New owners for Jaffna franchise in LPL
India downgrading Sri Lanka for two Tests; a wake-up call
Jadeja stars in CSK’s sensational last-ball win over KKR
Sajeewa wins bronze at the World Military Boxing Championships  
When the referee gets bigger than the game… 
Global digital product engineering leader Nagarro celebrates six months in Sri Lanka, aims for substantial expansion
SLT-MOBITEL offers revolutionary new Samsung Galaxy Z Fold3 5G and Z Flip3 5G
Emirates’ A380 network expansion gains momentum as travel demand continues to rise
ASPI reaches record 9339 points
Managing investor perception of business confidence seen as vital for Sri Lanka
by Jehan Perera
The significance of President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s speech at the UN General Assembly, in New York, last week, was his use of the time allocated to him to provide an outline of the government’s policies towards the main challenges besetting the country. The President covered the main issues that confront the world with his focus on Sri Lanka. These included measures to contain the Covid pandemic, the economic crisis, environmental degradation and violence. In the final section of his well-crafted speech, the President went into some depth regarding the government’s approach to national reconciliation. However, the response within the country, has been muted and for good reason. Those who voted for the government, on an entirely different platform, which emphasised ethnic majority nationalism and anti-international sentiments, are quite probably at a loss.
It is only recently that the government has started to speak in terms of reconciliation and obtaining international support for it. At the two elections that brought this government to power, the Easter Sunday bombing and the consequent threat to national security, took centre stage. The majority, who voted for the government, did so to protect it from a variety of security threats they were told of, both within and outside the country. The wretched failure of the previous government to prevent the bombing, the first terrorist act of any magnitude since the war ended a decade earlier, was attributed to the personal weakness of the then government leaders. It was also attributed to the 19th Amendment which sought to give state institutions protection from use for partisan reasons by government politicians and to consequent disintegration of the system of command and control.
A second theme, at the two elections, was depiction of ethnic and religious minorities as potential security threats. This stemmed from the country’s experience of three decades of internal warfare with the armed Tamil separatist movements. This was followed by the Easter bombings by extremists from the Muslim community, who were feared to be having a vast support base both internally within the country and also externally. In these circumstances, the re-centralisation of power within the government hierarchy and greater role given to the security forces, received public acceptance as being part of the government’s democratic mandate. At the same time, by denying the equally legitimate concerns of the ethnic and religious minorities, the electoral results demonstrated the existence of an acute polarisation, and wound, in the body politic that continues to fester to the point of bringing in involuntary and imposed international interventions.
The challenge for the government is to represent the interests of all communities and not only the majority who voted it into power. The problem is that the government’s mandate comes, by and large, from the vote of the ethnic and religious majority in a country that has been polarised on ethnic and religious lines, for many decades. An ugly part of this reality is that in the prisons are several hundreds of Tamils and Muslims for the most part who are in custody for periods ranging from a few months to many years without trial. They are being held under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, ostensibly until the security forces find adequate evidence to put them before the courts of law. This contradicts the rule of law and the presumption in our legal system that we are innocent until proven guilty can have negative consequences.
In June this year, the EU parliament passed a resolution that the GSP Plus tariff privileges, made available to Sri Lanka should be withdrawn unless the government fulfilled its obligations in regard to the upholding of human rights. The resolution, expressing “deep concern over Sri Lanka’s alarming path towards the recurrence of grave human rights violations”, and makes specific reference to the use of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA). The resolution notes the “continuing discrimination” against and violence towards religious and ethnic minorities, while voicing “serious concern” about the 20th Amendment passed in 2020, and the “resulting decline in judiciary independence, the reduction of parliamentary control, and the excessive accumulation of power with the presidency”. It also highlights “accelerating militarisation” of civilian government functions in Sri Lanka.
