Features
Who was Venerable Walpola Rahula?
Venerable Walpola Rahula Thero’s 118th death anniversary fell on the 9th of May. On the 24th of May, a commemorative event is being organised by the Walpola Rahula Foundation Trust chaired by his only Monk pupil Venerable Galkande Dhammananda at the Sri Lanka Foundation Institute. It is timely and of significant relevance to today’s societal practices in the name of Buddha and Buddhism, to examine the life and times of Venerable Rahula and his philosophy and approach to Buddhism.
In Venerable Rahula’s seminal work, What the Buddha Taught, he says “The question has often been asked; Is Buddhism a religion or a philosophy? It does not matter what you call it. Buddhism remains what it is whatever label you may put on it. The label is immaterial. Even the label ‘Buddhism’ which we give to the teachings of the Buddha is of little importance. The name one gives is inessential. In the same way Truth needs no label: it is neither Buddhist, Christian, Hindu nor Moslem. It is not the monopoly of anybody. Sectarian labels are a hindrance to the independent understanding of Truth, and they produce harmful prejudices in men’s minds”
The above citation describes the philosophy that Venerable Walpola Rahula Thero embodied throughout his life. It was very much in line with the dictum Bahujana sukhaya bahujana hitaya or “for the happiness of the many, for the welfare of the many” and it was his guiding principle. His philosophy won him many friends and followers in Sri Lanka and internationally, and also some who disagreed with him. No doubt, if Buddha was alive today and graced the commemorative occasion, he would have readily agreed with Venerable Rahula.
In his book “The Heritage of the Bhikkhu” Ven Rahula gives a vivid account of a Buddhist monk’s role as a servant to people’s needs as a follower and teacher of the basic Buddhist principles. In this informative volume, Ven Rahula emphasizes Buddhism as a practical doctrine for daily living and spiritual perfection, not simply a monastic discipline
Over time, this truism that has been shaped into different forms by many actors within the Buddhist community, lay people as well as by Buddhist Monks. Buddhist culture has been distorted from being representative of the basic philosophy of what Buddha taught, to an institutionalised culture that has transformed the veneration and practice of the Dhamma to the veneration of institutional practices. The following statement by Venerable Rahula noted in the website of Tsemrinpoche.com perhaps underpins this transformation and why institutional Buddhism thrives (https://www.tsemrinpoche.com/tsem-tulku-rinpoche/buddhas-dharma/ven-dr-walpola-rahula-thero-the-theravadan-academic.html)
He says two ideas are psychologically deep rooted in man: self-protection and self-preservation, and for self-protection man has created God, on whom he depends for his own protection, safety and security, just as a child depends on its parents, and for self-preservation, conceived the idea of an immortal Soul or Atman, which will live eternally. In his ignorance, weakness, fear and desire, man needs these two things to console himself. Hence, he clings to them deeply and fanatically.
While there is no God or Atman in Buddhism, these two ideas psychologically deep rooted in man as mentioned by Ven Rahula, and fears arising from ignorance, weakness and desire, have very likely led to the solace for these promoted by institutional Buddhism as being adherence to cultural practices in the name of the Dhamma rather than the Dhamma itself and has perhaps functioned as the core foundation for the growth of the institutions.
Venerable Rahula’s philosophy was to practice and teach Dhamma rather than foster institutions that promoted cultural practices in the name of Buddhism, and he was a strong advocate of free thinking as the opening citation of this article clearly indicates. In this regard, the book ‘Sathyodaya’ written by Venerable Rahula epitomises his free thinking. Venerable Galkande Dhammananda in his introduction to ‘Sathyodaya’ says that free thinking is not an ability gained easily through habit. Proper direction and guidance is required to develop this skill.
