Connect with us

Features

‘Fertilizer Saga’ in Sri Lanka: A Considered Opinion

Published

on

by Professor W. A. J. M. De Costa

Senior Professor and Chair of Crop Science Department of Crop Science, Faculty of Agriculture University of Peradeniya

Why use fertiliser on crops?

Fertilisers are used for two purposes.

One purpose is to provide essential plant nutrients that are required for crops to produce an economically-important product (i. e. food for humans, feed for animals, a variety of industrial products, etc.). Just as people require food, crops require nutrients for producing what is expected from them.

When a crop is harvested and its yield taken away, a large amount of nutrients is taken out of the system (i. e. the soil). Therefore, continuous cropping of a land leads to the depletion of nutrients in the soil. Application of fertilisers to such a soil replenishes its nutrient pool and makes continuous cropping possible. This is the second purpose of using fertilisers.

A natural ecosystem like a forest does not require an external input such as fertiliser because nutrients are not taken out of the system. Nutrients in dead leaves, branches, trunks and roots are recycled back to the soil. It is a ‘closed’ nutrient cycle, as opposed to the ‘open’ system in an agricultural crop.

 

Inorganic vs organic fertilzers

Inorganic fertilisers (normally called chemical fertilisers) contain nutrients in a concentrated form (i.e. fraction of the nutrient in a unit weight of the fertiliser is high). They are produced via industrial processes or by refining mined minerals containing the nutrient. Three major plant nutrients, viz. nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium are supplied as inorganic fertilisers, either individually (‘straight fertilisers’) or in a mixture (‘compound fertilisers’).

Organic fertilisers (organic manures) are raw materials of plant, animal or human origin. When applied to the soil, they decompose and release their nutrients. In comparison to inorganic fertilisers, the fraction of nutrients in a unit weight of organic manure is much lower. Therefore, to give a crop/soil the same amount of a nutrient, a much greater quantity of organic manure than inorganic fertiliser has to be applied. All organic fertilizers are ‘compound fertilisers’ in the sense that they contain a mixture of nutrients though in a diluted form.

When applied to the soil, the inorganic fertilizers release their nutrients quickly. In recent times, nano-scale materials have been used to slow down the release of nutrients from inorganic fertilisers (i.e. called ‘nano-coated slow-release fertilisers’). When applied to the soil, organic fertilisers release their nutrients slowly, because the organic raw material has to decompose to release its nutrients. Natural decomposition is done by naturally-occurring soil microorganisms. Formulations of microorganisms are used to accelerate decomposition and nutrient release from organic fertilisers.

 

Why ‘modern’ agriculture uses large quantities of inorganic fertiliser?

Global population currently stands at ca. 7.7 billion and is projected to reach 8.5 billion by 2030 and 9.7 billion in 20501. Land area suitable for growing crops is shrinking continuously because of a variety of reasons. Some of the productive lands are lost for urbanisation (i.e. population pressure) while some are converted to alternative non-agricultural uses (e.g. industrial purposes). On the other hand, a portion of lands available for crop production is gradually, but continuously, lost because they become unproductive and economically non-viable due to climate change (e.g. temperatures becoming too warm, rainfall becoming insufficient, etc.) and soil degradation (e.g. loss of fertile top soil due to erosion, loss of soil fertility due to continuous cropping and removal of nutrients without adequate replenishment, development soil problems such as salinity, acidity and accumulation of toxic material).

Increasing population and decreasing arable land area means that we are continuously challenged to increase crop yields per unit land area (usually called ‘crop productivity’) to fulfil the increasing demand for food, feed and the variety of products from agricultural crops. To produce a greater amount of yield from the same unit of land, a crop requires a greater quantity of essential nutrients—there is no such thing as a free lunch in nature— in particular nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P) and potassium (K). A crop has to obtain this increased nutrient requirement either from the soil (which may contain some amount of nutrients naturally) or via fertiliser applied to the soil. Except the soils in virgin lands, soils in the large majority of agricultural lands do not contain naturally the amounts of essential nutrients in quantities required by crops to achieve the productivity levels to meet the continuously increasing demand. Hence, the need to add large quantities of nutrients to the soil. This has to be done every season as most nutrients added during the previous season are removed as crop yield. Because inorganic fertilizer contains nutrients in a concentrated form, the required quantities of the three major nutrients can be supplied with a manageable quantity of inorganic fertiliser. Supplying of the same requirement with organic fertiliser would require substantially larger quantities, which are either not possible to find due to insufficient raw material or difficult to manage. Hence, the widespread use of inorganic fertiliser in commercial agriculture. Organic agriculture where crops are grown exclusively with organic fertilisers represents a small fraction of global agriculture (a very optimistic estimation would put it at < 5%).

