The role of education in rebuilding post-conflict peace and
stability
Text of a
presentation by Prof Rajiva Wijesinha MP at a Round Table Discussion
organized by Aide et Action International at Kathmandu, September 29th
2011
Sri Lanka has recently emerged from a long struggle against
terrorism, and is deeply conscious that measures must be taken to
prevent terrorism being revived. Given what all our people suffered, we
must ensure security for them, and we therefore make no apologies for
maintaining the security apparatus at the appropriate levels. This is
especially vital in a context in which external threats continue,
supported sadly by politicians in foreign countries who are concerned
about winning votes and therefore continue to pander to those who funded
terrorism in the past.
Prevention much better than cure
At the same time, we know that prevention is much better than cure,
and that the terrorism that troubled us for so long might have been
avoided had successive governments not been insensitive to the problems
of those who turned against the state and even took up arms against it.
After all, the principal proponents of conflict in the problems many
societies have faced in recent years are those who feel alienated from
the state because of deprivation. Measures to alleviate such deprivation
are therefore not only a moral compulsion for governments that derive
their authority from the people, they are also essential from a
practical point of view.
We should treat education as a means of empowerment, not simply
as a tool for equipping
youngsters with the capacity in join the workforce. |
Based on this obvious truth, I believe education has to focus on two
distinct priorities. The first is to promote equity, by ensuring that
quality education is available to all, and in particular to those who
are, or who feel themselves, deprived. The second is to ensure that the
privileged are aware of the advantages of an equitable society in which
opportunities are available to all.
The first objective should in theory be easy, but the history of all
our nations indicates that great difficulties lie in its way. If I might
dwell for a moment on Sri Lanka, the inequities of our education system
have caused much resentment, but this has played itself out in different
ways. Ironically, efforts to overcome inequities have led to other
problems, in a pattern that I have found all too common. Simplistic
solutions that are implemented because of great problems all too often
cause other problems.
Education system
In Sri Lanka, we had an education system which provided English
medium education to just a few. Politicians way back in the forties
proposed therefore that education should be compulsorily in Sinhala, the
language of the majority. When it was pointed out that that would be
unfair to Tamils, they readily agreed and instead made Sinhala or Tamil
compulsorily the medium of instruction. This was meant to be fair to
Tamils, but it resulted in generations of Sinhalese and Tamils growing
up unable to communicate with each other. With Sinhalese the language of
administration, Tamils were left out when it came to government jobs.
And, even when Tamil was made an official language, for people
straitjacketed in monolingualism, providing and obtaining services to
and from their fellow citizens was nigh impossible.
Secondly, with English being a world language, the privileged
continued to obtain English education through their own resources.
Thus rural children of both communities fell further behind in the
race for lucrative jobs. This led to two Sinhalese youth insurrections,
one in the early seventies, the other in the late eighties. During this
period, English was known as the sword that cut people down.
Deep resentment
Indeed, so deep was the resentment against it, that there were those
who suggested it be abolished altogether. That would have led to
deprivation for everybody, given increasing globalization and the need
for new technologies most readily available in English. Fortunately in
the nineties we realized our folly and changed language policies, to
encourage the learning of all three languages in schools, and to permit
English medium education again in government schools too. Needless to
say, from the time when English medium was finally abolished in
government schools, the private sector began something called
International Schools - politicians who would not change the
straitjacket in which the deprived were confined blithely sent their
children to such international schools, thus perpetuating both the fact
and the perception of continuing privilege, continuing deprivation.
This absurd dichotomy was abolished about a decade ago, but though in
theory now all schools can provide education on lines that were earlier
available only to those who could afford to pay for it, we have not gone
ahead with the reforms that would make this practically possible. Most
strikingly, we have not taken steps to ensure that there will be
sufficient teachers. We continue to say that we will do better in the
future, and when there are sufficient teachers we will make all things
available to all children, but we fail to register that after decades of
trying, the situation has only got worse.