Though the physical body can be easily trained to perform a task, he says that the same cannot be said about training the mind. He goes on to say that progressively cultivating human understanding and judgement through reasoning is a challenging task and that Venerable Rahula articulated how this may be done in many books he wrote, and his book ‘Sathyodaya’ or ‘Truth Awakening’ epitomised his approach to how Buddhists should practice Buddhism as Buddha taught (see ‘Sathyodaya’: Will the truth awaken in the New Year? https://www.ft.lk/columns/Sathyodaya-Will-the-truth-awaken-in-the-New-Year/4-676480). The fundamental wisdom that Ven Rahula promoted as Sathyodaya or “Truth Awakening” was the capacity of each person to be fully awakened, to become a Buddha in their own right, enlightened and wise. A key tool that can help people on the path is the notion of critical thinking, reasoning. Ven Rahula went onto say that “a person will not become a Buddhist by merely taking refuge in the triple gem through a verbal utterance. Nor will the person be a Buddhist by simply wearing a robe. A Buddhist is not defined by name or practice, but by conduct. In other words, if you are a good person, treat others with compassion and respect, and are wise and insightful in your actions, that is what makes you a “Buddhist”.
The following is a concise biography noted in the Walpola Rahula Institute website about Venerable Rahula (https://www.walpolarahula.institute/). This biography is a very good illustration of the philosophy of Venerable Walpola Rahula which he believed in and practiced throughout his life.
Venerable Professor Walpola Rahula was born on the 9th of May, 1907, in the village of Walpola, in southern Sri Lanka. In 1920, at the age of 13, he was ordained as a Buddhist monk. He received his initial monastic training under the Venerable Paragoda Sumanasara, a highly revered, erudite monk who strictly adhered to the monastic code of conduct. From this teacher Ven. Rahula received the complete training required for a monk, which included language skills and how to live a frugal life. He engaged in monastic practices such as meditation and pindapatha (‘begging for alms’). Other than the education by Ven. Sumanasara, until his admission to the University of London, Ven. Rahula did not seek nor receive any formal education.
In 1927, the 20-year-old Ven. Rahula was involved with the Colombo Dharmaduta Sabhava, a Buddhist missionary society. During this time, he worked with people oppressed by the caste system. He paid particular attention to teaching them the Dhamma, the Buddhist teaching while working towards their socio-economic upliftment. He and other program participants would regularly abstain from their meals and use the funds for the welfare of the underprivileged. During his sermons, Ven. Rahula regularly emphasised the importance of practising the Dhamma as originally taught by the Buddha and the importance of critical thinking and inquisitiveness. (These sermons were distributed as leaflets at the time. In 1992 they were published as a book under the title ‘Sathyodaya’). Ven Rahula’s critical approach gained him the respect and admiration of many lay and ordained Buddhists. However, it also attracted critics and opponents. Certain parties vehemently opposed his strong criticism of caste discrimination within the Buddhist clergy.
The next notable phase in Ven Rahula’s life was when he studied at the affiliated college of the University of London, in Colombo. In 1941 he graduated with an Honours Degree in Eastern Languages, becoming the first Buddhist monk from Sri Lanka to receive a university education. Even as a university student, he continued to help people in need of help. His service during the 1936 Malaria epidemic was recognised in the book “Buddhist Studies in Honor of Walpola Rahula” by E.F.C Ludvaik, a professor at the university at the time. Continuing research activities after his undergraduate degree, he earned a Doctorate from the University of Ceylon for his thesis “Some Aspects of the History of Buddhism in Ceylon”.
In the 1940s, when Sri Lanka was on the verge of gaining independence, Ven Rahula, along with other Buddhist monks like Ven. Yakkaduwe Sri Pannarama of the Vidyalankara Pirivena (An educational institute for Buddhist monks), Ven. Naththandiye Pannakara, Ven. Kotahene Pannakitti, Ven. Kalalelle Ananda Sagara took the position that the Buddhist monks had an active role in shaping the soon-to-be independent nation for the welfare of the masses. Ven. Rahula penned his seminal work ‘Bhikshuwage Urumaya‘ (The Heritage of the Buddhist Monk) to argue for the role of monks in ensuring the betterment of the masses.
For over three years, the discussion of the Free Education Act was stalled. Progressives such as Ven. Rahula and other Buddhist monks of the Vidyalankara Pirivena campaigned for its discussion and enactment in the State Council of Ceylon.
