Lanka doesn’t love India less, or China more - Part II:

Asia, not a playground for other countries

Text of a presentation by Prof. Rajiva Wijesinha, MP at the International Conference on India-Sri Lanka Relations: Strengthening SAARC Centre for Indian Ocean Studies (CIOS) Osmania University, Hyderabad, November 8-9, 2012

This is augmented by some Sri Lankans who fight the Cold War from the opposite side as it were. In part because of their understandable anger with the West for its efforts to prevent the eradication of terrorism, they forget India’s support for our struggle, and lump both together, while promoting a polarization that exalts China as the principal trustworthy ally. The fact that this is not at all what China wants is forgotten. In Geneva and elsewhere China has advocated working together with India, in a very different manner from what the West advocated in the polarizing days of the Cold War.

We then should more consistently affirm the inclusive policies that the President has formally laid down, namely a return to the Non-Alignment that the SLFP traditionally followed, with our closest relationships being with our closest neighbours. We should not allow Asia to be a playground for other countries, and in that context we must play an active role in building up understanding within SAARC as well as amongst other Asian countries.

It is essential for India to foster more positive approaches in other branches of government as well as Civil Society, to encourage think tanks to develop policy documents in this regard, and to promote economic links that will strengthen ties between our peoples.

Several factors unfortunately contribute to continuing misunderstanding and a failure on both sides to understand how we need to work together solidly to promote peace and security in South Asia. The first is the failure on the part of both sides to understand what inclusivity and pluralism should mean in Sri Lanka.

Technological education

This has necessarily to be different from what obtains in India. In both countries there were efforts to impose a hegemonic model of government, but the different circumstances in the two countries meant that this played out differently. In both countries language was the initial instrument of domination, but India soon enough realized that the imposition of one language was not going to work. I believe the absence of an efficient centralized school system contributed to this as much as the quasi-Federal structure of government. In addition the Nehruvian understanding of the need for advanced technological education meant that aspirations beyond the limitations of a single language were widespread, and prevented the chauvinism of monolingualism holding sway for a protracted period.

Unity in diversity

In Sri Lanka unfortunately we are still stuck in monolingual mindsets, which militate against the full participation in government that all citizens should enjoy. This is especially tragic because all decision makers understand the need for change, and this government in particular has formalized the need for bilingualism, thus giving teeth to the change in language policy that was the single most important reform of 1987. Unfortunately the trilingualism that was originally agreed on then was defeated by the opposition of the old left, still stuck in its anti-colonial mindset. Thus the opportunity for wider activity that could provide dynamic incentives for all to move beyond monolingualism was minimized.

More seriously, the continuing incompetence of the Ministry of Education to fulfil the current trilingual policy of the President means that the empowerment through language rights which all agree on is still held up. This is an area in which, with its now enlightened language polices and the expertise in language education developed over the years, India could contribute much more. But unfortunately Indian assistance is passive, and thus straitjacketed by continuing statism, without encouragement of alternative models of teacher supply and development.

Public servants

The same applies to training for public officials. I am aware that Indians too complain that their public service is not what it was, but comparing the capacity of Indian bureaucrats and their ability to conceptualize and initiate with those of Sri Lanka public servants makes clear how far we have fallen behind. This is especially sad, because the talent of our public servants is enormous, understandably so given the immense competition required to be appointed to established services. Unfortunately our training is limited, and suggestions to work together with India to develop collaborative mechanisms are confined to placements in India rather than the radical adjustments to our current training systems within Sri Lanka. In particular the need for better language and other soft skills is not yet understood here, which means that the capacity to study international developments and benefit from these is limited.

This is where SAARC could do much more, with institutions that work together to ensure high level skills in administrators, as well as common understanding of the political and social compulsions of the region. My understanding, from the brief period during which I served on the Board of one of the SAARC Centres, is that, with a few honourable exceptions, these contribute little to either development or mutual understanding. It is desirable therefore that SAARC commissions a serious study of the work of these Centres and tries to develop more effective systems of collaboration to share and develop best practice.

Tertiary education system

Whilst such collaboration may improve effectiveness, whilst also promoting mutual understanding, perhaps the single most important area in which such understanding is vital relates to political structures. The 13th Amendment to the Constitution, which was passed in 1987 following the Indo-Lankan Accord of that year, was intended to promote local empowerment, in a context in which centralized decision making had led to continuing neglect of many parts of the country. This was felt most strongly in Tamil majority areas, though the fact that we had two youth insurrections in Sinhala areas indicates that the sense of deprivation, and consequent bitterness, was nationwide.

This was exacerbated by a comparatively good general education system, which raised expectations, particularly in Tamil areas, only to find them shattered by our moribund and limited tertiary education system, and the statist control of the economy which left little room for independent initiative. Though the economic dispensation has changed, our education system has still failed to keep pace with modern employment needs, and this I fear will be what will lead to continuing unrest, amongst all communities. Here again we need to learn from India which, while its general education still lags behind ours, has encouraged the development of different mechanisms to increase opportunities for all segments of the population.

Unfortunately, instead of looking at practical needs, our politicians on all sides are obsessed with theoretical models and the protection of personal turf. This has prevented educational reform, and it stands in the way of meaningful political reform. I suppose this is understandable, since their primary concern is the power that they will wield, and to what extent this will have to be shared with others. But what the country as a whole should be concerned with is how power can be conferred upon the people.

To be continued