A delegation from the EU is currently in Sri Lanka to meet with members of the government, Opposition and civil society, to ascertain whether the country is fulfilling its obligations to be a beneficiary of EU trade benefits. It is likely that the delegation will be provided with evidence of human rights violations and acts of impunity. There are hundreds of persons languishing in prisons without being put on trial, many of whom are Tamils, suspected to be LTTE members, and more of them are Muslims, suspected of having links with the Easter bombings. When questioned in parliament about the latter, the minister in charge justified those detentions on the grounds that Muslim youth, including the Muslim parliamentarian who had questioned him, could contain Islamic State ideology in their heads and therefore be security threats.
At the last elections, the most potent theme was the failure of the then government to act effectively to protect the country from the Easter suicide bombings and the pressures from human rights actors in Geneva. Among the issues that loomed large at the last election was also the charge that the previous government was giving in too much to the Muslim community within the country. The fact that the Easter attacks were by Muslim suicide bombers added force to this charge. The prioritisation of national security in the election campaign had popular support. The influential religious clergy, associations of professionals and mass media also joined the battle in earnest and their messages reinforced one another. The recent debate in Parliament suggests the government’s thinking continues to be in sync with the mandate it received at those elections.
However, in his speech in New York, President Gotabaya Rajapaksa has shown signs of diverging from the politics of the past. The President said “Fostering greater accountability, restorative justice, and meaningful reconciliation through domestic institutions is essential to achieve lasting peace. So too is ensuring more equitable participation in the fruits of economic development. It is my Government’s firm intention to build a prosperous, stable and secure future for all Sri Lankans, regardless of ethnicity, religion, or gender. We are ready to engage with all domestic stakeholders, and to obtain the support of our international partners and the United Nations, in this process.” However, the President’s speech continues to be at variance with the ground realities at the present time and the general manner of governance since the President took office in November 2019.
So far the pledge of a new direction is articulated in words. The time for the government to make the President’s words real and act accordingly is now. This will help to overcome the deep and dark cynicism that has enveloped the country regarding promises made by politicians. The first step would be to apply the logic of the Justice Minister in Parliament. Replying to an Opposition Parliamentarian who called for the arrest of Minister Lohan Ratwatte who stands accused of entering a prison and threatening prisoners with his gun, the justice minister said that everyone is entitled to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. This also applies to the hundreds of Tamils and Muslims in jail without evidence to charge them in a court of law. The better way to deal with the threats to national security is to win the confidence of all the communities in the Sri Lanka by treating them without discrimination, as children of one mother, as our national anthem proclaims.
Form-ation of Higher Education in Sri Lanka
Face shields, sans masks, on TV shows!

Powerful millers floor govt., do away with ceiling price for rice
Global digital product engineering leader Nagarro celebrates six months in Sri Lanka, aims for substantial expansion
Restoration of 21.2 km road nearing completion to ease woes of people in Puttlam, Chilaw, Anamaduwa towns
‘Opposition to walking path due to jealousy’
Shooting the messenger
16 kilos of gold detected at BIA
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

By Dr. Ranil Senanayake
It is in this context that we should examine the right to life. Access to clean drinking water, clean breathable air and clean, non-toxic food, must be non-negotiable and fundamental.
Once these fundamental rights are acknowledged, food security and food sovereignty become significant factors of sustainable development. The production of food has been the domain of the farming and fishing communities, from prehistory. However, the strong links that farmers had to their land are being severed by the introduction of industrial farming and the subsequent ‘Green Revolution’ technological package. The traditional knowledge and genes that had sustained humanity for over three thousand years are discounted and replaced with high energy-dependent, biodiversity poor, toxic methods of farming, supported and financed by the international banking system.
The tragedy is clearly outlined in the statement from the National Farmer Federation of Sri Lanka which made the following declaration to the Consultative Group in International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) in 1998. They said:
“We believe that we speak for all of our brothers and sisters, the world over, when we identify ourselves as a community who are integrally tied to the success of ensuring global food security. In fact, it is our community who have contributed to the possibility of food security in every country, since mankind evolved from a hunter-gather existence. We have watched for many years, as the progression of experts, scientists and development agents passed through our communities with some or another facet of the modern scientific world. We confess that at the start we were unsophisticated in matters of the outside world and welcomed this input. We followed advice and we planted as we were instructed. The result was a loss of the varieties of seeds that we carried with us through history, often spanning three or more millennia. The result was the complete dependence of high input crops that robbed us of crop independence. In addition, we farmers, producers of food, respected for our ability to feed populations, were turned into the poisoners of land and living things, including fellow human beings.”