 

Why the drive towards reduction of inorganic fertiliser use in agriculture?

While providing the required amounts of the three major plant nutrients to sustain crop yields to ensure food security and maintain soil nutrients at levels required for continuous cropping, application of inorganic fertilisers has caused adverse environmental and human health impacts.

Because nutrients are released readily from inorganic fertilisers, a considerable fraction of those added to the soil gets leached into groundwater and water bodies (i.e. rivers, lakes, reservoirs etc..). The consumption of water from such polluted sources has been linked to a variety of human health issues.

Inorganic fertilizers have been shown to contain toxic substances (e.g. heavy metals such as lead, arsenic, mercury, etc.) as impurities remaining in them after their mining and industrial manufacturing process. The accumulation of these toxic substances in the soil and water sources has been linked to certain human health issues. However, it should be noted that organic fertilizers, especially those of plant and animal origin, are not entirely free from toxic substances.

Alteration of the soil environment by adding concentrated nutrients alters the naturally-occurring community of soil microorganisms who perform many important functions in the soil to ensure its fertility.

In economic terms, inorganic fertilisers, most of which are produced in industrialised developed countries by multi-national companies, are prohibitively expensive to farmers in the developing countries.

Because of the above reasons, there has been a drive towards reduction of the use of inorganic fertilisers and a part-replacement of them by organic fertilisers. Such movements have begun in developed countries (as well as in some developing countries) since the1980s and gathered momentum during the last two decades. During certain periods, some countries and regions of countries have been forced to produce their crops largely on organic fertiliser because of circumstances (mainly political) (e.g. Cuba, Northern Province of Sri Lanka during the ethnic conflict).

 

Current situation in Sri Lanka

The present situation in Sri Lanka has arisen following a gazette notification by the government to ban the import of inorganic fertilizer and synthetic agrochemicals (i.e. insecticides, fungicides, herbicides, etc.) with immediate effect. The pollution of the water bodies and perceived links to human health issues, such as the Chronic Kidney Disease of Unknown Aetiology (CKDU) are cited as the reasons for the ban. While there have been a longstanding discussion at many levels of the Sri Lankan society on the role of inorganic fertilizers (and agrochemicals) in causing the above issues and calls for ‘toxin-free food’, the total and immediate ban came ‘out of the blue’ without any consultation (to my knowledge) with any of the relevant stakeholders (e.g. the Department of Agriculture, academia, the plantation sector research institutes, farmer organizations, growers of a wide range of crops or their organizations, private sector organizations in the supply and marketing chain etc.). Apparently, the President/government was acting on the advice of a few university academics (who are either advisors or political appointees as heads of public-sector institutions) and longstanding activists (e.g. Ven. Athuraliya Rathana, Dr. Anuruddha Padeniya et al).

Currently, all relevant public sector institutions have been directed to seek how alternatives to inorganic fertilizer (i.e. organic fertilizer) could be produced and supplied to farmers and growers in adequate quantities required during the Yala season which is already started and beyond. It has been stated in the media that any shortfall for the current season (and probably beyond until adequate quantities can be produced locally) will be provided through imported organic fertiliser. A similar strategy has been proposed for synthetic agrochemicals for which the principal alternative is pesticides of biological origin (i.e. Biopesticides).

 

Possible impacts of an absence of inorganic fertiliser in Sri Lanka

 

It is highly likely that in the absence of inorganic fertilisers, the productivity (i. e. economic harvest per unit land area) of some of the major crops in Sri Lanka (e. g. rice and tea), which are crucial to national food security and economy, will decline significantly leading to a decline in the total production (i.e. productivity × cultivated area). At present, Sri Lanka does not have sufficient sources of readily-available organic fertiliser nor does it not have the infrastructure in place to produce organic fertilizers in adequate quantities to fulfil even the minimum nutrient requirement of these two major crops considering the scale on which they are grown.

The prognosis would be the same for a majority of the other annual crops (e.g. cereals, pulses, vegetables, industrial crops, etc.) and floriculture plants (i.e. cut flower and foliage), which are grown on a smaller scale. Some crops such as rubber and coconut may not show an immediate decline in their harvest but will begin to show declines in the medium-term, depending on the existing fertility status of the soils on which they have been established and the overall management status of the plantation and its trees.

 

Why is Sri Lankan agriculture so reliant on inorganic fertiliser?

