9th May 1999

• The crisis in our universities
• The kovil controversy at N' Eliya

The crisis in our universities

The reason for this short note is the latest set of amendments that have been proposed to the Universities Act (No. 16 of 1978), but a broader discussion on the contemporary politico-social culture of Sri Lanka would be necessary to see this in perspective. I hope others interested in the long-term evolution of our society will give their views.

There is no doubt that our universities are in crisis, but this is not a recent phenomenon. We may recall that when the University of Ceylon was first established, it was as a result of a prolonged national debate that it was decided to site it at Peradeniya, and not at Colombo. The University was a national project, but the expectations went far beyond the mere satisfaction of national needs. The University of Ceylon was conceived as an institution aiming to serve the pursuit of knowledge at the highest international level, for that was the vision of its founders. These high ideals were soon forgotten, and within a short span of about twenty years, by the mid-sixties, internal dissension within the university had led to the first attempts at political interference, with tragic results. Then again, throughout the seventies, the university existed "in transition", until the present Universities Act No. 16 of 1978 came into effect.

By this time, profound changes had taken place in society. One incident that reflected the changed situation is clearly sketched in my memory. Dr. Stanley Kalpage who had been appointed Chairman designate of the University Grants Commission had also been asked to draft a new Universities Act, and he visited a number of University campuses and other institutions prior to doing so. I met him at the Sri Lanka Association for the Advancement of Science. I was surprised by his attitude to the universities, and I made only one request, that in drafting the new act, he should attempt to arrive at one that will outlast the government, for, from the mid-sixties onwards, University Acts have changed with each change of government! His response to this was the most unexpected. His very brief reply was "This government is not going to change." He had forgotten that the previous government that came to power in 1970 had also thought the same. Perhaps the present authorities too need to be reminded of the impermanence of all conditioned constructs.

Given these circumstances, the resulting Universities Act No. 16 of 1978 was not altogether bad, even though it was a far cry from the original Act of 1942.

In the event, the 1978 Act did not even last the full lifetime of the government in its original form. It was very badly mutilated in 1985, to provide for greater political control and for the suppression of dissent. These in turn led to a vastly increased level of violence and disruption that lasted until the amendments were finally dropped in 1989 and 1990 and the 1978 Act more or less restored.

The universities, and the act that governs them, certainly need to change if they are to play a useful role in society. The changes need to be far-reaching and perhaps even painful, but such change should be in the opposite direction to that proposed in the current amendments now before parliament.

We need more, not less, autonomy; but we also need to build in accountability. It was recently reported that one Vice Chancellor had stated, while ordering the closure of his university that he would continue to be paid his salary, even though the university remains closed! Presumably the Minister, with all his enhanced powers under the new amendments, will also continue to draw his salary even if all the universities are closed, as did happen between1985 and 1989.

We also need to remind ourselves of the broad aims of university education as it is understood throughout the world. Very few of us are aware that the University Grants Commission, in the early nineties, changed the stated aims of higher education from "the pursuit of truth" to "meeting the requirements of the job market". Not only had it forgotten what the aims of education are, but it had also forgotten the bitter lessons of the introduction of "job oriented courses" in the seventies.

A broader discussion on the contemporary politico-social culture of Sri Lanka is necessary. One such aspect that needs urgent addressing is that of access to information and the right of participation in decision making. The fact that most of the universities are not functioning normally even today due to a strike by a section of their employees has not been reported adequately in the government controlled press. The proposed amendments to the Act have not been discussed at all among the academic community, even though a tradition of such discussion has existed up to now. This is perhaps intentional and is part of the new culture of dominance, for one reason that has been given for the lack of information on another important set of reforms, the general educational reforms, is that prior information gives rise to objections from the public!

One fact that needs to be borne in mind is that over the last fifty years, every time that greater political control over the universities has been attempted, it has inevitably led to greater instability, violence, and finally the total breakdown of the system. It is indeed a tragedy that we never seem to learn from the experiences of the past.

It is still not too late to withdraw the proposed amendments, initiate a wide public discussion, and institute proper and well considered reforms in higher education. The ongoing reforms in general education also need to be reviewed with public participation.

I would wish to end with a brief quotation from Enid Mumford, Emeritus Professor of the University of Manchester and Senior Visiting Fellow at the Manchester Business School:

If a group dedicated to 'order' has to interact with other groups dedicated to disorder, then the first group is likely to be traumatised and may have difficulty in surviving. Communitarianism is only possible when interacting groups are not too far apart in their objectives and behaviour. (Enid Mumford: Systems Design - Ethical tools for Ethical Change, Macmillan, London, 1996, p. 19.)

Prof. H. Sriyananda,
Open University of Sri Lanka,
Nugegoda.

The kovil controversy at N' Eliya

In October 1998, it was reported that a "Ramapura - Hanuman - Sita" kovil-cum-tourist complex was to be built on a 30 to 35 acre site within a unique Man & Biosphere (MAB) Reserve adjacent to the Seetha-Eliya Oya at Seetha Eliya in N'Eliya.

This project was said to have been mooted by the Tourist Board in conjunction with some unknown Indian investors. The project was being done without any EIA (Environment Impact Assessment) or expert feasibility study regarding its tourist potential, its economic viability or its social implications.