Today we are faced with the spectre of ever-widening circles of agricultural poisoning that has seen an exponential increase in non-communicable diseases of farmers and rural folk. Everyone agrees that it is a toxic cause, but as there is no demonstrable causal link, the application of the suspect materials continues unabated. The critical question is; when did this syndrome start to manifest?’ The link to the time of abandonment of traditional agriculture, in favour of the ‘Green Revolution’, and the acceptance of exposure to toxic chemicals, as an agricultural norm, is very clear.
The precautionary principle was never invoked. There was no discussion of synergistic effects, bioconcentration and other processes that can render the agroecosystem toxic to the farming populations. Can the erosion of a benign traditional agricultural system that had co-evolved with the biodiversity of this country for over three thousand years to an exotic, toxic, fossil energy-dependent, agricultural system, be seen as more ‘developed’?
Agriculture is the production of food, medicines and fibre by biological systems. Thus, agricultural sustainability must consider biological sustainability. In a biological sense, sustainability is the potential to recover from perturbation and stress (Conway, 1985). A sustainable system oscillates between inflexible boundary conditions. If the boundary conditions are exceeded, a change in state occurs so that the system loses its original identity and potential. Thus, the sustainability of this system is determined by its boundary conditions as well as its internal dynamics. A biological entity is a product of its temporal and genetic history in varying environments. There are environmental thresholds that cannot be transcended without extinction. In other words, every living thing has limits; be it temperature, water, salt or food, take too much you die, take too little, you die. While acclimatisation often allows an individual, or species, to change its measured thresholds, there exist lethal thresholds beyond which an organism cannot transcend. So, sustainability, when applied in the biological context, will be seen to be defined by inflexible boundaries. If the degree of perturbation or stress makes it transcend the boundaries it loses its identity as an organism or an ecosystem.
Agrarian societies, with long histories, possess the credibility of having sustained themselves successfully under the rigour of survival in a natural world. The looming problem for the future is that the model chosen for sustaining the future global agrarian society is an energy and resource-demanding production system, while no investment is being made to research, building on traditional systems.
The burgeoning populations of the future may have no other option than high energy input agriculture to sustain them, simply because we have not invested in examining any other option. Some of the reasoning may lie in thinking that feeding a rapidly growing world population, a socioeconomic problem, can be resolved through reductionist, technological approaches. However, it is becoming evident that the present resource-expensive system of agrarian production will become increasingly more expensive to maintain. This phenomenon is a result of increasing input costs and decreasing productivity of the land. The predicted global climate effects will also make large areas of monocultures risky. There may be value in examining other options.
The value in maintaining diversity is the constant availability of a large number of options. This applies equally well, whether in the case of marketing products or responding to disease or episodic climatic events. The question to be examined by designers of global society is ‘how much diversity can be conserved within the emerging global society? And ‘how much external energy is spent on the production of food? If the lessons learnt at the level of local societies are anything to go by, the goals of sustainability will be achieved best by conserving the diversity of global society and reducing the need for fossil energy to produce food.
The simplistic drive of modern agriculture, that accepts food production as merely an output of chemical applied to the soil, has lost touch with reality. Today we witness a radical change in the practice of agriculture. Both the ‘Green Revolution’ and ‘Industrial Agriculture’, with their emphasis on energy subsidies to overcome constraints in increasing production, have brought about an enormous change in the biodiversity and sustainability status of agriculture. The impact of this high energy input, low biodiversity agriculture has not only been felt by the sustainability of ecosystems. It has also impacted the sustainability of cultural systems. The ethics of such changes have largely gone unaddressed.