The scientific reasons

Soils in Sri Lanka are, by nature, relatively poor in the amounts of essential nutrients (i. e. the three major nutrients, nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium plus magnesium, sulphur and calcium, which are also needed in relatively large quantities) that they make naturally available for crops growing on them. The natural supply of nutrients from a soil comes when the parent material of the soil (i.e. rocks and minerals) undergoes a very slow, gradual decomposition process called ‘weathering’. The plant nutrients are part of the minerals contained in the parent material and are released to the soil when the minerals weather due to the action of rain and other climatic factors such as temperature. Because of the high rainfall and temperature regime associated with the tropical climate in Sri Lanka, its soils have been highly-weathered over a long period of time (over several millennia) so that the existing soil minerals (the source of natural supply of nutrients) are considerably (if not severely) depleted of nutrients. Because of the high rainfall regime (especially in the wet zone and the Central Highlands and to a lesser extent in the dry and intermediate zones), a substantial portion of the nutrients that are released from minerals via the weathering process are leached and lost to the soil, further depleting its natural fertility.

Furthermore, most of the lands on which crops are currently cultivated in all climatic zones of Sri Lanka have been under cultivation for a long period of time. As explained earlier, long-term cultivation of a soil leads to depletion of its nutrient reserves.

Soils in the Central Highlands and those on sloping terrain in other parts of Sri Lanka are further degraded due to soil erosion caused by high-intensity rainfall. Erosion takes away the top layer of the soil and a substantial amount of nutrients naturally available along with it.

Because of the reasons outlined above, neither the grain yield levels of rice that are required to fulfil the annual national demand nor the green leaf yield levels of tea that would bring the expected level of foreign exchange could be sustained on Sri Lankan soils without providing the required quantities of the three major nutrients via inorganic fertilisers.

It is likely that in the absence of the recommended inorganic fertiliser (especially nitrogen fertilizer) inputs, yield reductions would become detectable in the current Yala season in rice and within a matter of a few months in tea. This is because of the specific physiology of these two crops. Nitrogen is critically-essential for early growth of rice and the leaf growth of tea. Therefore, a shortage of nitrogen to these crops would be felt almost immediately as a retardation of early growth of rice (which would be reflected as a substantial reduction in grain yield) and the weekly green leaf harvest in tea.

Similar to what happens in rice and tea, the retardation of growth and yield is likely to happen with a shortage of nitrogen fertilizer in all short-duration annual crops and commercial plants. Leguminous pulse crops (e. g. soybean, mung bean, cowpea, black gram, common bean, etc.) could be an exception because of their ability to utilise atmospheric nitrogen.

Impacts of a shortage of nitrogen fertiliser are likely to be delayed for a few years (as stated earlier) in coconut and rubber because of their specific physiology where the nut yield or latex (rubber) yield is not as dependent on an immediate nitrogen supply as the grain and leaf yields of rice and tea respectively. However, a shortage of nitrogen will cause a reduction in the internal processes of these plants, which will be reflected in a few years’ time, as a reduction in the processes leading to the production of nuts and latex in coconut and rubber respectively. Recently-planted and younger coconut and rubber plantations will show a retardation of tree growth which will delay the commencement of nut and latex production.

A basic scientific fact which should have been noted by the advisors to politicians, if not the politicians, is that a shortage of nitrogen affects the fundamental plant process, photosynthesis, which is responsible for growth and yield formation of crops2. Shortage of nitrogen, along with shortages of phosphorus, potassium and magnesium, decreases the rate of photosynthesis, which is translated in to a reduction of growth and yield of any crop, which may happen over different time scales in different crops. It is unlikely that in the absence of inorganic fertilisers, organic fertiliser applications would be able to prevent the resulting decrease in growth and yield of a large majority of commercial crops in Sri Lanka.

 

A few spice crops such as cloves, cardamoms and nutmegs, but not cinnamon and pepper, may escape yield reductions due to a shortage of inorganic fertilizer because they are largely present in homegardens in the Central Province which are generally not fertilized.

Out of the three major fertilizers, containing nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium, a shortage would be most immediately felt for nitrogen fertilizer. The impact would be delayed for phosphorus fertilizer and it would be intermediate for potassium fertilizer. The scientific reasons are that nitrogen is the nutrient that is most critically-needed for a large majority of plant processes and is the most mobile nutrient in the soil, which makes it the most susceptible for leaching losses; phosphorus is the least mobile nutrient and therefore, can remain in the soil for

2 Evans, J. R., & Clarke, V. C. (2019). The nitrogen cost of photosynthesis. Journal of Experimental Botany, 70(1), 7-15. An expert review that was published in a highly-recognized scientific journal in plant sciences. Although most of its content is aimed at specialists in Plant Physiology, there are a few paragraphs (highlighted) from which an educated ‘layman’ reader could gather useful insights in to why nitrogen fertilizer is of such crucial importance for crops. a reasonable period of time and can be released to plants slowly; potassium is a nutrient which is intermediate in terms of its mobility in the soil and criticality of its need for plant processes.