Fundamental problem
One fundamental problem is that we are still stuck in the idea that
teachers can only be produced by the state, even though the state simply
does not have the resources to produce enough good teachers for all
sectors of society.
Given the demand for them, teachers of important subjects gravitate
to towns, and once again it is the rural children who are deprived.
This is obviously true not only with regard to English, but also with
regard to mathematics and science, both of which are increasingly
important in the modern world. We must therefore develop imaginative
methods of creating more teachers of such subjects, and ensuring their
deployment in the right places. Sadly we have ignored an obvious
mechanism for this, which is a focus on potential teachers from deprived
areas, who could then be deployed in precisely those areas where the
more privileged will not serve.
False, insensitive argument
The argument against this is that such persons are comparatively ill
educated, and therefore would not make good teachers. I find such an
argument both false and insensitive. If such persons are comparatively
ill educated, it is not their fault, and remedial action should be
taken, perhaps through special schools that concentrate on the areas
that need improvement. And then, surely, having some teachers in place,
even if they are not perfect, would be better than the present
situation, which is one where there are no teachers at all in poorer
areas.
I cannot indeed understand why we have not moved to teacher based
recruitment to schools, which would prevent the current situation in
which teachers posted to deprived schools spend much time and deploy
much influence to get themselves transferred.
Instead, present practices mean that those from areas which have
historically been deprived continue to be deprived of the knowledge they
need to advance.
In addition, we are lagging behind in the soft skills that a good
education should also provide, which would enable one to compete on
equal terms in the job market.
When the state imposes rigid curricula on all education, it naturally
stresses subjects that can be measured in the traditional examination
system. Other skills are not valued, and the result is that students
have paper qualifications that are of little use in the job market.
Commercial break
In that regard, if I might introduce a commercial break, as it were,
I would like to emphasize the importance of the model followed by Aide
et Action, which has arranged this Round Table Discussion. In training
youngsters for vocations, they also include other skills, of
communication, of management, of cooperation.
They encourage discussions that develop personality, they foster
understanding of society as well as of technical capacity. Above all,
they foster a spirit of entrepreneurship. This is vital, for we must
make sure that as many people as want to will have the skills to start
their own businesses, so that they can work where they want to, and
provide opportunities for others. At the same time, a spirit of
initiative will also be a plus point for those who work for others, and
in particular for those who join the ranks of migrant labour in other
countries.
In short, we should treat education as a means of empowerment, not
simply as a tool for equipping youngsters with the capacity to join the
workforce. Providing universal education has for too long meant that
governments are content to ensure that basic literacy is provided at
primary level. In the modern world, literacy is not enough, we have to
work towards productive education for all, which means continuing
training for job markets of increasing sophistication.
Peace education
The second area which peace education should encompass is that of
promoting positive attitudes. This often takes the form of encouraging
what is termed multiculturalism. That in itself is a good idea, and
certainly the need to promote tolerance of others is vital. But I
believe for too long we in the East have accepted as gospel what I see
as a Western ‘othering’ approach that sometimes suggests conflicts are
endemic in society.
What I mean was expressed graphically by the distinguished Hindi
writer Nirmal Verma who wrote in ‘India and Europe: some reflections on
the Self and the Other’, in 1993, that ‘Sartre’s famous statement, “hell
is the other”, carries a strong echo of Hegel, who always defined one’s
identity as “identity against the other”, either to be appropriated or
to be destroyed. By defining the identity of the self in this manner,
however, a European finds himself entrapped in his own contradiction; if
he succeeds in completely subjugating the other, the identity of his own
self becomes dubious. He wants to become whole by destroying the other,
but without the other, he becomes nothing.’
The world view
On the world view that Verma characterizes as Western then, we
recognize differences and exacerbate them. This is of course a better
approach than one that either denies differences exist, or else
recognizes them and tries to suppress them. That approach has led to
much suffering, much resentment, much violence.
