Features
Easter Reflections on Human Rights: No one is without sin, but everyone is throwing stones!
by Rajan Philips
The caption above is from the gospel story in John about Jesus exposing the male and religious hypocrisies of the scribes and the Pharisees, who were trying to trick the Nazarene to say yea or nay to their question whether they could punish, without trial, and only the woman for an alleged act of adultery. John 8:1-11 is not the assigned gospel reading for Easter Sunday. But it is appropriate reading for secular reflections on a religiously significant day and in the current global context of human rights assertions, disputes and controversies.
Sri Lanka is in the vortex of all of these, even though its immersion is hardly consequential globally but hugely so nationally. There is also the added and very painful twist because today is the second anniversary of the 2019 Easter bombings in Sri Lanka. And in many parts of the world for the second year in succession, Covid-19 and its new mutations are preventing full congregations celebrating their traditional Easter service.
There is really no serious parallel between the dispute over adultery in Judea and the contemporary disputes over human rights except for the symbolism of throwing stones. In the old patriarchal way of dealing with adultery the woman is condemned to double jeopardy and any man on the street gets to feel entitled to throw stones at her. The gospel story pushes back on men by questioning their entitlement when they themselves are not without sin. Worse, they are the perpetrators. In the matter of human rights, there is hardly a government that is without the sin of violating human rights, but that does not stop governments from throwing stones at one another. And the victims of human rights violations are caught in the middle, in the crossfires of often cynical realpolitik stones, with little agency and even less reparations.
New Cold War
There are opinions that human rights are becoming the defining premise for a new Cold War between the US and China. The world is a different place now for a replay of the old Cold War that involved the decoupling and the disengagement of the US and the Soviet Union, and the division of world polities into two camps behind the two superpowers. The world is far too integrated by markets to become decoupled and disengaged all too easily. What is already evident is the disposition of governments to selectively engage in some matters and disengage in others, to cooperate on some issues and confront over others, and to be part of different alliances for different goals and objectives. The Biden Administration has said as much in signaling its approach towards China.
There could be a restatement of the old wisdom that there are no permanent allies or enemies or camps, but only permanent interests. This is evident in the stone throwing over human rights. In what some observers are calling ‘a big thing in international politics,’ the US, EU (with its 27 countries), Britain and Canada have combined to impose sanctions on four Chinese officials and one state corporation for alleged human rights abuses of Uyghur Muslims in China’s Xinjiang province.
Sanctions targeting individuals are the new tool of choice to deal with human rights violations. There are now sanctions imposed against Russians, North Koreans and the military junta in Myanmar. The US began this procedure after the Magnitsky Act, a bipartisan US legislation that President Obama signed into law in 2012 to sanction Russian officials who were accused of killing Sergei Magnitsky, a Russian tax lawyer, in a Moscow prison in 2009. Although controversial, the law authorizes the US government to act globally against individuals accused of human rights violations by freezing their assets and banning them from entering the US. Other western countries, including the EU, have since developed their own sanction mechanisms.
China has hit back with its own sanctions but has escalated its rejoinder to include political leaders and parliamentarians in the EU, Britain and in Canada. The unconventional escalation is in keeping with China’s aggressive global outlook and its ‘wolf warrior’ diplomacy in western capitals that have become the hallmark of Xi Jinping presidency. Xi has emerged as the most powerful Chinese leader after Mao, and he has transformed China’s global outlook in his own assertive image, quite different from the approach of peaceful cooperation and development favoured by predecessor Hu Jinato.
The transformation in China may have come about after Trump became President in America. During President Obama’s first term, Xi Jinping was Vice President in China and he frequently met with Joe Biden, then Obama’s Vice President. Biden is said to be the western leader who has spent the longest time and travelled together with Xi. But Biden has to contend with a different Xi now. At the same time, unlike any other President before him Biden carries on his shoulders the expectations of human rights organizations and activists. This became evident during his first call with Xi lasting two hours, during which Biden reportedly highlighted the issues of Hong Kong and Uyghurs. And gloves came off when their foreign secretaries met face to face in Alaska.