Through articles published in the ‘Kalaya’ (Time) newspaper and public awareness campaigns organised around the county by the ‘Eksath Bhikkhu Sangamaya’ (United Buddhist Monks’ Association), sufficient political pressure was generated for this Act to be discussed in the State Council and subsequently passed in 1947. Ven. Rahula and other monks of Vidyalankara Pirivena played a pivotal role in enabling free education in Sri Lanka, which has benefitted multiple generations and lifted the socio-economic situation of many.
In 1950, Ven. Rahula joined the Sorbonne University, Paris, as a Post Graduate Research Fellow under renowned Professor Paul Demiéville (1894-1979), where he carried out an annotated translation of 4th century Mahayana Bhikkhu Asanga’s ‘Abhidharma-Samuccaya’ to French. This was Ven. Rahula’s scholastic Magnus opus. It was also during this time Ven. Rahula wrote the book ‘What the Buddha Taught’, which would become the most widely read book on Buddhism in the Western world. During his time in France, Ven. Rahula acted as an ambassador of Buddhism, laying the foundation for Buddhist education in Europe.
Due to his fame and reputation as a scholar of Buddhism, in 1965, Ven. Rahula was invited to be the Professor of Religious History and Literature by the Northwestern University in the USA. While teaching at the Northwestern University, he also worked on streamlining the Buddhist study programs at other American Universities.
In 1966, the Sri Lankan Government invited Ven. Rahula to take up the position of Vice Chancellor of the Vidyodaya University (now University of Sri Jayawardanapura). As Vice-Chancellor, he worked purposefully to uplift the standards and prestige of the institution both nationally and internationally. University lecturers were sent to receive training overseas, and distinguished professors from foreign universities were invited to join the university. In 1969 he resigned from his post prematurely in protest of the political interferences to the university’s autonomy and returned to the USA. Back in the USA, he held professorships in several universities and was an advisor to postgraduate students at Oxford University, UK.
In the early 1980s, Ven. Rahula returned to Sri Lanka and was instrumental in establishing the “Buddhist and Pali University of Sri Lanka” to enhance the education of Buddhist monks. In addition, Ven. Rahula founded the “Buddhist Study and Research Institute”, later renamed the “Walpola Rahula Institute” at Kotte. In 1980 a group of celebrated intellectuals honoured Ven. Rahula by compiling a book named “Buddhist Studies in Honour of Walpola Rahula”. The book was printed in London by the Gordon Fraser company. While Ven. Rahula was honoured by many prestigious universities around the world, he continued to be the Chancellor of the University of Kelaniya until his demise in 1997. Ven. Rahula passed away on the 18th of September 1997, having lived for 90 years. According to his will, his remains were cremated within 24 hours at the Borella crematorium following traditional Buddhist funeral rites, without pomp, pageantry, or speeches.
Walpola Rahula Thero wrote extensively about Theravada Buddhism. Apart from his world-renowned book What the Buddha Taught, he published an enormous number of papers on Buddhism. Notable books written by him include History of Buddhism in Ceylon, Heritage of the Bhikkhu, Zen and the Taming of the Bull and Le Compendium de la Super Doctrine (French). A complete list of his writings, in Sinhala, English and French are noted in the Walpola Rahula Institute’s website.
World Buddhist Sangha Council
In conclusion, Venerable Walpola Rahula’s contribution to the World Buddhist Sangha Council is noted here as one of his major achievements. The founder Secretary-General of the World Buddhist Sangha Council, Venerable Pandita Pimbure Sorata Thera had requested Venerable Rahula to present a concise statement to the first Congress of the Council in 1967 that would unify all of the different Buddhist traditions. It was through his knowledge of the Mahayana acquired while he was studying at the Sorbonne that Venerable Rahula was able to produce the important Buddhist Ecumenical statement called The Basic Points Unifying the Theravada and the Mahayana, (https://www.tsemrinpoche.com/tsem-tulku-rinpoche/buddhas-dharma/ven-dr-walpola-rahula-thero-the-theravadan-academic.html) which was unanimously approved by the Council. The ten points were
1. Whatever our sects, denominations or systems, as Buddhists we all accept the Buddha as our Master who gave us the Teaching.
