Opinion

Orani Jansz – live wire of university English teaching programme

Published

4 years ago

2020/09/28

APPRECIATION

I am saddened to hear of the passing away of Orani Jansz, who became one of the dynamic coordinators of the English teaching programme in the universities. This is an opportunity to review the lessons we can learn from that era, as the same problems still exist today. I knew of Orani as a first year chemistry student in 1962 at the Colombo campus, when she was also a batch mate of Raddy Jansz and others in the General Science Qualifying programme. I was responsible for some of their chemistry lectures as well as chemistry practicals.

Orani Jansz was among those who were recruited to the ” English for all undergraduates” programme, launched in 1974, when I became the President of the Vidyodaya campus. I remember very clearly seeing the name of Orani Jansz in the list of applicants, and being agreeably surprised by it. We had diverse people, e.g., science graduates like Orani, and law students like Basil Fernando (now in Hong Kong) applying for teaching positions in the English project. Surprisingly, there were no “English Honours” applicants. Professor Gunawardena, the Head of the English Department was the enthusiastic live wire of the programme.

The “English for all undergraduates” was part of a curriculum overhaul (together with the introduction of course units etc.) that I began as soon as I became campus president. The moment the programme was launched, the “progressive”, “Marxist”, as well as “Nationalist” student leaders, rose against it. At the time S. B. Dissanayake was the leader of the campus Communist party and was the dominant student leader. Dissanayake and Mahinda Wijesekera (student leader of the Science Faculty with JVP links) declared their complete opposition to it. This was said to be “an attack on students using the “Kaduwa”. The “Kaduwa” or “sword” was the nickname for English used by the student leaders who regarded it as a weapon used by the “Kultoor set”. They threatened to reply in kind to the “Kadu Haramba” unless we stopped the programme immediately.

There were also threats to physically attack the English Instructors if they came to the campus to teach English. I rejected their threats and we proceeded to hire instructors, etc., when the student leaders launched a one-day strike as a test of strength. I had also asked Mr. Munasinghe, the Head of the Management Department, to ensure that no instructors were threatened. Mr. Munasinghe was well entrenched in the Gangodawila-Raththanapitya area and he informed the student leaders that any attacks on the instructors will be met by attacks on the student leaders by the village folk at the “Wijayaraama Junction”.

Some of the “moderate” student leaders, e.g., the World University Services (WUS) representative Gajaba, as well as the main student union, presented a “compromise” proposal, namely, that we should teach Russian instead of a “colonial language” like English. Instead of rejecting that as being absurd and inappropriate, I agreed that I can make immediate arrangements for holding Russian classes for those who wished to attend, while English will also continue. This was accepted by the student union. The Russian embassy was willing to provide a teacher, but not immediately.

However, I knew a Russian lady living in Colombo, and she agreed to give a few lessons in the interim. The first lesson attracted a large number of students, no doubt corralled in by the student leaders. So we had to hold the Russian class in the “arts hall” (called the “Lenin Hall” by the student leaders). After the first Russian lesson, there was a faster-than exponential decrease in numbers attending the subsequent classes. After about four classes there was no one turning up, and we terminated the teaching of Russian. Meanwhile the English department did a great job of developing a programme for teaching English to undergraduates who knew only their mother tongue.

It was the dedication of individuals, like Orani Jansz, that made the English Language programme a success. However, my attempts to modify the curriculum was viewed with great suspicion and antipathy by the student leaders, as well as some of the older members of the teaching staff. Their struggle continued for over an year. The option to have a degree named “B. Dev.” to cover what I called “Development Studies”, that looked at curricula in terms of their potential for national development, was treated with great suspicion by the faculties, as many of the staff felt that they may have to “re-learn” new stuff. However, the student leaders were supportive of getting a B. Dev. Instead of a “BA” that was felt to have no “Thathvaya” (Prestige). The Daily News columnist “Viranga” wrote a piece on the obsession of the students on “Thathvaya”, quoting me, and we had to face a day of strikes!

At the time, the students were given a degree on the basis of one giant “final exam”, with no credit for, or taking account of course work. Continuous assessment of the pedagogic process required holding and grading exams periodically, and evaluation of course work All this was considered by the older staff as “extra work” for them. Many lecturers, especially in the Arts faculty, normally tuned up just in time for their lecture and promptly went home, and considered their job to be over. Student leaders who rarely attended lectures feared course evaluation and the possible expelling of students who do not attend lectures or practicals. Their opposition, channelled through the Head of one of the science departments, and using strikes and threats, was supported by Mr. Sumanadasa, the then Vice Chancellor who trembled with fear whenever the student leaders came to his office and dictated terms.