But, as Verma indicates, there is another world view, which is much
more tolerant and which I believe should govern our concept of
pluralism. His argument was that, in the East, ‘The self was always
accepted as self-referential; the “other” was neither a threat to their
identity, nor a source of confirmation of their uniqueness. This was
very different from the European notion of the “other”, an inalienable
entity external to oneself, which was both a source of terror and an
object of desire.’
On such a world view, we can recognize that differences exist, but
these are less important than what makes us kin, namely our common
humanity. We respect differences not because they mark us out as
different from each other, but because they are part of what makes us
human.
There is no mould into which each of us fits, in terms of being part
of a particular group. However we define the various groups to which we
belong, we must recognize that there are overlaps, that characteristics
can be shared, that we have much in common with those of what we
consider other groups, as well as differences. We are unique as
individuals, and do not need confirmation of the validity of our
identity through association with a group or dissociation from other
groups.
Asian approach
In short, I think in any education that we inculcate to promote
peace, we should emphasise an Asian approach that works in terms of
concentric and overlapping circles in establishing identities. This
means that the promotion of identity can contribute to more widely
spread benefits, and will encourage synergy rather than the entrenchment
of hostility and suspicion in the face of promotional initiatives.
We should promote cooperation then not in terms of concessions, but
rather because it advances the interests of everyone. I suspect that
this is difficult to apprehend in terms of the goal oriented thinking we
tend to inculcate. We need more attention to lateral thinking skills,
and need to incorporate this as well as problem solving into materials
used in schools. Analysis and innovation should be encouraged, in the
context of cooperative learning and experimentation. This will I hope
contribute to lessening of the sense that privileges need to be guarded,
that life is a zero sum situation in which we have always to be on the
lookout for those who would limit our own success.
Conscious of differences
Sri Lanka, I should mention, has comprehensively destroyed the idea
of learning through cooperation. We keep our peoples distinct, not only
by straitjacketing them in different mediums of instruction, but also by
religion. Thus we have Sinhala medium schools and Tamils medium schools
for Tamils, and also Tamil medium schools for Muslims. It is no surprise
then that the three communities grow up conscious of the differences
between them rather than the fact that they are all Sri Lankan.
In this regard we should remember how dramatically American society
has changed because of the determination of the state in the sixties to
desegregate schools. It is difficult now to imagine how stratified
American society was then, with prejudice rampant everywhere, services
refused to the blacks with no second thought. The segregation
contributed to a deep cultural divide, as was apparent for instance in
the fact that through the seventies hardly any blacks ventured into a
place like Disneyland. Of course it could be argued that if the values a
society shares are only those of Disneyland, one has not achieved much.
But the fact that overlaps have begun, that people are aware of common
feelings and ideas, has much to do with the fact that people of
different communities learn together, and register the commonalities as
much as the differences.
Plea from the principals
Let me conclude then with a plea from the principals of different
communities I met in a war torn area of Sri Lanka. It was an area of
multicultural habitation, of Sinhalese and Tamils and Muslims, who had
been torn apart when the Tiger terrorists invaded the place and seemed
to privilege the Tamils against the others, though as we know the Tigers
were as ruthless to Tamils who did not follow their dictates as to
others.
A year after the conflict there had ended, I visited the place and
found the Sinhala and the Tamil and the Muslim principals all without
sufficient staff. What they suggested was one English medium school,
since then the number of teachers required - given that the numbers of
students in each of the three schools was so small - would not increase
and they could make do with what they had. The students would learn
together, they said, and they would learn in a language that would
assure them all of a brighter future.
Living companionably
Training the teachers required would be a saving, I reflected, in the
long run given that fewer teachers would need to be deployed. But even
if English medium was not adopted, bringing the children together in one
school, even with two mediums for most subjects, would still be helpful.
But this was not something our hidebound system could conceive of. So
the seeds of possible conflict will continue to be sown, and the
deprived will once more feel alienated from the state if a catalyzing
moment occurs again. We must pray that it will not, but it would make
sense also to plan our education better to help our people to learn and
work and live together companionably.
|