2. We all take refuge in the Triple Jewel: the Buddha, our Teacher; the Dhamma, his teaching; and the Sangha, the Community of holy ones. In other words, we take refuge in the Teacher, the Teaching and the Taught.
3. Whether Theravada or Mahayana, we do not believe that this world is created and ruled by a god at his will.
4. Following the example of the Buddha, our Teacher, who is the embodiment of Great Compassion (mahakaruna) and Great Wisdom (mahaprajna), we consider that the purpose of life is to develop compassion for all living beings without discrimination and to work for their good, happiness and peace; and to develop wisdom leading to the realisation of Ultimate Truth.
5. We accept the Four Noble Truths taught by the Buddha, namely, Dukkha, the fact that our existence in this world is in predicament, is impermanent, imperfect, unsatisfactory, full of conflict; Samudaya, the fact that this state of affairs is due to our egoistic selfishness based on the false idea of self; Nirodha, the fact that there is definitely the possibility of deliverance, liberation, freedom from this predicament by the total eradication of the egoistic selfishness; and Magga, the fact that this liberation can be achieved through the Middle Path which is eight-fold, leading to the perfection of ethical conduct (sila), mental discipline (samadhi) and wisdom (panna).
6. We accept the universal law of cause and effect taught in the Paticcasamuppada (Skt. pratityasamutpada; Conditioned Genesis or Dependent Origination), and accordingly we accept that everything is relative, interdependent and interrelated and nothing is absolute, permanent and everlasting in this universe.
7. We understand, according to the teaching of the Buddha, that all conditioned things (samkhara) are impermanent (anicca) and imperfect and unsatisfactory (dukkha), and all conditioned and unconditioned things (dhamma) are without self (anatta).
8. We accept the Thirty-Seven Qualities conducive to Enlightenment (bodhipakkhiyadhamma) as different aspects of the Path taught by the Buddha leading to Enlightenment, namely:
= Four Forms of Presence of Mindfulness (Pali: satipatthana; Skt. smrtyupasthana);
= Four Right Efforts (Pali. sammappadhana; Skt. samyakpradhana);
= Four Bases of Supernatural Powers (Pali. iddhipada; Skt. rddhipada);
= Five Faculties (indriya: Pali. saddha, viriya, sati, samadhi, panna; Skt. sraddha, virya, smrti, samadhi, prajna);
= Five Powers (bala, same five qualities as above);
= Seven Factors of Enlightenment (Pali. bojjhanga; Skt. bodhyanga);
= Eight-Fold Noble Path (Pali. ariyamagga; Skt. aryamarga).
9. There are three ways of attaining Bodhi or Enlightenment according to the ability and capacity of each individual: namely, as a Sravaka (disciple), as a Pratyekabuddha (Individual Buddha) and as a Samyaksambuddha (Perfectly and Fully Enlightened Buddha). We accept it as the highest, noblest and most heroic to follow the career of a Bodhisattva and to become a Samyksambuddha in order to save others. But these three states are on the same Path, not on different paths. In fact, the Sandhinirmocana-sutra, a well-known important Mahayana sutra, clearly and emphatically says that those who follow the line of Sravakayana (Vehicle of Disciples) or the line of Pratyekabuddhayana (Vehicle of Individual Buddhas) or the line of Tathagatas (Mahayana) attain the supreme Nirvana by the same Path, and that for all of them there is only one Path of Purification (visuddhi-marga) and only one Purification (visuddhi) and no second one, and that they are not different paths and different purifications, and that Sravakayana and Mahayana constitute One Vehicle One Yana (ekayana) and not distinct and different vehicles or yanas.
10. We admit that in different countries there are differences with regard to the ways of life of Buddhist monks, popular Buddhist beliefs and practices, rites and rituals, ceremonies, customs and habits. These external forms and expressions should not be confused with the essential teachings of the Buddha.
In many aspects, Venerable Walpola Rahula was one of a kind. His simplicity, being a practitioner and not just a preacher, his scholarly knowledge of the Dhamma, his ability to have disseminated this knowledge to vast audiences locally and overseas, his adherence to Buddha’s message of service to others for the happiness of the many, and for the welfare of the many, and his steadfast belief and active promotion of mans right to free thinking.