The vacillations and actions of the Vice Chancellor were detrimental to the line of authority in the campus that was needed to carry out necessary reforms. He ignored the transgressions of students at every level, including unacceptable levels of ragging. Staff members who had been assaulted by student leaders lacked backbone and withdrew their complaints under further threats from students. The campus president was to handle all threats without any recourse to the police! The growth of naked violence in the campuses, as well as the waste of public money, seemed to be of no interest to authorities even after the failed 1971 JVP uprising. While the Central Bank refused foreign exchange to buy vital spare parts for lab equipment, “cyclostyle” wax sheets, or books needed for the new programme, it readily approved plastic wrap for cigarette companies. Ananda Meegama, then at the Central Bank approved some money on a personal basis when I saw him about all this. I felt that to be an unacceptable way of getting things done.

Political leaders were cheap enough to even undermine the university. For example, I managed to secure a much needed vehicle from a returning British diplomat; she was willing to just give it to the campus as a gift. Having got wind of it through a student leader, an influential MP claimed the vehicle for himself, because vehicle imports were banned in those days of “foreign exchange control”.

One has to look back to those times and say that individuals like Orani Jansz had to do their bit in an environment where campuses were in the grip of false ideologies. Unfortunately, things seem to have hardly changed today, given the horror stories of current campus raggings.

CHANDRE

DHARMAWARDANA

All News Advertisement

Opinion

LG polls, what a waste of money!

Published

2 days ago

2025/03/13

Sahan Weerasooriya

If the people of this country were asked whether they want elections to the local government, majority of them would say no! How many years have elapsed since the local councils became defunct? And did not the country function without these councils that were labelled as ‘white elephants’?

If the present government’s wish is to do the will of the people, they should reconsider having local government elections. This way the government will not only save a considerable amount of money on holding elections, but also save even a greater amount by not having to maintain these local councils, which have become a bane on the country’s economy.

One would hope that the country will be able to get rid of these local councils and revert back to the days of having competent Government Agents and a team of dedicated government officials been tasked with the responsibility of attending to the needs of the people in those areas.

M. Joseph A. Nihal Perera

Opinion

What not to do

Published

3 days ago

2025/03/12

Sahan Weerasooriya

Trump and Zelensky arguing in the White House

By Dr Upul Wijayawardhana

It is immaterial whether you like him or not but one thing is crystal clear; Donald Trump has shown, very clearly, who is the boss. Surely, presidents of two countries are equal; perhaps, that is the impression Volodymyr Zelensky had when he went to the White House to meet Trump but the hard reality, otherwise, would have dawned on him with his inglorious exit! True, the behaviour of President Trump and VP Vance were hardly praiseworthy but Zelensky did what exactly he should not do. Afterall, he was on a begging mission and beggars cannot be choosers! He behaved like professional beggars in Colombo who throw money back when you give a small amount!!

Despite the risk of belonging to the minority, perhaps of non-Americans, I must say that I quite like Trump and admire him as a straight-talking politician. He keeps to his words; however atrocious they sound! Unfortunately, most critics overlook the fact that what Trump is doing is exactly what he pledged during his election campaign and that the American voters elected him decisively. When he lost to Biden, all political commentators wrote him off, more so because of his refusal to admit defeat and non-condemnation of his supporters who rioted. When he announced his intention to contest, it only evoked pundits’ laughter as they concluded that the Republican Party would never nominate him. Undaunted, Trump got the party to rally round him and won a non-consecutive second term; a feat achieved only once before, by Grover Cleveland around the end of the nineteenth century. His victory, against all predictions, was more decisive as he got more collegiate votes and, even though it does not matter, won the popular vote too which he did not get when he got elected the first term. Even his bitterest critics should accept this fact.

Zelensky was elected the president of Ukraine after the elected pro-Soviet president was deposed by a ‘peoples revolution’ engineered by the EU with the support of USA. After this, the EU attempted to bring Ukraine to NATO, disregarding the Munich agreement which precipitated the Russian invasion. He should have realised that, if not for the air-defence system which Trump authorised for Ukraine during his first term, Russian invasion would have been complete. It may well be that he was not aware as when this happened Zelensky may still have been the comedian acting the part of the president! Very likely, Trump was referring to this when he accused Zelensky of being ungrateful.

Zelensky also should have remembered that he disregarded requests from Trump, after his defeat by Biden, to implicate Biden’s son in some shady deals in Ukraine and that one of the last acts of Biden was to pardon his son and grant immunity to cover the alleged period. Perhaps, actions of the European leaders who embrace him every time they see him, as a long-lost brother, and invitations to address their parliaments has induced an element of the superiority complex in Zelensky that he behaved so combative.

Trump wanted to be the mediator to stop the war and spoke to Putin first. Instead of waiting for Trump to speak to him, egged on by EU leaders Zelensky started criticising Trump for not involving him in the talks. His remark “He should be on our side” demonstrated clearly that Zelensky had not understood the role of a mediator. His lack of political experience was the major reason for the fiasco in the White House and the subsequent actions of Trump clearly showed Zelensky where he stands! PM Starmer and President Macron seem to have given some sensible advice and he seems to be eating humble pie. In the process Trump has ensured that the European nations pay for their defence than piggy-backing on the US, which I am sure would please the American voter. By the way, though Macron talks big about defence France spends less than 2% of GDP. Trump seems vindicated. Of course, Trump could be blamed for being undiplomatic but he can afford to be as he has the upper hand!