Along with sanctions, China is also being accused of genocide against Uyghur Muslims. The paradox here is in the ‘othering’ harassments of Muslim citizens in Western countries even as sanctions are imposed against China for its treatment of Uighur Muslims. So much so, “The Jew, Europe’s prototypical ‘other,’ has largely been replaced by the Muslim ‘other’,” according to the Israeli Political Scientist Amikam Nachmani. The paradox is also that India, while being a Member of the Quad (with Australia, Japan and the US) for the containment of China in Asia, will not join others in sanctioning China over Muslims. The Modi government in India is not ‘without sin’ in its treatment of India’s Muslims. Nor will Pakistan that calls out for international attention to the plight of Muslims in India’s Kashmir, raise its voice or throw a stone in support of Muslims in China’s Xinjiang.
There is more. While joining the Quad group as a strategic measure to counter China’s power in Asia, India is not abandoning its old ties with Russia for arms production. Nor is it going to risk or reduce its growing economic ties with China despite the border clash setbacks in Tibet. Australia is the first western country to seriously challenge China over the handling of Covid-19, and has been economically punished by China in return. Yet, while being part of the Quad for the containment of China, Australia will do everything not to lose the huge Chinese market for its exports.
It is the same with the EU and all of its member countries. More so with post-Brexit Britain looking for new trade agreements, and where Prime Minister Johnson is being ridiculed by his critics for going soft on Hong Kong for trade rewards from Beijing. In sum, the current global circumstances are not contributing to the formation of permanent blocs and alliances among countries. Rather, countries seem to be open to choosing between allies and alliances depending on specific issues and their specific interests.
Closer home, 11 of the 22 countries that voted for the UNHRC resolution on Sri Lanka have signed up for China’s intercontinental Belt & Road Initiative (BRI) that includes a total of 140 countries. The eleven countries are: Armenia, Austria, Bulgaria, Cote d’Ivore, the Czech Republic, Fiji, Italy, Poland, Republic of Korea, Ukraine and Uruguay. Also, 18 of the 22 countries are new members without prior baggage. And a majority of the countries in every region either voted for the resolution or abstained from voting. China stood by the Sri Lankan government in Geneva and helps with currency swaps to tide over foreign exchange depletions. But Sri Lanka needs the key countries who canvassed for the resolution – to access their markets for Sri Lanka’s exports. Without them, the government will have to permanently depend on currency swaps.
Human Rights Genealogy
A common assertion in debates over human rights is that they are a creation of western countries and imposed on developing countries as a new form of domination. This is a false assertion and/or manifestation of ignorance. The Cold War history is replete with examples of subversion of human rights by western countries and the fight by non-western countries and their leaders to defend human rights against their subversion. There is also a tradition of social movements in developing countries to expand the scope of human rights by emphasizing public interest over property rights and to privilege cultural specificities over universal similarities. And specific to the current debate over UNHRC and human rights, Sri Lanka has a tradition of civil rights and human rights movements that can be traced to the 1970s, if not earlier.
As Easter recollections go, four men of the cloth played key roles in championing human rights and protesting against their violations. Bishop Lakshman Wickremesinghe became the face of the Civil Rights Movement whose moving forces were Suriya Wickremesinghe and that doughty courtroom defender of human rights, S. Nadesan, Q.C. Complementing Bishop Wickremesinghe were Bishop Lakshman Nanayakkara, Fr. Tissa Balasuriya, and Fr. Paul Caspersz, who were in the forefront of progressive Catholic action championing the goals of social justice, equality, workers’ rights, and, yes, human rights.