Ethics is loose currency in a world justified only by ‘objective’ science, to justify profits. Yet, it is this very blind faith in ‘objectivity’ that has contributed to the collapse of social relations as seen in the ever-increasing crime rates and social dislocation in ‘developed’ societies. This dilemma is brought into focus by the question posed by Upali Senanayake at the first conference on Agricultural Sustainability, answering a question as to ‘what is so important in maintaining ethics as a value in an objective scientific community’. He answered with the question; “If you are completely ‘objective’ and place no value in ethics, then how can I trust you? By this question, he highlighted the value of ethics in maintaining social contracts.
In a country where farmers produce food for themselves, without toxins, while growing food with heavy doses of toxins separately, for the market, it demonstrates a mindset totally devoid of ethics. To meet the right to consume poison-free food, not only do we have to look for policies that safeguard this right, we also need farmers with a sense of ethics and responsibility towards those who consume the food they produce.
By Hasini Lecamwasam
Improving higher education in Sri Lanka is not only important, but essential and long overdue. However, seeking to achieve higher ‘quality’ by ‘form-ising’ the performance of teachers (or the practice of forcing the entire teaching-learning exercise into forms designed to communicate exactly what and what transpires in a classroom) may not be able to bring about the desired change. A new set of four forms introduced recently to this end requires, among other things, drawing up a minutely detailed plan of each and every lesson to be delivered in class, aligned with the Course Learning Outcomes (CLOs), in turn, to be aligned with the Programme Learning Outcomes (PLOs), which should all then be tied to the graduate profile, or the kind of graduate we seek to ‘produce’ at the end of it all. This may, on the surface of it, sound reasonable enough and not encourage serious debate or resistance because, after all, it is only some forms that need to be filled.
Form by tedious form, however, the teaching-learning process at state universities is becoming increasingly constricted, fragmented, monitored, controlled. In this piece, I wish to briefly ponder on the implications of these requirements and the larger trends they signal, while also attempting to reflect on what instead we may do to ensure ‘quality’ in the delivery of higher education.

The problem with form-ation
The larger ‘Quality Assurance’ (QA) landscape in which these developments take place was discussed in detail in an earlier Kuppi Talk by Kaushalya Perera. In a nutshell, QA seeks to standardise education such that study programmes can be assessed against each other, assigned numbers, and ranked accordingly. The deployment of overarching yardsticks for programmes with hugely varying mandates, methods, and content has been the subject of much critique lately the world over, not the least due to its rather warped understanding of ‘quality’ as something that can be objectively established through metrics and audits.
While I do not question the bona fide motives behind the initiative taken with the aforementioned forms, I do think serious reflection on where these developments push us in the longer term is needed. My primary reservation here has to do with the impact of this lesson-wise breakdown on the creative and democratic exercise that the teaching-learning process is supposed to entail. When each topic is broken down into such fine detail prior to the actual occurrence of the ‘lesson’ (for want of a better word), outcomes are foreclosed rather than collectively and organically evolving in the course of the ‘lesson’, which is particularly important to many of the subjects offered in the Arts Faculties. Exactly how many of us are actually quite so democratic in our classrooms is a valid question in this regard, and one I will return to. The point for me here, however, is that for those who do have a sincere commitment to such a democratic classroom environment, such forms and the limiting of the teaching-learning experience they constitute, may be tantamount to strangulation.
Even if the majority of us admit to being very controlling in our classrooms anyway, does that justify going one step further with these forms and institutionalising such control? Should not our commitment be to the emancipatory ideal, rather than simply what most are on board with? There should be meaningful space for creative, organic, and democratic teaching-learning processes to unfold for teachers who wish to make that choice, and for students to explore and think beyond the teacher’s frame of thinking. Micromanaging beyond the general content of a course (laid down in enough detail in the course syllabus) is inimical to even a possibility of democracy existing in the classroom and within the larger university space.
This complete subservience of the teaching-learning process to red tape signals a larger and troubling trend of corporatisation. Corporatisation may be defined as the restructuring of a publicly owned institution to be managed as a business place would be, with a view to privatising in the long term. In state universities, this shift is couched in the supposedly ‘progressive’ language of student-centered approaches and interactive classrooms, hijacked from the democratic pedagogy of the likes of Paulo Freire, but bereft of any of the emancipatory politics within which these methods assume meaning. Despite the use of these catch-phrases, however, such minutely detailed forms signal a return to an extremely teacher-centered model due to the absence of the possibility for students to meaningfully influence the outcome of a lesson, as it is predetermined for them.