 

What has been the response of the stakeholders?

 

This is only a snapshot from my perspective based on discussions with professional colleagues and contacts. An overwhelming majority of academics, research officers, extension officers, commercial growers and farmers do not agree with this immediate and total ban of inorganic fertilizers. A minority of stakeholders in the agriculture sector and an overwhelming majority of environmental activists (who unfortunately have no clear idea of how large-scale agriculture to feed a nation differs from growing a few pots of plants at home) have welcomed the ban. A powerful argument of this minority of stakeholders in the agriculture sector is that organic agricultural products (e.g. organic tea) fetches a higher price in the global market and will offset any loss of foreign exchange due to reduced total production. This argument ignores the decline in yield and total production of locally-consumed food (including the staple food, rice), the wide-ranging implications of which cannot be compensated by a higher price (which is unlikely to happen in the highly-volatile local market for agricultural produce).

Where do we go from here?

While disagreeing with a total and immediate ban on inorganic fertilizer, a majority of academics, research officers and extension officers, but not commercial growers and farmers, acknowledge that there is scope for an appreciable reduction in the quantities of inorganic fertilizer (relative to the levels that have been in use before the ban) without incurring a yield reduction. Farmers have been applying the inorganic fertilizers at rates which are above those recommended by the Department of Agriculture, because inorganic fertilizers had been made available to them at a highly-subsidized price.

Research on a range of different crops over several seasons across a range of locations carried out by my research group has shown that 25% of the recommended amount of nitrogen fertilizer can be reduced without incurring a yield reduction.

Therefore, a phased-out reduction of inorganic fertilizer along with a gradual increase of the contribution of organic fertilizer to supply the nutrient requirement of crops is a viable pathway that a majority of stakeholders agrees on. Increasing the contribution of organic fertilizer requires: (a) up-scaling of organic fertilizers that have been developed in Sri Lanka using microorganisms isolated from local soils; (b) developing infrastructure to produce such organic fertilizers at commercial scale; (c) changing farmer/grower perceptions and attitudes on the total dependence on inorganic fertilizers and start using organic fertilizer as a part-replacement via a concerted extension effort. (The agricultural extension service in Sri Lanka, which was acknowledged as one of the best in Asia in the 1980s, have been severely downgraded during the last three decades); (d) initiating a concerted programme to increase the organic matter content of Sri Lankan soils, which would enable them to retain a higher fraction of the nutrients applied to them via both inorganic and organic fertilizers and thereby minimize leaching losses.

Even if all the above are successfully implemented (which will take time especially in the current context), an agriculture sector, which is totally based on organic fertilizer—the first such country in the world according to the President—is unlikely to produce enough food (e. g. rice) to ensure food security in Sri Lanka or generate other agriculture-based products that fetch foreign exchange and support local manufacturing industries (e. g. rubber). Therefore, it is inevitable that a balance needs to be struck between the reduction of inorganic fertilizer (from the levels that were practiced before the ban) and a viable level of organic fertilizer as a part-replacement to provide the full nutrient requirement that a higher crop yield demands.

As a medium-term solution, research on a more balanced form of agriculture (i.e. an optimum combination of inorganic and organic fertilizer) within the climatic and soil conditions that are prevalent in Sri Lanka (while taking in to account their possible changes as part of global climate change) needs to be encouraged via increased funding. Currently, Sri Lanka invests only 0.11% of its GDP in Research and Development (in all disciplines including agriculture), which is one of the lowest even in Asia. Therefore, there is little room for optimism in this regard.

 

Importation of organic fertilizers

Importation of organic fertilizers is being promoted as a short-term measure to supply the nutrient requirement to agricultural crops during the period when Sri Lanka is expected develop its local capacity to produce organic fertilizers in quantities sufficient to meet the full nutrient demand of the crops. It is said that the quality of imported organic fertilizer will be assured via strict quality control procedures which conform to, for example, the EU Standards. Only time will tell whether this will actually materialize and provide a solution. A few points of major concern are as following:

Quantity

Experienced Soil Scientists and fertilizer experts are of the opinion that concentration of nutrients in organic fertilizers is such that large quantities need to be imported (subsequently transported to fields and applied) to fulfil the nutrient demand to produce the crop yields at the required levels to ensure food security and sustain foreign exchange earnings.

