Remarks of Prof Rajiva Wijesinha at the launch of
Vocabulary for Communication
by Parvathi Nagasunderam
At the University of Sri Jayewardenepura Arts Faculty Auditorium on April 27th

The launch of this book is a heartening event, first because it shows that my old student, colleague and friend Parvathi Nagasunderam is still wonderfully productive though now in her ninth decade; and second because the focus of her book shows her continuing commitment to the needs of students.

Many years ago, one of my mentors at university would talk of life’s little ironies, and it seems to me that Paru’s wonderful career has throughout been the result of ironies. I first met her at Peradeniya as a newly-appointed lecturer way back in 1990. Those were the days when university departments of English had very few students, and questions arose as to why they made little or no contribution to overcome the crying need of the country for good English teachers.

Obviously, their products, almost entirely from elite schools, and taught the great tradition of English Literature, would have been useless in our classrooms where language teaching was required, and the more basic as the years passed. But as one professor proudly put it, their students could go to Cambridge for postgraduate work, and I think that indeed over several decades one student did manage this, though he did not come back.

So, the departments developed a programme to take teachers who had passed the external General Arts Qualifying examination, and give them an English degree. But then they were drenched in the same old stuff, which was useless for rural or indeed most urban schools, and many ended up in other institutions. And to compound the problem, Peradeniya decided to offer a combined degree, to give them more exposure to English, it was claimed, but they decided on literary criticism so the poor teachers had to study Aristotle and Horace and Longinus.

Amidst the floundering teachers I did however find two who were hardworking and understood what they read and could talk about it, so I persuaded them to opt for Special Degrees. They were fearful, but in the end, they agreed, and then I resigned. That caused them great disappointment, but perhaps in the end Paru was benefited, for had I stayed I have no doubt she would have got a class. Given the vagaries of our system, there were many classes in the year above hers and in the years below, but in her year the examiners had different priorities. So that while the beneficiaries of the other system were absorbed by Peradeniya, to continue with an albeit confused version of the great tradition – to the disappointment of the much more enlightened Arjuna Parakrama when he became Professor there – Paru had to re-enter the school system.

But then she was selected to teach at the newly-opened College of Education, the one at Pasdunrata, which produced accomplished teachers of English while it was headed by the dynamic Charlie Gamage. This was when pre-service teacher training was begun, and an effective programme was introduced, with much assistance from the British Council, which provided a resident trainer.

This was David Woolger, and while I appreciated the comment earlier about how both Lakshmi Cumaratunga and I had mentored Paru, most credit I believe should go to David. He noted her excellence and encouraged me to use her in the various training programmes I began at the British Council and through the English Association in provincial centres.

For both he and the Representatives at the Council at the time had persuaded me to work on English Language as well as my original literature specialism, and in time I became an avid proponent of revising the system to improve language teaching.

Then, another irony, the new Minister of Education destroyed the Colleges and also the Higher Institute of English Education, which had been set up within the National Institute of Education to work on trainer training. But those in power could not understand the need for this in addition to teacher training, so that admirable initiative collapsed, and Lakshmi Cumaratunga left the country.

Paru, whom David had recruited to the HIEE, was thus ready for a change, and so I was able to tempt her to Jayewardenepura when I began to revitalize the English programme there as well through the Affiliated University Colleges that the visionary Arjuna Aluwihare had started.

My contract at USJP was not renewed for I refused to ask for this, knowing that the Vice-Chancellor wanted to tie me down, whereas I had been working also on the GELT programme and the AUCs which were being transformed into universities. And they needed me more than USJP, which I could leave in Paru’s safe hands. So, it proved, and she took what we had started to much higher levels, including when I urged her while I was at the Ministry of Education developing an English Language Teaching module for the degree, which other universities scorned at the time.

Thus, USJP has been at the forefront of English education in this country, and Paru’s students, who are devoted to her, have continued with her vision of English not only at USJP but at the other higher educational institutes where they teach.

Paru and I were able meanwhile to work together in other areas. She was one of the consultants we took on when I restarted English medium in 2001, though sadly, with a change of government opposition to this initiative meant that we could train only for a year before the NIE took over and did its best to introduce formulas instead of fun. Then, when in 2004 I chaired the Academic Affairs Board of the NIE, and tried to revise syllabi to introduce more critical thinking in all subjects, Paru produced for me a step-by-step set of achievement levels, which would have dealt with the problem she mentioned in her opening remarks, about vocabulary not being developed systematically.

Sadly, Ministers who keep talking about the need for better English do not look at what has been done, which could be made available again. And, while obviously, as I told Dinesh Gunawardena when he asked me to help, I could not get involved with the current government, there are others who could well be consulted such as Paru, but those in charge will not suggest names of those more able than they are.

It is heartening though that in her own way Paru continues to function so effectively to fill the gaps in the system, by producing books like this which are so useful to students. Their needs, rather than the needs of administrators, should be the key to educational initiatives, and I congratulate her, and the students she has nurtured, for keeping this in the forefront of all they do.

BY Lalin I De Silva –

Editor Ceylon Planters Society Bulletin

In the world of tea, the name James Taylor often takes center stage as the pioneer credited with introducing tea to Sri Lanka, then known as Ceylon. However, recent research and historical evidence suggest that the true pioneers behind the flourishing tea industry in Sri Lanka were none other than the illustrious Rothschild brothers. While James Taylor played a significant role in the development of Ceylon’s tea industry, it’s time to acknowledge the pivotal contributions of the Rothschilds in laying the foundation for what would become one of the world’s foremost tea-producing regions.