In summing up who Venerable Walpola Rahula was, perhaps the words of Venerable Galkande Dhammananda would describe his lifelong dedication to the one key quality that functioned as one of his core value, freedom to think. “Proper direction and guidance is required to develop this skill. Though the physical body can be easily trained to perform a task, the same cannot be said about training the mind. Progressively cultivating human understanding and judgement through reasoning is a challenging task and Venerable Rahula articulated how this may be done in his teachings and in the many books he wrote“.
By Raj Gonsalkorale
by Jehan Perera
The NPP government is going after powerful figures from the past and present who have engaged in corruption, fraud and criminal activity in a way that no previous government in Sri Lanka has done. Former ministers, politicians and senior state officials are among those facing investigations and legal proceedings. The government has placed before Parliament a document listing 50 cases involving corruption, fraud and other crimes. These include not only financial offences but also cases relating to the Easter Sunday attacks, the killings of Lasantha Wickrematunge and Wasim Thajudeen, the disappearance of Prageeth Ekneligoda and attacks on journalists Keith Noyahr and Upali Tennakoon.
The significance of this effort is that it can demonstrate that nobody is above the law, regardless of political connections or social standing, which will help restore public confidence in institutions that have long been distrusted. It could also recover public resources, improve the investment climate and strengthen the foundations for a more prosperous and just Sri Lanka. When criticised for focusing on the past and not the present, the government position is that these investigations were initiated under earlier governments, particularly between 2015 and 2019, and that it is now allowing investigators to proceed to deal with the backlog without political interference.
But there is an aspect of the government’s approach that is less justifiable. While pursuing past wrongdoing by powerful individuals, it is also advancing a triumvirate of draft laws that could give the state sweeping powers over citizens, organisations and dissent in the present and future. The draft Prevention of Terrorism legislation, the Prevention of Organised Crimes Bill and the NGO Registration and Supervision Bill raise serious questions about the over-centralisation of power. Each of these laws strengthens the powers of the state while weakening the rights and safeguards that protect people from their misuse and thus questions the basic rights of people in democracy where ‘the power of the people is vested in the government’. This is a recipe for future misrule rather than the rule of law. As the well-known saying goes, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Proposed Laws
The real test of system change, for which the government obtained an overwhelming mandate, requires not only a government willing to hold others accountable, but one prepared to subject itself to the same principles of legality, transparency and restraint. The three proposed laws that are particularly important in this regard are the Protection of the State from Terrorism Bill, the Prevention of Organised Crimes Bill and the NGO Registration and Supervision Bill. Each of these draft laws has been presented as serving a legitimate purpose. Preventing terrorism, combating organised crime and ensuring that NGOs do not facilitate money laundering or terrorist financing are proper responsibilities of the state. Sri Lanka has international obligations in these areas, and no responsible government can disregard them. However, the existence of a legitimate objective does not justify every means adopted to achieve it.
The proposed Protection of the State from Terrorism Bill illustrates the problem. Although its definition of terrorism draws on a model developed by a former United Nations Special Rapporteur, the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka has warned that the definition of terrorism extends beyond the model and could bring legitimate political protest, trade union action and civil disobedience within the scope of counter-terrorism legislation. Its concerns also include prolonged detention, inadequate judicial oversight and restrictions on access to legal counsel. These are objections that go to the heart of the relationship between the citizen and the state. The government cannot credibly promise to protect democratic freedoms while creating powers that could be used to restrict them. It is necessary for the government to reassess the draft through transparent consultation and revise provisions that could criminalise legitimate dissent.
The Prevention of Organised Crimes Bill raises similar concerns. It is presented as giving effect to the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organised Crime, which Sri Lanka ratified in 2006. The Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) has argued that the convention does not require many of the bill’s provisions. The proposed law extends to a broad range of offences, permits detention orders lasting up to a year, makes confessions to police admissible for purposes of legal evidence, and introduces extensive surveillance powers. A law intended to dismantle criminal networks should not create a parallel system of exceptional powers that could be applied far beyond organised crime. Nor should safeguards developed through years of experience with abuses under the Prevention of Terrorism Act be weakened through legislation bearing a different name. The government should review whether or not existing laws could be used effectively to control these crimes or whether each exceptional power is necessary.