Environmental concerns

Almost all organic fertilizers, being material of plant, animal or human origin, retain a diverse population of microorganisms. Unlike inorganic fertilizers, which are inert material, organic fertilizers are live material. Microorganisms, whether in soils, plants or any other location or entity, are often highly environment-specific. Introduction of such alien microorganisms to Sri Lankan soils could cause all types of unforeseen interactions with local microorganisms. Some of these interactions could have environmental repercussions, which are irreversible as once released to the soil, these alien microorganisms cannot be ‘recalled’. Therefore, it is always advisable and safer to develop organic fertilizers locally rather than importing.

Sterilization of imported organic fertilizer to kill all alien microorganisms via a process of fumigation after importation is suggested as a solution to this problem. However, the large quantities of organic fertilizers that are required to be imported and the toxicity levels

of the chemicals that are used in fumigation could lead to environmental issues that the organic fertilizers are aiming to prevent. Recently, the Cabinet Minister of Agriculture went on record saying that only sterilized organic fertilizer conforming to quality standards acceptable to a government-appointed expert committee would be imported. Given Sri Lanka’s poor record of regulation, implementation and enforcement of quality standards on a range of items, both imported and locally-produced and both agricultural and non-agricultural, it remains to be seen whether these promises will be fulfilled.

Rational medium- to long-term possibilities for reducing the use of inorganic fertilizer while increasing yields of major food crops at a rate required to keep pace with increasing population and consequently increasing demand

A few medium- to long-term options, based on sound scientific principles, are available and are briefly discussed below:

Genetic modification of crops

In addressing the challenges of increasing crop yields while decreasing their use of nutrients (i.e. increasing the yield per unit nutrient used), scientists have been trying to modify the components and steps involved in the photosynthesis process via genetic engineering. One of their aims has been to produce a plant which achieves a higher photosynthetic rate with the same level of nitrogen used. After about two decades of research effort, a recent research publication in the prestigious science journal Nature reports of such a breakthrough in rice3. Reading through it carefully, I gather that this new genetically-modified rice plant (we call them ‘transgenic’ plants) has the potential to achieve a higher photosynthetic rate and grain yield with the same level of nitrogen as the ‘normal’ plants (which are not genetically-modified). However, this is possible under ‘well-fertilized conditions’ meaning that at the currently-used high nitrogen fertilizer rates4. This particular publication does not indicate whether such higher levels of photosynthesis and yields are possible at lower than ‘well-fertilized conditions’ which are likely to prevail in fields fertilized exclusively with organic fertilizer. Nevertheless, as Professor Stephen Long, a recognized world authority on photosynthesis states, the production of this transgenic rice plant could be a ‘game-changer’ to increase grain yield of rice without a proportionate increase in nitrogen input.

However, it should be noted that a considerable time could elapse from the point of producing a ‘transgenic’ plant to developing a new crop variety that could be released to the farmers for commercial cultivation. Yet, this appears to be a solid step in the right direction.

3 Long, S. P. (2020). Photosynthesis engineered to increase rice yield. Nature Food, 1(2), 105-105. A brief comment by Professor Stephen Long on the recent breakthrough in producing a genetically-modified rice plant which is able to achieve a higher photosynthetic rate and grain yield with the same amount of nitrogen.

4 Yoon, D. K., Ishiyama, K., Suganami, M., Tazoe, Y., Watanabe, M., Imaruoka, S., … & Makino, A. (2020). Transgenic rice overproducing Rubisco exhibits increased yields with improved nitrogen-use efficiency in an experimental paddy field. Nature Food, 1(2), 134-139. The research publication which describes the above breakthrough in photosynthesis and nitrogen use. Increasing the organic matter content in soils

Soil organic matter (SOM) is a component of the soil in addition to the soil particles. While the soil particles arise from weathering of rocks and minerals of the soil parent material, SOM arises from the decomposition of organic material added to the soil. SOM helps to retain nutrients and water in the top layers of the soil where most plant roots are also present. In addition, SOM helps to improve the aeration and structure in the soil, which are vital physical properties in the soil to facilitate plant growth.

Except the soils in the terraced plateaus of the Central Highlands, soils of almost all arable crop lands in Sri Lanka have inadequate SOM. This means that the ability of these soils to retain the nutrients that are added to them, especially in the form of readily-released inorganic fertilizer, is limited. Therefore, a concerted effort to increase the SOM status in Sri Lankan soils will enable reduction of leaching losses of nutrients and associated environmental consequences such as pollution of water sources. Increased SOM will also enable reduction of the amounts of inorganic fertilizer applied without causing a shortage of nutrients to the crops as a greater fraction of the applied fertilizer remains in the soil to be absorbed by the plants.