Ranil on Al Jazeera

Zelensky has shown what not to do: instead of being diplomatic being aggressive when you need favours! Meanwhile, Ranil has shown what not to do when it comes to TV interviews. God only knows who advised him, and why, for him to go ‘Head to Head’ with Mehdi Hasan on Al-Jazeera. Perhaps, he wanted to broadcast to the world that he was the saviour of Sri Lanka! The experienced politician he is, one would have expected Ranil to realise that he would be questioned about his role in making Sri Lanka bankrupt as well, in addition to raising other issues.

The interview itself was far from head to head; more likely heads to head! It turned out to be an inquisition by Tiger supporters and the only person who spoke sense being Niraj Deva, who demonstrated his maturity by being involved in British and EU politics. The worst was the compere who seems keen to listen his own voice, reminding me of a Sinhala interviewer on a YouTube channel whose interviews I have stopped watching!

Ranil claims, after the interview was broadcast, that it had been heavily edited reduced from a two-hour recording. Surely, despite whatever reason he agreed to, he should have laid ground rules. He could have insisted on unedited broadcast or his approval before broadcast, if it was edited. It was very naïve of Ranil to have walked in to a trap for no gain. Though his performance was not as bad as widely reported, he should have been more composed at the beginning as he turned out to be later. Overall, he gave another opportunity for the Tiger rump and its supporters to bash Sri Lanka, unfortunately.

Medhi Hasan should watch some of David Frost interviews, especially the one with Richard Nixon, and learn how to elicit crucial information in a gentle exploratory manner than shouting with repeated interruptions. He does not seem to think it is necessary to give time for the interviewee to respond to his questions. I will never watch Al-Jazeera’s “Head to Head” again!

Ranil’s best was his parting shot; when asked by Hasan whether he would contest the next presidential election, he said “No, I will retire and watch Al-Jazeera and hope to see you better mannered”!

Opinion

Ajahn Brahm to visit SL in May 2025

Published

4 days ago

2025/03/11

Sahan Weerasooriya

The Ajahn Brahm Society of Sri Lanka (ABSSL) is pleased to announce that Ajahn Brahm will be visiting Sri Lanka for a short stay in May this year. Many, both Buddhists and non-Buddhists, know him and have listened to his addresses made on earlier visits, including his 2023 public talk at the BMICH, which was attended by over 4,000 people.

Ajahn Brahmavamso, popularly known as Ajahn Brahm, is the Head Abbot of Bodhinyana Monastery in Serpentine, Perth. He was a pupil of the famous Thai forest monk Ajahn Chah, considered the best Theravada meditation teacher in the last century. By his own choice, Ajahn Brahmavamso shortened his name and was extra pleased that the initials represent the major religions of the world. He is renowned world-wide as an outstanding meditation bhikkhu, teacher and instructor, guiding thousands of practitioners.

As in previous visits, Ajahn Brahm’s schedule will be packed with addresses, meetings with senior professionals, business leaders, and researchers. This year, a special session has been included for teenagers and young adults.

The agenda planned for him includes:

Public address at the BMICH to all irrespective of religion and age; then to a younger audience.

· Exclusive Leadership Forum for senior professionals and business leaders.

· Forum with academics engaged in research at the Centre for Meditation Research, University of Colombo.

· A week-long meditation retreat for the Ven Sangha and experienced lay meditators.

Public Addresses

The public addresses will be on Sunday, May 18, 2025, from 7:00 am to 11:00 am, at the BMICH Main Hall and Sirimavo Halls; Ajahn Brahm moving from one hall to another so the entire audience sees him. Each hall will be well equipped with audio and video presentation. The first address: The Art of Meaningful Living, is designed for all, age notwithstanding, offering wisdom and practical insights for a fulfilling life. The second: Coping with Life Transitions and Emotional Challenges, is a special session tailored for teens and young adults, addressing key challenges faced by them in today’s fast-paced, competitive world. Both talks will be in English, with concise translation to Sinhala by Ven Damita Thera.

Exclusive Forums

On Saturday, May 17, 2025, two exclusive forums will be held at the BMICH Committee Room, Jasmine Hall. The first such session will be with eighty invited Sri Lankan academics and scientists engaged in research on meditation at the Centre for Meditation Research of the University of Colombo. This will be followed in the evening by an interactive session for a hundred invited senior professionals and business leaders, featuring a talk on leadership followed by a Q&A session.

Meditation Retreat

The most significant item on Ajahn Brahm’s programme will be a week-long meditation retreat at the Barberyn Waves Ayurveda Resort in Weligama. Focus is intended to be on the fifty members of the Ven Sangha. A limited number of experienced lay meditators will also have the opportunity to participate.

Participation & Registration

Those interested in attending the public talks at the BMICH are kindly advised to register at to secure free passes. For further information, please contact the Ajahn Brahm Society of Sri Lanka at .