Civil Society
The proposed NGO Registration and Supervision Bill presents another test of the government’s intentions. The government may reasonably seek transparency in the finances of organisations receiving public or foreign funds, including measures to prevent money laundering and terrorist financing. It seeks to justify its overreach on the grounds of meeting the internationally mandated requirements of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) for the Asia-Pacific region. But these objectives do not justify placing civil society and NGOs under excessive administrative control when even the FATF ranks them as low to medium risks. The draft bill would require registration and renewal, impose extensive obligations on organisations and empower authorities to suspend or deregister them on broadly framed grounds. It is important to redraft provisions that confer excessive discretion over registration, renewal, suspension and deregistration of NGOs.
Among the concerns raised by United Nations human rights special rapporteurs with regard to the draft NGO law are provisions requiring organisations to align with government policies and restrictions that could affect advocacy, dissent and freedom of association. The implications extend well beyond organisations that engage directly with the government. Community groups, human rights organisations, independent researchers and organisations working on reconciliation or accountability could find their activities constrained by uncertainty over how these provisions might be interpreted. Organisations that criticise government policies are not thereby working against the country. Their freedom to do so is part of what distinguishes a democracy from a system in which the government determines which opinions and activities are acceptable.
The government has generated considerable public goodwill through its pursuit of corruption and criminality. It should not assume that this goodwill gives it an unlimited mandate to strengthen the coercive powers of the state. The NPP knows from its own history that governments can treat dissent as a threat and use the machinery of the state against their opponents. There is still time to correct the drafts through transparent public consultation, narrow definitions of offences, meaningful judicial control over detention and surveillance, and effective remedies against arbitrary decisions. A government that pursues corruption while weakening safeguards against state abuse risks undermining its own achievements. Besides bringing to light the abuse of power by previous governments, the NPP government needs to build a system in which no future government can abuse power in the belief they can get away with it.
By Ramya Kumar
According to the Quality Assurance Council (QAC) of the University Grants Commission (UGC), quality assurance (QA) refers to “the means (i.e. the policies, attitudes, actions, procedures, etc.), by which an institution can guarantee with confidence and certainty, that the standards and quality of its educational provision are being maintained and enhanced”.
An expansive structure has been in place since 2005 to govern and implement QA processes within the state university system. The QAC is the focal point at the UGC that implements external reviews of state universities and institutes. Each university has its own Centre for Quality Assurance (CQA) tasked with performing QA in line with QAC directives. Faculties, in turn, have Internal Quality Assurance Cells (IQAC) performing their own QA; they are answerable to the CQA.
The big question is whether this all-encompassing top-down QA system, that in many ways undermines the internal dynamics of university governance, actually supports universities to enhance the quality of education. This article highlights some concerns.
Top-down check-box activities
The QAC conducts external reviews of universities and degree programmes. A review team appointed by the UGC (who may or may not have experience in the institution/programme in question) examines the self-evaluation report submitted by the said institution/programme. The team then conducts a site visit to verify the claims made in the university’s self-evaluation report, clarify issues identified during the desk review, and examine how QA procedures operate in practice. The team holds meetings with the university administration, members of the Council and Senate, Deans, Heads of Departments, academic and non-academic staff, students, and others. Following the visit, a draft report is submitted to the relevant institution/programme for comment before final publication. The reviewed institution/programme then prepares and publishes an action plan addressing the recommendations, with subsequent monitoring of progress.
There are some worthy QA initiatives under implementation, such as improving facilities for students with disabilities and strengthening mechanisms to address sexual- and gender-based violence. However, for the most part, QA activities have little to do with improving the quality of education. They are mostly preoccupied with monitoring faculty and department websites, digital transformation, student feedback, subject evaluation, course evaluation, peer evaluation, and, more recently, staff appraisal. These activities, which consume an inordinate amount of time—so precious at understaffed universities—have become check-box activities completed to generate evidence for the next review. Below is an excerpt of a conversation between two academics (1 and 2) that conveys how QA plays out at universities (reproduced with permission).