Therefore, while the total and immediate ban of inorganic fertilizer and replacing them with organic fertilizer will not provide the required nutrients in sufficient quantities, the large-scale application of organic fertilizer, if it happens as envisaged, will serve to increase the SOM of Sri Lankan soils in the medium- to long-term. This will make the Sri Lankan Agriculture sector less-reliant on inorganic fertilizers. However, this will have to be a gradual, phased-out transition rather than a sudden, unplanned total ban on inorganic fertilizers. Such a transition should be towards achieving an optimum balance of inorganic and organic fertilizers, which will ensure food security while protecting the environment. This is an endeavour that has been undertaken in many parts of the world, which include both the developed and developing countries, and is termed ‘Sustainable Intensification of Agriculture’5.

5 Baulcombe, D., Crute, I., Davies, B., Dunwell, J., Gale, M., Jones, J., … & Toulmin, C. (2009). Reaping the benefits: science and the sustainable intensification of global agriculture. The Royal Society. A very useful, concise, but comprehensive description of the salient features of sustainable intensification of agriculture written by a group

of experts from the Royal Society, UK. Can be accessed at https://royalsociety.org/topics-

policy/publications/2009/reaping-benefits/.



Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Features

Form-ation of Higher Education in Sri Lanka

Published

on

By Hasini Lecamwasam

Improving higher education in Sri Lanka is not only important, but essential and long overdue. However, seeking to achieve higher ‘quality’ by ‘form-ising’ the performance of teachers (or the practice of forcing the entire teaching-learning exercise into forms designed to communicate exactly what and what transpires in a classroom) may not be able to bring about the desired change. A new set of four forms introduced recently to this end requires, among other things, drawing up a minutely detailed plan of each and every lesson to be delivered in class, aligned with the Course Learning Outcomes (CLOs), in turn, to be aligned with the Programme Learning Outcomes (PLOs), which should all then be tied to the graduate profile, or the kind of graduate we seek to ‘produce’ at the end of it all. This may, on the surface of it, sound reasonable enough and not encourage serious debate or resistance because, after all, it is only some forms that need to be filled.

Form by tedious form, however, the teaching-learning process at state universities is becoming increasingly constricted, fragmented, monitored, controlled. In this piece, I wish to briefly ponder on the implications of these requirements and the larger trends they signal, while also attempting to reflect on what instead we may do to ensure ‘quality’ in the delivery of higher education.

The problem with form-ation

The larger ‘Quality Assurance’ (QA) landscape in which these developments take place was discussed in detail in an earlier Kuppi Talk by Kaushalya Perera. In a nutshell, QA seeks to standardise education such that study programmes can be assessed against each other, assigned numbers, and ranked accordingly. The deployment of overarching yardsticks for programmes with hugely varying mandates, methods, and content has been the subject of much critique lately the world over, not the least due to its rather warped understanding of ‘quality’ as something that can be objectively established through metrics and audits.

While I do not question the bona fide motives behind the initiative taken with the aforementioned forms, I do think serious reflection on where these developments push us in the longer term is needed. My primary reservation here has to do with the impact of this lesson-wise breakdown on the creative and democratic exercise that the teaching-learning process is supposed to entail. When each topic is broken down into such fine detail prior to the actual occurrence of the ‘lesson’ (for want of a better word), outcomes are foreclosed rather than collectively and organically evolving in the course of the ‘lesson’, which is particularly important to many of the subjects offered in the Arts Faculties. Exactly how many of us are actually quite so democratic in our classrooms is a valid question in this regard, and one I will return to. The point for me here, however, is that for those who do have a sincere commitment to such a democratic classroom environment, such forms and the limiting of the teaching-learning experience they constitute, may be tantamount to strangulation.

Even if the majority of us admit to being very controlling in our classrooms anyway, does that justify going one step further with these forms and institutionalising such control? Should not our commitment be to the emancipatory ideal, rather than simply what most are on board with? There should be meaningful space for creative, organic, and democratic teaching-learning processes to unfold for teachers who wish to make that choice, and for students to explore and think beyond the teacher’s frame of thinking. Micromanaging beyond the general content of a course (laid down in enough detail in the course syllabus) is inimical to even a possibility of democracy existing in the classroom and within the larger university space.

This complete subservience of the teaching-learning process to red tape signals a larger and troubling trend of corporatisation. Corporatisation may be defined as the restructuring of a publicly owned institution to be managed as a business place would be, with a view to privatising in the long term. In state universities, this shift is couched in the supposedly ‘progressive’ language of student-centered approaches and interactive classrooms, hijacked from the democratic pedagogy of the likes of Paulo Freire, but bereft of any of the emancipatory politics within which these methods assume meaning. Despite the use of these catch-phrases, however, such minutely detailed forms signal a return to an extremely teacher-centered model due to the absence of the possibility for students to meaningfully influence the outcome of a lesson, as it is predetermined for them.