It is fair to say that the nucleus of the Civil Rights Movement was formed as a Sri Lankan protest response to the snuffing of the 1968 Prague Spring by the tanks of the Warsaw Pact countries. Then it was to protest against the forces of Yahya Khan trampling over what was then East Pakistan and soon to be Bangladesh. Strange as it may seem now, there were no domestic human rights issues to complain about. Everything changed with the JVP insurrection of 1971 and the deployment of the armed forces to put down the insurrection. The Tamil youth took their turn and went to lengths that no one could have imagined when Sri Lanka became a republic, one year after the insurgency. Human rights would no longer be a non-issue in Sri Lanka. And it was not the result of some neo-colonial imposition.
Features
Eastern University and the making of a culture of peace
by Jehan Perera
There is an important change in the way peace is being understood in Sri Lanka. The notion that peacebuilding is not simply the responsibility of governments, politicians and peace organisations, but is also a responsibility of educational institutions, appears to be permeating the consciousness of at least a section of the academic community. This was visible on International Peace Day at an event held at Eastern University by the Faculty of Health-Care Sciences. The event was unusual not least because the medical and nursing faculty of the university had decided that peacebuilding was relevant to its academic and professional responsibilities.
Peacebuilding has too often been treated as something undertaken after conflict, when the fighting has stopped and the immediate task is to rebuild relationships between communities. But peace cannot be sustained by governments and peace organisations alone. If it is to become long lasting, the values and practices of peace have to become part of the institutions through which a society educates its younger generations. Universities and other educational institutions are therefore important to peacebuilding. They are among the places where the foundations of a culture of peace can either be built or neglected.
The experience of the Faculty of Health-Care Sciences at Eastern University provides a practical example of what this can mean. Led by its Dean, Prof Thillainathan Sathaananthan, the faculty organised an event which went beyond the ordinary academic scope of a medical faculty. University academics are experts in writing project proposals and applying for research grants. On this occasion, the members of the Faculty of Health-Care Sciences used those skills to apply for a UNESCO grant that they won to conduct an International Peace Day event. The significance lies less in the Rs 200,000 grant than in the decision to use the university’s institutional capacity and resources to invest in peacebuilding. The event at Eastern University needs to be understood as more than a successful university programme. It represents a possible paradigm shift in peace thinking.
Institutional Commitment
The Peace Day event obtained the support of the university administration, including Vice Chancellor Prof P Peratheepan, and reached out to secondary schools in the vicinity to mobilise their attendance. The event itself was meticulously organised. There were cultural items including traditional and modern dance and song in the three languages, performed by combinations of solo, duet and multiple singers, dancers and actors drawn in part from nearby secondary schools. There was a panel discussion by senior academics on the general theme of peacebuilding and how to prepare for it. A discussion among the students followed, where each student spoke on behalf of a religion that was not theirs. This is significant because peacebuilding cannot remain an idea discussed by specialists at conferences. It has to become part of the way institutions educate and prepare people for life in a plural society.
The Faculty of Health-Care Sciences at Eastern University has provided a model through its Peace Medicine course modules that were introduced to the curricular as a compulsory core course over 10 years ago. Two senior academics, Dr Kuveriel Eliyas Karunakaran and Dr Thillainathan Sathaananthan, have written a book on “Peace Medicine- A Health Care Concern” that was published five years ago. Its Peace Medicine Module integrates principles of medical ethics, compassion, equity, social justice and community engagement into health education and practice. In his introduction, former Vice Chancellor of Eastern University, Prof T Jayasingam noted “This book is an introduction to a theme which had already been operating in the Faculty of Health Care Sciences as a course.”
Doctors, nurses and health workers know better than anyone the harm that war and violence does. They are the people who treat the wounds and trauma that violence leaves behind. In a hospital, a patient is not asked what their religion or ethnicity is before they are treated. Health care is one of the places where peace is practised every day. The Faculty has therefore found a way of connecting its professional responsibilities with the wider social responsibility of peacebuilding. The question is whether this experience can be replicated throughout the country, at universities and at other educational institutions, so that peacebuilding becomes part of the consciousness of education itself. If that happens on a sufficient scale, it can begin to generate a culture of peace that becomes increasingly difficult to reverse.
