Developing prejudices through education

EDUCATION: Since its inception practically, the Government has had to handle a relentless series of assaults by the Tigers. Contrary to the myth spread by both the LTTE and its sympathizers in the opposition, the response has generally been admirable, combining commensurate military responses with a firm commitment to a negotiated settlement.

Unfortunately, the Tigers still continue to have an edge in terms of propaganda, which is why they have managed to dodge the question as to why they still refuse to come to talks.

However, the Government has in general managed to ensure that the international community understands the terrorists nature of the problem. Meanwhile, the President makes it clear that he sees all people in the country as his responsibility, as he indicated recently in emphasizing that he would provide medical assistance even to Tigers injured in the battle.

Sadly, a similar commitment to a pluralistic vision cannot be seen in some other crucial areas. Though the President cannot do everything, nevertheless he should realise that the positive achievements of the Ministries of Defence and Foreign Affairs will be nullified if he does not concentrate on winning the hearts and minds of the minorities, and in ensuring that future generations amongst the Sinhalese also understand the necessity of a pluralistic rather than a majoritarian outlook.

In this respect education is of vital importance. Sadly, in this area we seem to have gone backwards, after last year's change of government, in a manner that will justify the Tiger demand for a separate educational system.

Some time back, when it was reported to the NEC that the LTTE had begun printing its own textbooks for Social Sciences, it was agreed that, while this was undesirable, it was also understandable in a context in which, apart from not distributing textbooks in time to remote areas, the state had produced undeniably chauvinist texts.

In those days much energy was expended in getting the NIE authorities to accept that Elara should be included by name in the syllabus as a distinguished Sri Lankan king. Exhausting though that battle was, and the battle to introduce history as opposed to dogma into the texts, it seemed worthwhile when the EPD Commissioner mentioned that, in a visit to the North, he had been told by the Tigers that they now found the government textbooks acceptable.

More importantly perhaps the syllabus had also been modernised. In dividing Social Studies into three separate components, History and Geography and Life Competencies, there was an attempt to ensure learning on a par with what was happening in the rest of the world. In history for instance, the NIE had for long ignored important developments in the world that are crucial for our students to take their place in the modern globalised context.

Last year we had tried instead to ensure that, though Sri Lanka still occupied more than half the syllabus, students were also introduced to developments outside Sri Lanka, with both Asia and the West in the relevant historical periods that contributed to the Sri Lankan situation.

All that has now gone by the board. I was horrified last week when I received the new syllabuses for History in Grades 6 and 10, to be implemented in 2007. In the original version, 49 of the 60 periods were to be devoted to Anuradhapura, just two later being reduced. Initially six periods, raised later to 11 and then to 13, were to 'Introduce History' and for 'Land Marks of Human Development'.

This latter had three topics originally, for Hunters, Gatherers (the translation of what I had thought were herdsmen) and Farmers. Fortunately someone had then remembered River Valley Civilizations (also omitted in an earlier syllabus that the wonderful NIE had produced some years back), and written it in by hand.

Also written in by hand were the resources to be provided for students, namely pictures of these periods and videos of River Valley Civilizations, to be prepared by - guess who? - the NIE. No details are provided about what is to be taught.

After that the poor kids move straight into Anuradhapura, five periods for Aryan settlements (including Vijaya), eight periods for Pandukhabaya, 10 for Devanampiya Tissa (mainly about Buddhism), 12 periods for Dutugemunu, 8 periods for Agriculture and Irrigation (Vasabha, Mahasena, Dhatusena, Agbo I, Agbo II and Mugalan II) and four (reduced from six earlier) for Religious Developments.

I am happy to say that Elara figures, under Dutugemunu (along with Ruhuna), and Jain and Hindu Centres under Religion (though nothing about Christianity). There is no mention of Mantota or Kelaniya, of trade and transport, of the relations between legend and history, of archaeological evidence. Kasyapa, who would have been of great interest at that age, is also omitted.

The contrast between this syllabus, and the one prepared last year, by a committee of historians of recognized excellence, cannot be greater. That syllabus stopped with early settlements in Sri Lanka in Grade six, going on to Anuradhapura in Grade seven.

In Grade six it included attention to Sri Lankan Prehistory, cave paintings and pottery and tools as well as Balangoda Man. It also had much more about the world, the River Valley Civilisations of Mesopotamia and Egypt and India and China, with attention to the invention of writing and alphabets, the use of the wheel, and the birth of world religions.

It is conceivable that the new team, which is largely the old team that ensured that students have no historical knowledge whatsoever, has put some of this into Grade seven. Certainly, having shown no understanding of chronology in the past, and its relevance to causation, the NIE has probably decided that it doesn't matter what you learn when, or how.

Thus, we have the whole story coming back in Grade 10, another Introduction to History, this time talking of Sources, and the Historical Development of Sri Lanka upto the end of the Polonnaruwa Period.

In addition to all this, and Sri Lanka from the 13 to the 15 centuries, we have India from Aryans (nothing before them) to the Guptas, Islam and its impact on India, the impact of Buddhism and Hinduism on Asia (China and Japan for some reason being omitted), and then Europe from Feudalism to the Russian Revolution.

I shall return to the more pernicious implications of all this. But I believe it is imperative that the President puts a stop to such nonsense, if the enlightened approach he is displaying in other areas is not to prove useless.