1: … .it’s like social media you know, like posting things on Facebook or twitter or Instagram. When people do a lot of social media, everything they do, they do thinking, “okay I’m going to post it in this way… this I have to put on my Instagram.” QA is a little like that… everything is considered in light of, “ah we can use this for the review, as evidence… for example very recently we were encouraged to have all the things that we do in our department in the faculty newsletter so then they can put in the review. Every little thing has to be noted down….
2: And with pictures and all…
1: At the very least it has to be written so that you have written evidence .. you can’t be doing something for the sake of doing something or because it is good for the department … and sometimes people tell me “oh yea that’s a good idea we can fit that under this x, y section of the review..”
2: Yea, and nobody really thinks about the actual outcome… whether it’s actually helping anyone..
1: I also find that a lot of the words that we used in different ways have now been co-opted to the QA discourse ..including quality.. I can’t actually say what I want as an “outcome”, for example, that the outcome of this workshop is that my students “think about” … then I am told “ah but no that’s not one of the Bloom’s taxonomy words, “think about”.…
2: And the worst part is these medical and agriculture people, these types of people go around spreading it like some kind of gospel!
1: Yea, this cookie cutter way of doing things, they think is the height of innovativeness or creativity, when actually it is so mundane … for me the most awful thing about it is like some fungus of mundanity has taken over through QA reviews.
2: yea, when you say QA, my mind closes off immediately and I stop listening…
Auditing everything but power
QA leaves out crucial aspects of university governance. For instance, there is no review or assessment of the “quality” of university administrations under Criterion 1 or the integrity of procedures governing the promotion of academic staff under Criterion 6 of the institutional reviews.
The majority in the Council—the university’s executive and governing body, which is responsible for selecting the Vice-Chancellor (VC)—are appointed in ad hoc fashion. Apart from the Ex-Officio members in the Council (VC, Deans, etc.), and the two members elected by the Senate, the remainder are appointed by the UGC with no formal consultation or vetting procedure. The VC appointment process described in UGC Circular No. 03/2023 exemplifies how an ostensibly technical process can become entangled in political sycophancy. The Registrar invites applications for the position of VC through advertisement. Applicants must submit a curriculum vitae, a statement of vision for the university and supporting documents. The University Council appoints a three-member Search Committee of senior academics to encourage “eminent persons” to apply, while the UGC appoints a former VC from another university to “observe” the selection process.
A Special Meeting of the University Council is convened. Candidates are interviewed and must make a presentation to the Council Members, followed by questions. Each Council member “gives marks” for seven prescribed criteria: strategic focus (20%), effective leadership (20%), holistic thinking/conceptual skills (10%), academic and research excellence (15%), personal integrity (10%), professional communication (10%) and managerial competence (15%). Marks are averaged, and the Council recommends three candidates to the UGC in rank order. The UGC-appointed observer separately submits a confidential report on the selection process.
This procedure is expected to guarantee quality, but does it? Applications are submitted to the Council Members, who have been appointed on questionable bases, and who are expected to review the applications and give scores, based on objective assessments. But, in reality, most Council Members are manipulated by VC candidates, who often have personal ties with them. The UGC-appointed observer usually has no genuine interest in the outcome. And there is no way for anyone to actually question the Council’s decision once it is made. Although the highest-ranked candidate may ultimately be appointed, the selection remains a political decision made by the President, who retains the discretion to appoint any one of the three.
External reviews also do not look into the promotions of academic staff, except to scrutinise whether there are policies and procedures in place to govern promotion. Academic staff may apply for promotion to Professor once they satisfy the prescribed eligibility requirements, which typically include the period of service, academic qualifications, research and publication achievements, teaching experience, and contributions to the university and wider community. Applications are evaluated against specified criteria, with research output and academic contributions assessed through documentary evidence and expert evaluation. Under the UGC’s scheme for Professors, two experts from outside the applicant’s institution assess specified aspects of research and knowledge dissemination. Again, beneath this technical process, which is externally evaluated, lies a problematic points-based scheme that can be manipulated and abused with impunity.
