed and audited?
13. What measurable indicators are used to determine programme effectiveness?
14. What independent evaluations of previous Peace Corps programmes in Sri Lanka are publicly available?
15. What evidence exists concerning the long-term educational outcomes of earlier cohorts?
These are not hostile questions.
They are GOVERNANCE QUESTIONS.
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
14. THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN PUBLIC DIPLOMACY AND ESPIONAGE
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
A particularly important distinction must be maintained.
Peace Corps is an agency of the United States Government.
Its own public materials describe its work as international volunteer service, collaboration with communities, education and people-to-people engagement.
That institutional fact should be acknowledged.
At the same time, describing a programme as "people-to-people diplomacy" does not automatically establish that it is an intelligence operation.
Nor does the absence of evidence for an intelligence function prove that every aspect of foreign governmental engagement is politically neutral.
The intellectually responsible position is therefore:
DO NOT CONVERT SUSPICION INTO FACT.
Instead:
EXAMINE THE MANDATE.
EXAMINE THE AGREEMENTS.
EXAMINE THE FUNDING.
EXAMINE THE REPORTING STRUCTURE.
EXAMINE THE ACTIVITIES.
EXAMINE THE OUTCOMES.
AND THEN DRAW CONCLUSIONS FROM DOCUMENTED EVIDENCE.
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
15. A WIDER GEOPOLITICAL QUESTION
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
There is also a broader geopolitical dimension.
States rarely conduct international engagement without reference to their own national interests.
That does not mean that every individual programme is secretly designed for strategic purposes.
It means that foreign policy should be understood as a combination of:
• national interests;
• diplomatic relationships;
• economic considerations;
• security considerations;
• development priorities;
• educational exchange;
• humanitarian objectives;
• and public diplomacy.
The United States itself describes Peace Corps as advancing both American and host-country priorities. Recent U.S. diplomatic messaging regarding Sri Lanka has also explicitly connected the programme with people-to-people ties and relationships across the Indo-Pacific.
Therefore, the appropriate analytical question is not:
"Is Peace Corps good or bad?"
A more sophisticated question is:
"WHAT ARE THE MULTIPLE FUNCTIONS, OBJECTIVES AND CONSEQUENCES OF THIS FORM OF INTERNATIONAL ENGAGEMENT, AND HOW TRANSPARENTLY CAN THEY BE VERIFIED?"
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
16. WHAT CAN EELAM TAMILS LEARN FROM THIS?
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
The lesson is not to reject every foreign relationship.
Nor is it to place unquestioning faith in foreign governments.
The lesson is to develop institutional memory, documentary literacy and strategic awareness.
When another state becomes active in our communities, we should know:
WHO?
WHY?
UNDER WHAT AGREEMENT?
WITH WHAT FUNDING?
UNDER WHOSE AUTHORITY?
FOR HOW LONG?
DOING WHAT?
REPORTING TO WHOM?
WITH WHAT SAFEGUARDS?
AND WITH WHAT MEASURABLE OUTCOMES?
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
17. HISTORY SHOULD NOT BE USED CARELESSLY
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
There is another lesson of equal importance.
Historical comparison is useful only when historical distinctions are preserved.
East India Company
≠
British Crown administration
≠
American diplomatic institutions
≠
U.S. Peace Corps.
Their legal status, political objectives, institutional structures and historical contexts were different.
To place them in one uninterrupted chain of equivalence would be historically inaccurate.
However, they can legitimately be studied within the broader history of external powers engaging with Sri Lankan society.
That is where historical analysis becomes valuable.
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
18. TRUE PUBLIC AWARENESS IS NOT FEAR
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Rejecting foreign assistance is not, by itself, public awareness.
Accepting foreign assistance without scrutiny is not public awareness either.
And constructing conspiracy theories without evidence is certainly not research.
REAL PUBLIC AWARENESS REQUIRES:
READING THE DOCUMENTS.
UNDERSTANDING THE AGREEMENTS.
TRACING THE FUNDING.
EXAMINING THE INSTITUTIONS.
STUDYING THE HISTORY.
DOCUMENTING LOCAL EXPERIENCES.
COMPARING OFFICIAL CLAIMS WITH OBSERVABLE OUTCOMES.
AND DISTINGUISHING FACT FROM INTERPRETATION.
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
19. THE QUESTION WE SHOULD NOW ASK
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
The arrival of 34 new Peace Corps trainees should therefore become an opportunity for serious civic and academic observation.
Let us not ask only:
"What are they doing?"
Let us also ask:
"What institutional framework brought them here?"
"What does the bilateral agreement provide?"
"What does the Ministry of Education permit?"
"What are the accountability mechanisms?"
"What are the educational outcomes?"
"What do teachers say?"
"What do students say?"
"What do parents say?"
"What do communities experience?"
"What does the documentary record demonstrate?"
That is how a society develops strategic literacy.
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
20. THE PRINCIPLE
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Governments, like institutions, generally pursue interests.
That is a basic proposition of international-relations analysis.
Therefore, mature societies do not approach international engagement with either blind hostility or blind trust.
They examine interests.
They examine institutions.
They examine agreements.
They examine evidence.
They protect their own communities.
And they retain the intellectual independence to distinguish cooperation from dependency, diplomacy from propaganda, assistance from influence, and documented fact from speculation.
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
CONCLUSION
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
From the East India Company to British Crown rule;
from colonial administration to post-independence diplomacy;
from Cold War development programmes to humanitarian intervention;
from educational cooperation to contemporary people-to-people diplomacy—
Sri Lanka has never existed outside the wider strategic environment of international power.
The arrival of 34 new U.S. Peace Corps trainees in 2026 should therefore be understood neither through fear nor through romanticism.
It should be studied.
The agreements should be examined.
The programme should be monitored.
The outcomes should be measured.
The communities should be heard.
And the historical record should remain central.
Foreign engagement is not inherently benevolent.
Neither is it inherently hostile.
Its character must be established through evidence.
The responsibility of the people is therefore not to fear the outside world.
It is to understand it.
To question it.
To document it.
To negotiate with it intelligently.
And, above all, to ensure that the interests, dignity, rights and long-term future of local communities are never treated as secondary to the interests of external powers.
AN INFORMED PEOPLE DOES NOT HATE THE OUTSIDE WORLD.
AN INFORMED PEOPLE DOES NOT BLINDLY TRUST IT EITHER.
THEY ASK.
THEY INVESTIGATE.
THEY DOCUMENT.
THEY COMPARE.
AND THEY DRAW THEIR CONCLUSIONS FROM EVIDENCE.
That is not hostility.
That is historical consciousness.
That is civic literacy.
That is strategic awareness.
© 2026 Small Drops, Nila Bala
(Balananthini Balasubramaniam), United Kingdom.
All Rights Reserved.
Comments