Local Action
The Eastern University event corresponded closely to the United Nations theme for this year’s International Day of Peace, “Invest in Peace – For Everyone, Everywhere, Every Day”, which honours the “everyday architects of peace”, people driving local action, laying the groundwork for stability and building lasting peace from the ground up. The emphasis on investment is important. An investment means that something is put in: time, courage and resources. There is no more violent conflict in Sri Lanka today. But the absence of war does not automatically produce a culture of peace. The factors that fed the country’s conflict have not disappeared from the world. Racism, corruption and the violation of laws and human rights are the raw materials of conflict. So too are unresolved grievances, discrimination and the failure to recognise the suffering of others.
A country that does not deal with its past does not escape it. The past can return in the next generation. This is why the experience of Eastern University needs to be replicated countrywide, both at universities and at other educational institutions. The objective should not be to turn every academic discipline into peace studies. Rather, peacebuilding needs to become part of the consciousness of education itself. Eastern University shows that a medical faculty can develop Peace Medicine. A law faculty can examine the relationship between justice, rights and peace. Faculties of education can prepare teachers to work in diverse communities, while the humanities and social sciences can examine the different narratives through which communities understand their histories. Every institution can find its own way of making peacebuilding relevant to what it teaches.
Sri Lanka has had many declarations, pledges and programmes in the past. What matters is whether these produce changes in behaviour and institutional practice. Peacebuilding requires confronting difficult issues rather than avoiding them. It requires respect for different identities, but also engagement across those identities. It requires dealing with grievances in the present while also addressing unresolved issues from the past. It requires truth, accountability, reparations and guarantees of non-recurrence. It requires people to learn that the rights of another community do not diminish their own rights. The International Peace Day event at Eastern University was evidence of a change in the way at least some academics in a part of the country deeply affected by war are thinking about their responsibilities. Peace needs to be invested in and the most important investment will be in the minds of those who will inherit the future.
Features
Quality assured education commodities
by Ahilan Kadirgamar
I have always noticed the little paper tags that are inside the packaging of some products that say quality assured or quality control. I often wonder who might have checked the product and stamped that tag, but I also forget the tag soon enough. Decades later, when I entered academia, I was taken aback by the emphasis placed on quality assurance in our universities. It is not something that could be forgotten and done away with; the entire university system is obsessed with quality assurance.
Beginning with the staff induction programme, quality assurance is drilled into the newly recruited lecturers. It is the norm, not seen as doing any harm and only trying to improve quality. It is accepted as given, and not questioned. Quality Assurance Cells and Committees are omnipresent and hover above the Departments and, at times, even the Faculty Boards. Quality Assurance reviews are feared by the Deans and Vice Chancellors. University life itself seems secondary to the rule of quality assurance. What do we make of this system of quality assurance and what are its implications for our university system?
Corporate speak
Universities globally have been going through major changes with neoliberal education policies. In many countries, universities increasingly became corporatised to be run like businesses in the 1980s. As state support for universities declined, cost cutting became the norm. They started hiring adjunct or part-time staff. Many public non-fee levying universities around the world began to charge fees. Decade by decade, tuition fees became more and more exorbitant, forcing students to take student loans. The total student debt in the United States now stands at close to US$ 2 trillion; which is about 20 times the GDP of Sri Lanka. As the higher education landscape transformed in the West, university administrations began to recruit Presidents, Vice Chancellors and administrative officials with corporate backgrounds and experience.
Such corporatisation of universities in the West has since been imported into countries like Sri Lanka, introducing a new corporate vocabulary, including quality assurance, graduate competencies, programme outcomes, intended learning outcomes, etc. University teaching has become secondary to documenting so-called outcomes. The teacher-student relationship, the environment of the lecture hall and even administering the university have been over-determined by the processes of ensuring quality. How did such major changes come about in such a short time? Indeed, academics of just two generation ago, would never have heard of these terms and processes in the Sri Lankan university system.
