For better research in Humanities and Social Sciences
By Kaushalya Perera
State universities in general, and the Humanities and Social Sciences in particular, are often charged with not doing research. Such allegations and complaints have been in circulation for many years. How much research do these faculties produce? What is the quality of this research? Is it objective? Why can’t they match up to the Sciences? Why don’t these academics publish much? These are all good questions that need to be answered.
What state universities have done to develop research
Setting aside money for research entails two things: the university has to have money and it has to prioritise some of that money for research. Major research universities in the world regularly set aside at least a billion dollars, annually, for research. You might say that such universities are also rich enough to do that and that would be true. They are also research universities, whereas Sri Lanka has teaching universities. Research universities do, however, also prioritise research by creating time, space and money for research, which comes in the form of equipment, graduate assistant salaries, travel funds, research grants, etc. They also have less burdensome administrative conditions, less governmental oversight and more time assigned for research.
Sri Lankan state universities are poor. They receive money from the state through Treasury funds, which are then distributed to each Faculty/Institute. This year, we heard that my Faculty—housing approximately 3000 students in 11 departments and four units—received less than one million rupees for the year. This does not include salaries for permanent staff, but are for other necessary expenditures in the Faculty. So, if universities want money for research, they must earn it. Treasury funds will not pay for conferences, research grants, travel grants for research purposes and all the other resources we need for our research.
Herein lies one reason for the many income-generating efforts of state universities, e.g., fee-levying courses, large numbers in postgraduate programmes, external degrees, etc. Yet these too must rely on existing human resources: the academics who at the same time must teach in undergraduate programmes, which are the Sri Lankan university’s actual work. If a factory hires one third of the people necessary for the work, there is only so much work that can be done well or done at all. The same applies to state universities and their research output.
Due to these reasons, the money a Sri Lankan university spends on research depends on the university’s income generating power and therefore varies from university to university. Additionally, other state bodies, like the National Science Foundation and the National Centre for Advanced Studies in Humanities and Social Sciences (the only institute working solely in the field of arts) also fund researchers. A third source of research funding has been the loans provided by the World Bank which are problematic for other reasons, such as the questionable conditions they impose and the emphasis they place on specific areas for research which might not necessarily fit in with the goals of the institution or the researcher.
Why research doesn’t happen even when the money appears
The NSF’s grant giving scheme this year excluded the humanities and social sciences from its priority areas—a telling illustration of how the Social Sciences and Humanities are viewed by one of the foremost research institutes in the country. This brings us to some other issues that have affected research in our fields for the last few decades.
State universities’ research is required to be ‘relevant to national development’. This mandate is often interpreted narrowly and short-sightedly. The general impression is that research related to science, medicine or technology is more relevant than research in the fields of humanities and social sciences. Yet the idea of relevance is itself a subjective one. For example, how are studies of a historical event, a minority language or a community’s understanding of illness ‘less’ relevant to a country’s development? To be relevant, does one have to key one’s research to government interests or towards the development of society in general?
Another nagging problem is the archaic nature of bureaucratic administrative procedures. Formal approvals for any university procedure, related to travel or financing, take more than two months. Even before the pandemic, no academic in a state university could have accepted an invitation to give a keynote speech in a foreign university or participated in a training workshop in another country at short notice. University and state financial procedures are so burdensome that researchers are reluctant to apply for research grants from their university. A good example of a government regulation that acts as a barrier to research is the current government’s regulation that all Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) that state universities enter into with foreign institutions must be subject to Cabinet approval. The resultant delays to proposed research projects—usually more than a year—have led to state universities losing valuable partnerships with foreign research institutions.
Research-related measures create other problems. Institutional requirements that research should be published in peer-reviewed, internationally recognised journals could help Sri Lankan researchers reach for a higher standard. The national promotional marking schemes designed for a lecturer also offer points for research, which means that the more articles one publishes, the sooner one gains a promotion. The h-index is another international measure that became important to Sri Lankan universities recently: it measures how many times a researcher has been cited by others.
These moves towards a quantitative measurement of the significance and value of research is problematic since they are biased towards researchers from fields that produce shorter articles or have faster publishing processes (e.g. medicine, science). For the humanities and social sciences, publishing is a lengthy process. Articles run to about 8000-10000 words and are usually written by a single person. The publication process usually takes over a year. A social scientist publishing three substantial articles per year in internationally recognised journals would be considered prolific. Yet, given the nature of measurements such as the h-index or academic promotional schemes, even the most productive social scientist would still score lower than his or her peers working in some other disciplines.