The result, as the Kannangara report worried with remarkable foresight some 80 years ago, is students “with much knowledge and little understanding. They have not read books; they have “studied” texts. They cannot write, they produce essays after a set style. They can answer questions but not question answers … Their imagination has been stunted, their originality suppressed, their capacity for thought undeveloped, their emotions inhibited.”

What alternative can we propose?
A valid question countering what little resistance there is to form-ation asks how we can ensure the education we currently deliver is of an acceptable standard, and that everybody observes such. There seems to prevail tacit and widespread agreement that the ‘democratic nonsense’ within universities is what has allowed many to hide behind debates, deliberations, appeals to creative freedom, and so on, without actually doing their work.
In my view, this is an arbitrary causation to draw. Blaming internal democracy for negligence of duties fails to take into account the highly anti-democratic practices at universities that may better explain such behaviour.
Specifically, I think it is the rigidly entrenched hierarchy within universities that blocks the possibility of even dialogue, let alone debate, particularly when it comes to holding those higher-up in the ladder accountable for their actions (or the lack thereof, as the case may be). Hierarchy is why, among many other things, students cannot question the content or the methods chosen by their teachers. As previous Kuppi Talks have endeavoured to show, hierarchy is silently, and therefore very effectively, observed at every level, ensuring the trumping of students by teachers, juniors by seniors, women by men, minorities by the majority, and originality by tradition. It impedes questioning, stifles dissent, and smothers alternative thinking altogether. The problem, therefore, is not that we have too much democracy in universities, but too little of it.
We must make a sincere and sustained effort to radically democratise the university space by relaxing the classroom to allow open and honest exchange between students and teachers; changing the relations of power between seniors and juniors, starting with undoing the practice of deferential treatment; refusing to tolerate snide and not-so-subtle references to ways of dressing and similar gendered remarks; questioning the exclusive use of the majority language in official communications, as a starting point. In doing so, we would be subverting the crippling hierarchy that inhibits thought and practice within the university. Such a radical change geared towards improved quality through mutual accountability, for me, is the only acceptable way of introducing accountability to a space that, admittedly, sorely lacks it.

(Hasini Lecamwasam is attached to the Department of Political Science, University of Peradeniya)
Kuppi is a politics and pedagogy happening on the margins of the lecture hall that parodies, subverts, and simultaneously reaffirms social hierarchies.
Covid-19 has claimed many lives, in our part of the world. Quite a few musicians, too, have had to face the music, where this deadly virus is concerned.
However, one is perturbed with the setup seen on some of our TV shows, especially where musicians are concerned.
The Covid-19 guidelines are never adhered to – no masks, no social distancing, etc.
There were reality shows held, post pandemic, where judges were seen even hugging their favourite contestants – with no masks.
With the virus turning deadly, some of the judges took to only wearing face shields. And, we now know the results of their stupidity.
By their irresponsible behaviour (wearing only face shields), they seem to be setting a trend for others to follow.
The question being asked is what are the health authorities doing? Why haven’t such folks been taken to task!
If the man on the street is arrested for not wearing a mask, how come these law-breakers go scot-free!
If wearing a mask is a hassle in an air conditioned setup, then such shows should be put on hold, or held virtual…live stream, zoom, from home, etc., and not with the participation of several artistes, in a studio.

Why Sri Lanka is losing many European tourists
Beware of Dulla  
SLC keen to help Pakistan and looking for a window
‘Manike mage hithe’; Amaradeva amathakado?
Nihal Samarasinha appointed Hon. Consul
Grave crisis faced by Agriculture Sector
Acquisition of Yugadanavi power plant and right to build new LNG terminal: US firm says agreement finalised
LNG hot potato on Sri Lanka’s lap



Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.