The result, as the Kannangara report worried with remarkable foresight some 80 years ago, is students “with much knowledge and little understanding. They have not read books; they have “studied” texts. They cannot write, they produce essays after a set style. They can answer questions but not question answers … Their imagination has been stunted, their originality suppressed, their capacity for thought undeveloped, their emotions inhibited.”

What alternative can we propose?

A valid question countering what little resistance there is to form-ation asks how we can ensure the education we currently deliver is of an acceptable standard, and that everybody observes such. There seems to prevail tacit and widespread agreement that the ‘democratic nonsense’ within universities is what has allowed many to hide behind debates, deliberations, appeals to creative freedom, and so on, without actually doing their work.

In my view, this is an arbitrary causation to draw. Blaming internal democracy for negligence of duties fails to take into account the highly anti-democratic practices at universities that may better explain such behaviour.

Specifically, I think it is the rigidly entrenched hierarchy within universities that blocks the possibility of even dialogue, let alone debate, particularly when it comes to holding those higher-up in the ladder accountable for their actions (or the lack thereof, as the case may be). Hierarchy is why, among many other things, students cannot question the content or the methods chosen by their teachers. As previous Kuppi Talks have endeavoured to show, hierarchy is silently, and therefore very effectively, observed at every level, ensuring the trumping of students by teachers, juniors by seniors, women by men, minorities by the majority, and originality by tradition. It impedes questioning, stifles dissent, and smothers alternative thinking altogether. The problem, therefore, is not that we have too much democracy in universities, but too little of it.

We must make a sincere and sustained effort to radically democratise the university space by relaxing the classroom to allow open and honest exchange between students and teachers; changing the relations of power between seniors and juniors, starting with undoing the practice of deferential treatment; refusing to tolerate snide and not-so-subtle references to ways of dressing and similar gendered remarks; questioning the exclusive use of the majority language in official communications, as a starting point. In doing so, we would be subverting the crippling hierarchy that inhibits thought and practice within the university. Such a radical change geared towards improved quality through mutual accountability, for me, is the only acceptable way of introducing accountability to a space that, admittedly, sorely lacks it.

(Hasini Lecamwasam is attached to the Department of Political Science, University of Peradeniya)

Kuppi is a politics and pedagogy happening on the margins of the lecture hall that parodies, subverts, and simultaneously reaffirms social hierarchies.

Continue Reading

Features

THE LOGIC OF PRESIDENT’S PLEDGES IN NEW YORK

Published

on

by Jehan Perera

The significance of President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s speech at the UN General Assembly, in New York, last week, was his use of the time allocated to him to provide an outline of the government’s policies towards the main challenges besetting the country. The President covered the main issues that confront the world with his focus on Sri Lanka. These included measures to contain the Covid pandemic, the economic crisis, environmental degradation and violence. In the final section of his well-crafted speech, the President went into some depth regarding the government’s approach to national reconciliation. However, the response within the country, has been muted and for good reason. Those who voted for the government, on an entirely different platform, which emphasised ethnic majority nationalism and anti-international sentiments, are quite probably at a loss.

It is only recently that the government has started to speak in terms of reconciliation and obtaining international support for it. At the two elections that brought this government to power, the Easter Sunday bombing and the consequent threat to national security, took centre stage. The majority, who voted for the government, did so to protect it from a variety of security threats they were told of, both within and outside the country. The wretched failure of the previous government to prevent the bombing, the first terrorist act of any magnitude since the war ended a decade earlier, was attributed to the personal weakness of the then government leaders. It was also attributed to the 19th Amendment which sought to give state institutions protection from use for partisan reasons by government politicians and to consequent disintegration of the system of command and control.

A second theme, at the two elections, was depiction of ethnic and religious minorities as potential security threats. This stemmed from the country’s experience of three decades of internal warfare with the armed Tamil separatist movements. This was followed by the Easter bombings by extremists from the Muslim community, who were feared to be having a vast support base both internally within the country and also externally. In these circumstances, the re-centralisation of power within the government hierarchy and greater role given to the security forces, received public acceptance as being part of the government’s democratic mandate. At the same time, by denying the equally legitimate concerns of the ethnic and religious minorities, the electoral results demonstrated the existence of an acute polarisation, and wound, in the body politic that continues to fester to the point of bringing in involuntary and imposed international interventions.