Besides these issues is the difficulty in establishing a uniform idea of what research means across academia. For example, does the research output of a psychologist, a botanist, an epidemiologist and a composer of music take the same form? Can the same criteria be used to measure the value of a play by a critically acclaimed director, the discovery of a new species of lizard and the analysis of a historical artefact that might change how we perceive our history? Can these be evaluated by the same people? These are necessarily subjective matters and may need us to use different, discipline specific measures rather than uniform measures across disciplines.
Changing the environment of research in the social sciences and the humanities
The real issue is of course, that these perceptions and measures of relevance and significance have consequences. Because the social sciences and humanities are considered to be of less value, they are assigned less funding. This results not only in fewer resources, but also in less rigorous training, a lack of opportunities for postgraduate exposure to universities of standing in the world, a lack of access to international academic databases, and so on. The poverty of thought and creativity that we see around us now in the humanities and social sciences is the result of the long-term paucity of funds and visionary thinking in the universities.
If the country wants rigorous, creative, socially relevant research from the Social Sciences and Humanities, we have to take steps now. The archaic administrative and financial procedures that stifle research in universities must be revised. State universities must be accountable, but the road to accountability need not be so lengthy. If state universities are to become knowledge hubs and internationalized spaces, they should have agency over their own MOUs, for example.
The most crucial factor though, is one of ideology. In research, as in other arenas, we must counter the dominant nationalist and neoliberal ideologies growing around us. The nationalist ideologies prevalent today have stifled research that is critical of such ideas, instead encouraging racist or inane studies linked to nationalist agendas (e.g., researching Ravana’s aviation routes). Neoliberal ideologies of research tie into the production of more research rather than better, rigorous research—thus perpetuating the heirarcharies and discriminatory practices that exist in our institutions. If we hope to see better research in the humanities and
(Dr. Kaushalya Perera teaches at the Department of English, University of Colombo.)
Kuppi is a politics and pedagogy happening on the margins of the lecture hall that parodies, subverts, and simultaneously reaffirms social hierarchies.
President’s efforts require parliamentary support
By Jehan Perera
With less than a year and half to the presidential elections, President Ranil Wickremesinghe has a tight deadline to meet if he is to attain his aspirations for the country. His visit last week to Japan where he sought to renew ties which had made it Sri Lanka’s largest aid donor for decades, was reported to be highly successful. During his visit, the President had apologized to the Japanese government leaders regarding the cancellation of the Light Rail Transit project which was subsequently delivered by Japan to Bangladesh. The completion of the elevated railroad would have significantly reduced Colombo’s traffic jams. The disastrous mistake the previous government made in crudely cancelling the project unilaterally and without rational reason lost Sri Lanka the goodwill of Japan which will not be easy to get back. Getting Japan back as a donor partner would be a great boon. Overcoming the serious economic crisis that besets the country and its people would require a massive infusion of foreign assistance if the period of recovery is to be kept short and not prolonged indefinitely.
President Wickremesinghe’s leadership is also being credited with the structural economic reforms that the country is undertaking with regard to revenue generation and cost cutting. Undertaking economic reforms that would streamline the economy has been a long term desire on the part of the President and seen during his past stints as Prime Minister. During the period 2001 to 2004, when he effectively led the government as Prime Minister and entered into the ceasefire agreement with the LTTE, he tried to implement the same set of economic reforms. Both of these radical measures proved to be too much for the population to bear and he suffered defeat at the elections that followed. Typically, the reform measures he presents is based on the “trickle down” theory, which, in highly corrupt polities, like Sri Lanka, means that the poor have to be content with the crumbs falling off the table. Once again, and unfazed, he is taking up the challenge of taking up unpopular economic measures, such as cutting subsidies, increasing taxes and privatizing state owned enterprises.
As part of the IMF recovery plan for the country, the government, under his leadership, is putting in place anti-corruption legislation that is required by the IMF. It appears that this legislation, which is still in its draft form, is being pushed more by the President than by the government. This was evident when a civil society group, led by the anti-corruption watchdog Transparency International, held a meeting for parliamentarians of all parties within the parliamentary complex. The attendance from the government side was limited, though the Opposition participated in strength. The top leadership of most of the Opposition parties, was in attendance, especially the largest Opposition party, the SJB, whose leader Sajith Premadasa also made an appearance. They gave an inkling of the change of faces that needs to accompany any “system change.” The consensus of the discussion was that the draft legislation was a positive addition to the fight against corruption.