World Bank Trojan horse
Since the early 2000s there have been a number of World Bank projects that have drastically changed the character of Sri Lankan universities. Quality assurance as a central agenda within universities, and many other changes to the working of our universities, came through these World Bank initiatives. The Improving Relevance and Quality of Undergraduate Education (IRQUE) project and Higher Education for the 21st Century (HETC) project were two such earlier projects that set up the Quality Assurance and Accreditation Unit (QAAU) under the University Grants Commission (UGC) and established systematic quality assurance reviews for state universities. The public often thinks these are grants from the World Bank to modernise our universities. However, they are not grants but loans.
The most recent such project, Accelerating Higher Education Expansion and Development (AHEAD) is a US$ 100 million loan from the World Bank implemented from 2018 to 2023, which consolidated the quality assurance structures from the earlier projects. Furthermore, these projects are implemented with tremendous arrogance, prioritising their implementation over all other concerns in the universities, when the project over six years for example accounts for just one fourth of our budget allocation for universities this year.
The AHEAD project drastically changed course curricula, sought to increase student enrolment in science, technology, engineering, mathematics (STEM) disciplines, commercialise the university research agenda and create university-business linkages. All of this was pushed to supposedly help us face development challenges. We have heard the ideological attack on our universities and even students claiming they are “unemployable graduates”. These changes to our higher education system were supposedly going to create jobs and increase employment.
The irony of the AHEAD project is that just as it was ending in 2023, apparently after having reached its targets, the Sri Lankan economy was collapsing. The World Bank often gets the direction of causality wrong. It is the economy that creates jobs for graduates, and not the training or kind of graduates that create jobs. It is decades of World Bank policies, and those of its ideological twin the IMF, that have led to such high youth unemployment, not only in Sri Lanka but also in many other countries in the global South.
Sri Lanka entered an IMF agreement in March 2023 and started a new Country Partnership Framework with the World Bank in June 2023. These programmes have little to say about, and actively discourage, government initiatives that aim to create an industrial policy or an employment creation policy. Instead, they push for austerity measures, which not only restrict the allocation for education among other sectors, but also end up contracting the economy to the detriment of increasing employment. Their goal is the commercialisation of higher education, to make universities into businesses and run them like factories.
In this context, the ideology of quality assurance is powerful. The International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO), whose different standards are necessary for marketing, is the institution that came up with the concept of “quality assurance”. It promoted quality assurance as a process of identifying defected products. Therefore, when the World Bank promotes this conceptual framing, our students are, in fact, seen as products on the assembly line, with quality assurance processes aiming to prevent the release of defected products from the university system. For the US$ 100 million we borrowed for the AHEAD project and the many more million dollars in similar World Bank projects, there is no evidence of increased employment of graduates.
Commodity fetishism
Over a century and a half ago, Karl Marx critiqued the economic analysis prevalent at that time that associated some inherent or monetary value for commodities without considering the social relations that underlie the production of those commodities. Marx called this commodity fetishism. Furthermore, he theorised that such commodity fetishism was also a reason for the alienation of human beings from the world. If our labour and what we produce is seen devoid of the social relations that underlie them, we lose our connection with the people and the world. In this process we become alienated from what we produce and the world.
We are now in a world where our students themselves are fetishised as commodities for the market. Universities are no longer communities concerned about knowledge and human growth, but mere factories producing commodities, which have to be produced without defects to be marketed. In this way, quality assurance has become the cause for the alienation of students, academics and our universities themselves, from the larger relationship with our economy and society.
Our university system does need reform. It is grossly underfunded and not providing the financial support and facilities for our students. Universities have become hierarchical spaces without the academic freedom and democratic ethos necessary for producing knowledge. Academics and students need to engage more with their communities to make their learning and research meaningful, not to mention their contribution to and integration with society. However, when it comes to even questions of governance and regulation of the universities, such concerns are merely reduced to improving quality. In our contemporary times, this singular focus on quality assurance, as opposed to addressing the larger structural issues, is crippling our universities. There may be no way out, but to put back quality assurance where it started, those little tags on goods, to perhaps be noticed but quickly forgotten.