EU MONITORING

The challenge for the government is to represent the interests of all communities and not only the majority who voted it into power. The problem is that the government’s mandate comes, by and large, from the vote of the ethnic and religious majority in a country that has been polarised on ethnic and religious lines, for many decades. An ugly part of this reality is that in the prisons are several hundreds of Tamils and Muslims for the most part who are in custody for periods ranging from a few months to many years without trial. They are being held under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, ostensibly until the security forces find adequate evidence to put them before the courts of law. This contradicts the rule of law and the presumption in our legal system that we are innocent until proven guilty can have negative consequences.

In June this year, the EU parliament passed a resolution that the GSP Plus tariff privileges, made available to Sri Lanka should be withdrawn unless the government fulfilled its obligations in regard to the upholding of human rights. The resolution, expressing “deep concern over Sri Lanka’s alarming path towards the recurrence of grave human rights violations”, and makes specific reference to the use of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA). The resolution notes the “continuing discrimination” against and violence towards religious and ethnic minorities, while voicing “serious concern” about the 20th Amendment passed in 2020, and the “resulting decline in judiciary independence, the reduction of parliamentary control, and the excessive accumulation of power with the presidency”. It also highlights “accelerating militarisation” of civilian government functions in Sri Lanka.

A delegation from the EU is currently in Sri Lanka to meet with members of the government, Opposition and civil society, to ascertain whether the country is fulfilling its obligations to be a beneficiary of EU trade benefits. It is likely that the delegation will be provided with evidence of human rights violations and acts of impunity. There are hundreds of persons languishing in prisons without being put on trial, many of whom are Tamils, suspected to be LTTE members, and more of them are Muslims, suspected of having links with the Easter bombings. When questioned in parliament about the latter, the minister in charge justified those detentions on the grounds that Muslim youth, including the Muslim parliamentarian who had questioned him, could contain Islamic State ideology in their heads and therefore be security threats.

NEW DIRECTION

At the last elections, the most potent theme was the failure of the then government to act effectively to protect the country from the Easter suicide bombings and the pressures from human rights actors in Geneva. Among the issues that loomed large at the last election was also the charge that the previous government was giving in too much to the Muslim community within the country. The fact that the Easter attacks were by Muslim suicide bombers added force to this charge. The prioritisation of national security in the election campaign had popular support. The influential religious clergy, associations of professionals and mass media also joined the battle in earnest and their messages reinforced one another. The recent debate in Parliament suggests the government’s thinking continues to be in sync with the mandate it received at those elections.

However, in his speech in New York, President Gotabaya Rajapaksa has shown signs of diverging from the politics of the past. The President said “Fostering greater accountability, restorative justice, and meaningful reconciliation through domestic institutions is essential to achieve lasting peace. So too is ensuring more equitable participation in the fruits of economic development. It is my Government’s firm intention to build a prosperous, stable and secure future for all Sri Lankans, regardless of ethnicity, religion, or gender. We are ready to engage with all domestic stakeholders, and to obtain the support of our international partners and the United Nations, in this process.” However, the President’s speech continues to be at variance with the ground realities at the present time and the general manner of governance since the President took office in November 2019.

So far the pledge of a new direction is articulated in words. The time for the government to make the President’s words real and act accordingly is now. This will help to overcome the deep and dark cynicism that has enveloped the country regarding promises made by politicians. The first step would be to apply the logic of the Justice Minister in Parliament. Replying to an Opposition Parliamentarian who called for the arrest of Minister Lohan Ratwatte who stands accused of entering a prison and threatening prisoners with his gun, the justice minister said that everyone is entitled to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. This also applies to the hundreds of Tamils and Muslims in jail without evidence to charge them in a court of law. The better way to deal with the threats to national security is to win the confidence of all the communities in the Sri Lanka by treating them without discrimination, as children of one mother, as our national anthem proclaims.

Continue Reading

Features

Face shields, sans masks, on TV shows!

Published

on

Face shield ONLY does not provide protection from Covid-19

Covid-19 has claimed many lives, in our part of the world. Quite a few musicians, too, have had to face the music, where this deadly virus is concerned.

However, one is perturbed with the setup seen on some of our TV shows, especially where musicians are concerned.

The Covid-19 guidelines are never adhered to – no masks, no social distancing, etc.

There were reality shows held, post pandemic, where judges were seen even hugging their favourite contestants – with no masks.

With the virus turning deadly, some of the judges took to only wearing face shields. And, we now know the results of their stupidity.

By their irresponsible behaviour (wearing only face shields), they seem to be setting a trend for others to follow.

The question being asked is what are the health authorities doing? Why haven’t such folks been taken to task!

If the man on the street is arrested for not wearing a mask, how come these law-breakers go scot-free!

If wearing a mask is a hassle in an air conditioned setup, then such shows should be put on hold, or held virtual…live stream, zoom, from home, etc., and not with the participation of several artistes, in a studio.

Continue Reading

Trending