Rethinking university QA
Like the VC election process and the schemes of promotion for academic staff, QA reviews are open to manipulation. Before a review, there is a chaotic rush to complete evidence gathering and reporting. Academics leave all other work aside, including at times their teaching, to focus on completing documentation and preparing reports. The standardised criteria in the review manuals and scoring sheets often do not reflect differences in disciplines and institutional contexts. But this does not really matter because any serious problems experienced by institutions or programmes are hastily brushed under the carpet to conceal any evidence that could taint the review. The goal is to obtain an A or at least a B grade at whatever cost.
QA may result in positive change if it moves beyond top-down check-box activities towards internally designed and owned processes encompassing all aspects of university governance, led by departments and faculties, and supported by adequate resources. The current QA system needs to be dismantled and replaced by procedures that are accountable, not to the UGC, but to our students and the communities we serve.
(Ramya Kumar is attached to the Department of Community and Family Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, 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.
Yes, Down Memory Lane, the beloved Sing-Along concert series that first struck a chord, way back in 1997, returns for its landmark 20th edition this Saturday, 17th October, at the beautiful Bolgoda Grand Resort, Moratuwa town centre.
Having celebrated its glorious 25th anniversary with the show in 2023, this milestone 20th concert promises to be even more special.
The organisers, the ever-popular Moratuwa Arts Forum, are pulling out all the stops to present yet another unforgettable evening, brimming with camaraderie, fellowship, and pure nostalgia.
Get ready for two-and-a-half hours of non-stop singing as veteran vocalists, from the Moratuwa Arts Forum, will take the stage to lead and inspire the happy audience to sing, sing and sing to their hearts’ content.
The repertoire? Absolutely magical, according to the organisers.
Veteran Arun Dias Bandaranaike: Will handle the evening’s proceedings / Priya Peiris: Event Conceptor
Around 40 golden oldies — from timeless English vintage evergreens and hits from the 50s to the 90s, to toe-tapping calypsos, soulful American plantation melodies, rousing cowboy and Dixieland favourites, aa well as cherished Sinhala standards. All to be sung with much gusto!
This year’s dedicated organising committee comprises Brian Coorey (Chairman), Priya Peiris (Event Conceptor), Hiran Fernando, Suranga Fernando, Viranjan Perera, Hemka Fernando and Neelesh Silva. Guidance and support comes from Moratuwa Arts Forum President Sarana Guneratne and Secretary Chandani Silva.
Adding his signature charm to the evening, as Master of Ceremonies, will be the veteran Arun Dias Bandaranaike.
Don’t miss this landmark celebration of music and memories!
For further details, contact Hiran Fernando on 0772636446 or WhatsApp 0783636446.
Cabinet approves redrafting of State Assets Management Act
Cooperative Employees Commission Act No. 12 of 1972 to be amended
Dilki Wathsala Marambage appointed as Director General of the Department of Technical Education and Training
Declaration of Naakolagane Sanctuary under the Fauna and Flora Protection Ordinance
Cabinet approves transfer and maintenance of selected roads presently under PC’s and Local Authorities to the RDA
Obtaining financial facilities for the Water Supply and Sanitation Improvement Program (Sub-program 2) from the ADB
‘Dates have the highest sugar content to fight Coronavirus’
Sunday Island 27 December – Headlines
#SundayIsland 17th December – Headlines
Sunday Island – 28th March
Sunday Island Headlines – 21 March
Sunday Island – 21st February – Headlines
-
Features6 days agoThe Sri Lankan who made Scottish history
-
Sports6 days agoNissanka absence opens door for Sri Lanka’s young guns
-
News5 days agoNDB fraud Rs 60mn more than reported
-
News7 days agoGnansara Thera to be assigned to prison printing section: Officials
-
News5 days agoRemoving monk’s robes matter for Sangha to decide: Mahanayake Theras
-
News7 days agoOIC of FCID summoned before Maligakanda Magistrate
-
Features6 days agoFuture of Sri Lanka’s state university system: Should it be shut down and reopened?
-
News6 days agoShiranthi R remanded until 13 Oct.