The situation on the ground, in terms of implementation of the laws pertaining to good governance and accountability, continue to be highly unsatisfactory. The protest movement that was in evidence a year ago, gave its attention to issues of corruption and economic mismanagement for the reason that it had led to the economic collapse of the country that affected the entirety of its population. Both corruption and economic mismanagement had been facilitated by the concentration of political power in the executive. One of President Wickremesinghe’s first actions was to give astute political leadership to the passage of the 21st Amendment which sought to restore the independence of key state institutions necessary for a check and balance function. The most important aspect of the 21st Amendment is to protect those who are in charge of oversight bodies from interference by the political authority.
A notable feature of the present is that the parliamentary majority has shown itself to be willing to follow President Wickremesinghe’s lead when it comes to putting frameworks of good governance and accountability in place for the future. But when it comes to implementing them in the present, the ruling party, in particular, works in its own self-interest and to protect its own. Unfortunately, there are a growing number of instances in which it can be seen that the parliamentary majority, led by the ruling party, continues to flout the spirit of the law and practices of good governance. This was seen in the manner in which the Chairman of the Public Utilities Commission was forced out of his position through a majority vote in Parliament. Regrettably, the protections afforded by the 21st Amendment could not protect the Chairman of the regulatory authority who opposed the electricity price hikes that led to the price hike to the poorest being up to 500 percent, while to the super rich and companies it was only 50 percent.
The second incident, in the same week, has been the apprehension of a parliamentarian at the airport for gold smuggling who was let off with a fine that was much less than the fine provided for by law for such offenses. The parliamentarian himself has shown no remorse whatsoever and on the contrary has argued with considerable gumption that he is a victim of injustice as he did not pack his own bag and it was done by another. The very same day that he paid his fine and was released by the Customs he went to Parliament, as if he had no problems. Opposition parliamentarians have urged that the parliamentarian, caught gold smuggling, should resign, but so far to no avail. The question is whether he will be held accountable for the discredit he has brought upon himself, his political party, Parliament and the country or whether he will be judged to be no worse than many of his peers and the matter put aside.
The third incident, in the same week, is that of a foreign national who entered the country, on a forged passport, and was apprehended, at the airport, by Immigration officers. They were instructed by a government minister to release the foreign person on the grounds that he was a businessman who had come to invest in the country. However, when the incident was reported in the media, the government decided to deport him and said it will take action against the Immigration officers who had followed illegal orders in releasing him. The media reported that no inquiry will be held against the Minister for influencing the Immigration officials to release the arrested foreign national as anybody could make a request like that but that an inquiry should be held against the Immigration officials for obeying the wrong instructions.
President Wickremesinghe has won many plaudits for his willingness to take up the challenge of rescuing the country from the abyss when he accepted former President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s offer to become Prime Minister. It has now become clear that the President is determined to set laws and frameworks for the future. Unfortunately, it appears that the implementation of good governance practices and accountability is simply impossible in a context in which the parliamentary majority is not willing to follow them. As a result, the crackdown on corruption and abuse of power that was hoped for when President Wickremesinghe took over has not manifested itself on the ground.
There is still little or no evidence that President Wickremesinghe is able or willing to take action against those within his government who violate the laws and frameworks of good governance that he is setting for the future of the country. Up to now, the President has only been able to use the security forces and the parliamentary majority to crack down on the protest movement which demanded an end to corruption and accountability for abuse of power. If this situation continues, the President will lose both credibility and authority while those who engage in corruption and abuse of power will once again entrench themselves and become impossible to dislodge to the detriment of the national interest. There is a need for all in the polity, both government and opposition, to strengthen the hand of the President to make a break with the past so that the resources of the country will be used for the common good rather than end up in private pockets.
Sri Lanka’s ignorance matches that of US – II
Human Rights and war crimes:
By Daya Gamage
Foreign Service National Political Specialist (ret.)
US Department of State
(Continued from yesterday)
It is essential to note the most fundamental divide in the country is between rural and urban populations. Sri Lanka’s economy has always been essentially agricultural and even today some 77 percent of the population lives in rural districts. The ratio of Sinhalese to Tamils living in rural districts nationally approximates their ratio in the population at large. Rural areas include Tamil-majority parts of Vanni (Mannar, Mullaitivu and Vavuniya Districts) and the Kilinochchi District in the Northern Province. Similarly, such Sinhalese-majority districts as Monaragala and Badulla in the southern province of Uva, and Hambantota in the south are mostly rural. During the colonial period and until the early 1970s the economic and political elites of Sri Lanka were almost exclusively a subset of the approximately 19 percent of the population living in urban areas.