On hearing of this project through press reports, a team of us rushed there and did a quick study. This area had come under my purview earlier when I was in charge of the Mahaweli Forestry & Environment Division of the Mahaweli Authority and was very familiar territory to me. People of the area were interviewed and relevant authorities contacted. A meeting was held with the Minister of Tourism Dharmasiri Senanayake on 28.12.98 at N'Eliya Kachcheri where the GA was also present. The Minister himself finally admitted that this project is non-viable and objectionable. Only the Chairman of the Tourist Board made a plea on its behalf. It was surprising that no feasibility study had been done by the Tourist Board and the Chairman was silent on this issue. An MP for N'Eliya district representing the Ceylon Workers Congress (of Mr. Thondaman) said that he too opposed the project due to the adverse impacts explained by us. All environmental societies of the District were represented and their members vehemently opposed this scheme. Thus, the Minister agreed to consult the President and cancel the project.

But we found that steps were being taken from time to time to revive this project. The latest slogan is that this is going to be a "Unity Kovil". Whether it would promote "unity" or cause much controversy and economic cum environmental disasters, remains to be seen.

Consider the massive problems and economic disasters we have had to face in the past due to unplanned or poorly planned activities.

Coming back to the Seetha Eliya project, we were informed that a few Indian journalists and tour operators had, on a short visit to Colombo, suggested that a tourist complex (Ramapura and Sita Kovil) be built at Seetha Eliya. They felt that it would attract 200,000 Indian tourists annually. The validity of this estimate is highly questionable.

The proposed site is adjacent to the existing small kovil along the N'Eliya-Hakgala road. On several visits to the site, it was observed that the new Hanuman Kovil was being built adjacent to the old Sita Kovil. This latter had been set up in 1910 on the road-stream reservation, thus making it an unauthorised structure in the first place. This kovil attracts much by way of contributions which appear to have been made by a few businessmen in N'Eliya.

According to a law promulgated in 1815 by the then Governor, Robert Brownrigg, no non-Buddhist monuments may be built anywhere within the former Kandyan provinces without express licence from the Governor (today, it is the President). This law is yet in force. Thus, both kovils are unauthorised structures, unless the President has given licence to construct them. In any case, such licence cannot be given for any construction within a MAB reserve.

It has to be stressed that this extensive area forms the greater catchment of the Mahaweli. The small Seetha-eliya stream that runs alongside the main road (behind the kovils) joins up with the Bomura-ella Oya to form the Dolgolle Oya which is one of the main tributaries of the Uma Oya.

If the complex is built, regional politicians and petty bureaucrats will begin allocating more land around the area for car-parks, hotels, guest houses, restaurants, boutiques, shops, toilets etc. Mobile shops (petti-kades) will spring up like mushrooms and motor garages and bus terminals will come up in time. Garbage will pile up, especially in the Seetha-eliya stream, which will also be used for washing vehicles and for bathing. The classic example is Kataragama, which today is a polluted garbage dump, replete with cholera, ganja, wild meat, pickpockets, kasippu and prostitutes. The adjacent Yala National Park is illegally used for procurement of wild game, ganja growing and timber extraction so as to supply Kataragama and its numerous 'pilgrims'. A similar fate awaits Seetha-Eliya.

Coming to the cultural aspect, it must be mentioned that India is full of Rama-Sita-Hanuman Kovils. Will Indians want to come all this way to visit a modern kovil, which has no historical validity, when they have thousands of their own? Sri Lanka has its own tourist attractions including our own historic sites which can be made attractive for Indians who would certainly like something different to what they already have.

Historically speaking, we are informed by experts such as Prof. Abhaya Ariyasingha (Professor of Archaeology, Kelaniya University) that the Ramayana is a myth and that this area (and even the whole of Sri Lanka) has nothing to do with this legend. Therefore, it is quite absurd for a government corporation to perpetuate myths in the hope of earning a few Indian rupees.

The important issue is that the term "Seetha" is mispronounced in English. "Seetha" (pronounced with a shortened 'a' at its end) means "cold" in Sinhala. Thus, "Seeta-Eliya" means "cold-plains" in Sinhala, which is exactly what it is. It has nothing to do with a legendary Princess "Sita". Also, "Seetha-Pokuna" means "cold-pond" and is a small pond found downstream from the kovil. It is not a pond where the legendary Sita bathed, as some conjecture. When climbing Sri Pada, readers would recall "Seetha-gangula", the icy cold river where one has to bathe. This too may one day be anglicised to "Sita"- gangula, where the legendary "Sita" bathed!

In this modern day, when we are on the threshold of the next millennium, we should not revert back to the stone-age and to monkey worship. Today, barely 17% forest cover remains on this island and we cannot "monkey" around with our fragile environment to construct monuments for legendary creatures and to perpetuate myths.

It is high time the government resorted to drawing up long-term plans for tourism and for conservation on a scientific basis.

Cecil Dharmasena

(The writer is a retired Deputy Director (Research), Department of Agriculture and former Director, Forestry & Environment, Mahaweli Authority).

Return to the Plus Contents