Contrary to popular belief, the Rothschild brothers—Maurice and Eugene—were instrumental in establishing the first commercial tea plantation in Sri Lanka. Their venture began in the mid-19th century when they acquired land in the region of Pussellawa, nestled in the picturesque hills of Ceylon. This marked the genesis of what is now known as the Rothschild Tea Estate, a testament to their foresight and entrepreneurial spirit.

Historical records reveal that it was Eugene Leopold de Rothschild who initiated the cultivation of tea on their estate, drawing upon the expertise of experienced tea planters from India. Under his guidance, the Rothschild Tea Estate flourished, with meticulous attention to detail in every aspect of tea cultivation, from plant selection to processing techniques. The success of their enterprise soon paved the way for others to follow suit, transforming the landscape of Ceylon and propelling it into the ranks of the world’s leading tea producers.

While James Taylor’s contributions to the Sri Lankan tea industry are undeniable, it’s essential to recognize that he arrived on the scene several years after the Rothschilds had already established a thriving tea plantation. Taylor’s expertise undoubtedly contributed to the refinement and expansion of Ceylon’s tea cultivation practices, but the groundwork had been laid by the Rothschild brothers.

The enduring legacy of the Rothschild Tea Estate serves as a testament to their pioneering efforts and enduring impact on Sri Lanka’s tea industry. Today, the estate stands as a living tribute to their vision and dedication, continuing to produce some of the finest teas that grace cups around the globe.

It’s time to set the record straight and acknowledge the Rothschild brothers as the true trailblazers of tea in Sri Lanka. By shining a light on their contributions, we honor not only their legacy but also the rich tapestry of history that shapes the world of tea as we know it today.

This argument fails to address the pressing issues facing the tea industry, which include the significant challenges of employee outmigration, soaring production costs, declining productivity, and the looming threats of climate change. We have meticulously documented these concerns in our early warnings report titled “10 billion $ Annual Revenue from the Plantation Sector” and distributed copies to key stakeholders, including His Excellency Ranil Wickremasinghe, urging for corrective action.

Despite efforts to raise awareness, the response from the Presidential Secretariat and relevant ministries has been lackluster, with decisions often being stalled and minimal follow-up.

As we have highlighted publicly, effective leadership is crucial in addressing these issues. Without proactive measures from the top, the industry risks further deterioration. It is imperative that decisive action is taken to safeguard the future of the tea sector and the livelihoods it supports.

Sources:

“The Empire of Tea:

The Remarkable History of the Plant That Took Over the World” by Alan Macfarlane and Iris Macfarlane

“Tea and Empire:

James Taylor in Victorian Ceylon” by Angela McCarthy

“The Ceylon Tea Estates Directory” by George A. F. Tucker

Rothschild Tea Estate website: [link]

Sri Lanka Tea Board archives

An election is approaching and all the political parties are ready to hammer and tongs at one another. Each promising the never-ending promises made over the years.

All the trade unions will be split up and taken under the wing of each party to make sure they shout the loudest.

Thus trade unions are robbed of a day to celebrate their rights. And: In all this mayhem, no politician remembers to pay tribute to the man who gave the workers their rights.

May Day was not created by A.E. Goonesinha for political rallies and marches. It was created to celebrate the worker. So, at least before all the madness starts, a tribute to this gentleman of decency and honesty should be priority.

The father of the Labour movement and trade unions in Ceylon – the former Minister of state and mayor of Colombo – A.E. Goonesinha!

Alexander Ekanayake Goonesinha was a gentleman who rose against the British hierarchy to free the worker and give him dignity and rights.

It was not an easy task at the time. There were Sri Lankans who fraternised with the British to win favours and who denounced and agitated against men who fought for the rights of the workers.

Days were spent in prison for the cause. Finally it proved successful and A.E. Goonesinha represented Ceylon at the British Empire Labour Conference in London in 1928 – to register May 1st as the worker’s day in Sri Lanka which was first held in 1927 under the leadership of A.E. Goonesinha.

He was also responsible for obtaining Universal Adult Suffrage from the Donoughmore Commission in 1928. Sri Lankan workers and the general public, regardless of income or eduation, were given the right to vote – including women’s franchise which is hardly ever mentioned today.

A.E. Goonesinha was one of the key persons in the struggle for independence. He was never one to mince his words. He was forthright and outspoken and worked only for the worker’s betterment in society. He later went as ambassador to Indonesia and Burma.

He was aksed by SWRD to join his party for the 1956 election, but A.E. Goonesinha did not agree with his policies and contested for his labour party. Today’s politicians jump from party to party according to their own private agendas. It’s a case of make hay while the sun shines and let the country go to the dogs.

Strength, determination, dedication, bravour and courage and above all integrity: A.E. Goonesinha was born on 1st May 1891 in Kandy. A symbolic sign that one day he would make May 1st a day of dignity and respect for the labourer.

Today’s May Day rallies have nothing to do with respecting the labourer. The labourer is used for shouting slogans and for walking behind politicians who want to swell crowds and show their power.

It is hoped that political parties and leaders will forget party politics and unite to work together for the mutual welfare and benefit of Sri Lanka.

Yasmin Koch