Ahilan Kadirgamar is a political economist and Senior Lecturer, University of Jaffna.
(Kuppi is a politics and pedagogy happening on the margins of the lecture hall that parodies, subverts, and simultaneously reaffirms social hierarchies)
Features
Thailand’s biggest new global star …
The entertainment scene, globally, is agog with excitement, and, why not!
Yes, a new global star has emerged … from Thailand, and she hit the headlines by winning America’s Got Talent.
Rattikarn Amloy, known to millions by her stage name Nene Royal, was crowned the winner of America’s Got Talent (AGT) Season 21 at the live finale at Pasadena Civic Auditorium, California, taking home the USD 1 million grand prize.
The 16-year-old rocker, from the holiday island of Phuket (I’ve been to Phuket, courtesy Tourism Authority of Thailand), has struck a power chord around the world, and is the first Thai national ever to win the hit NBC show.
She beat nine other finalists, including runner-up magician Geno Ploeger, after a blistering final performance.
Nene’s story is pure rock and roll fairy-tale. She says she picked up a guitar at age seven, fell in love at the first chord, and taught herself mostly by watching videos online. That dedication earned her a music scholarship to Kajonkiet International School Phuket.
Her audition at America’s Got Talent — a swaggering, shredding rendition of The Cranberries’ classic ‘Zombie’ — exploded online, amassing over 200 million views across AGT’s platforms, more than any act this season.
She kept wowing: ‘Hysteria’ by Muse, then ‘Black Hole Sun’ by Soundgarden which earned her Spice Girl Mel B’s Golden Buzzer, sending her straight to the live shows.
For the final, she unleashed ‘Seven Nation Army’ by The White Stripes. Judge Howie Mandel shouted: “You should win. Give her the million, America.” Mel B praised her “mysterious, mystical stage presence”.
And for the grand finale, she lived every teen rocker’s dream — performing on stage, alongside US rock giants Linkin Park.
When host Terry Crews announced her as winner, the teenager collapsed to the stage floor in tears. “I’m very happy and you know I’m emotional right now,” she said.
And Thailand erupted. Her school held watch parties, posting: “You did it, congratulations, champion. We are so proud of you.”
Even Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul sent a personal congratulation. He had earlier hosted Nene at Government House in July, where she played guitar while he sang a Thai rock song. His office said her talent “brought pride to Thai people.”
Corporate Thailand also rallied behind her — Charoen Pokphand Foods, owned by billionaire Dhanin Chearavanont, even rented a giant billboard in Times Square, New York, to cheer her on.
With her blistering guitar solos, rock-ballad shrieks and fearless spirit, little Nene Royal has just become Thailand’s biggest new global star.
What’s more, this amazing teenager will be bringing her powerful vocals, guitar skills and signature rock-metal style to the stage, as opening act, before one of the world’s biggest rock bands, America’s Avenged Sevenfold, in Singapore, on 13 October.
Unfortunately, we are still to see a local artiste, grab the spotlight, on a global scale … like Thailand’s Nene.
Yes, they do shine, but mostly on social media, and that, too, with the aid of AI (Artificial Intellegence).
-
News6 days agoMastermind Naufer Moulavi among 15 found guilty
-
Midweek Review6 days agoThileepan’s fast unto death: An authentic narrative that many missed
-
Latest News5 days agoShowers above 100 mm are likely at some places in the Western, Sabaragamuwa, Central and North-western provinces and in Galle and Matara Districts
-
Editorial6 days agoBig Bad Bills
-
Editorial5 days agoCrimes punished and unpunished
-
Features4 days agoBeyond traditional jobs: Why Sri Lanka needs to facilitate the gig economy
-
News6 days agoNo referendum needed for passage of 22 A: SC
-
Latest News6 days agoMs. P. M. Jayadeera (Engineer) appointed Director General of Irrigation