These areas were privileged in terms of better economic infrastructure, better health and other government services, and better educational and employment opportunities. These advantages were shared by all communities living in the cities: Sinhalese, Tamils and Muslims, who coexisted and cooperated in general harmony. Again, all three ethnic communities in the rural sector face inadequate educational facilities, less economic infrastructure and employment opportunities.
Post-independence leaders faced a prickly dilemma: the economic development and broadened enfranchisement demanded by democratic politics required that more resources and opportunities be shared with the countryside, which would dilute the power and privileges of the 19 percent. All sections of the educated urban class were threatened by this, and none more than urban Tamils. Not surprisingly, political leaders reacted to this broadening competition for national resources by reaching out to their ethnic constituencies for support in defending their privileges.
Let’s turn to war crimes and human rights violations the 18 May 2023 US House of Representative Resolution and the Canadian prime minister were referring to. The data and facts given below could be new to policymakers and lawmakers in Sri Lanka as well as to their counterparts in Washington. I say this because there was no evidence that Sri Lanka ever presented these factual data to the West. If the policymakers and lawmakers in Washington were aware of the following data the Resolution would have taken a different tone.
The question of war crimes—and related charges of crimes against humanity and even of genocide—are a telling example of the frequent gulf between complex facts and simplistic popular beliefs that has distorted perceptions of the Sri Lankan civil war and, one would argue, US policy towards Sri Lanka. In a broader sense, this writer believes that the persistent fictions that have grown up around the separatist conflict are symptomatic of a larger problem in the crafting of policy toward countries that are insufficiently or incorrectly understood.
In the case of Sri Lanka, the tendency of international observers to rush to judgment— and censure—under worst-case assumptions is evidenced by the civilian fatalities figure cited extensively in print and public discourse. This figure of 40,000 is alleged to be the number of unarmed Tamils who were killed during the final stage of the war (January–May 2009). These deaths are blamed largely on the Sri Lankan military, which is accused of using excessive and indiscriminate force, and thereby of committing war crimes. The 40,000 figure became an item of international orthodoxy after it was mentioned in the report, often referred to as the Darusman Report, by an “unofficial” panel of experts appointed by U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. The figure was arrived at by simply subtracting the number of internally displaced civilians who were administratively processed after the hostilities from the UN’s estimate of the number of civilians caught up in the final offensive.
To be precise, the March 2011 Darusman report conceded that “there is still no reliable figure for civilian deaths” but stated that the figure of 40,000 “cannot be ruled out” and needs further investigation. The report did not refer to “credible evidence,” much less adduce any, using instead the vague expression “credible allegations.” This verdict was not voted upon or endorsed by the United Nations as an organisation, and despite its questionable logic and conflicting figures from other sources, the UN Secretary General pronounced the figure of 40,000 to be definitive. In a strange case of groupthink, most western governments and international NGOs have accepted it unquestioningly and wielded it rhetorically.
Disputed death count
The currency and obduracy of the death count, to which the Darusman Report gave birth, is all the more mystifying because it represents a major departure from calculations made not only by other reputable observers but even by UN staff on the ground in Sri Lanka. On March 9 (2009), the country team of the UN mission in Colombo briefed local diplomats for the first and only time on the civilian casualty figures it had collected from its Humanitarian Convoy.
According to this briefing, 2,683 civilians had died between January 20 and March 7, and 7241 had been wounded. The UN country team did not indicate to the diplomats that the majority of these casualties were due to government shelling. According to a cable from the US embassy in April 2009, the UN had estimated that from January 20 to April 6 civilian fatalities numbered 4,164, plus a further 10,002 wounded. The International Crisis Group is quoted as reporting that “U.N. agencies, working closely with officials and aid workers located in the conflict zone, documented nearly 7,000 civilians killed from January to April 2009.
Those who compiled these internal numbers deemed them reliable to the extent they reflected actual conflict deaths but maintain it was a work in progress and incomplete.” Some three weeks before the end of the war, Reuters reported that “A UN working document, a copy of which was obtained by Reuters, says 6,432 civilians have been killed and 13,946 wounded in fighting since the end of January.” An unpublished report by the United Nations country team in Sri Lanka stated that from August 2008 to May 13, 2009 (five days before the war ended), the number of civilians killed was 7,721. Even if the UN Secretary General chose to ignore reporting from his own staff in the field, there were reports from other sources that should have tempered the figures adopted by other international organizations and governments with diplomatic representation in Colombo.
The International Committee of the Red Cross, the only outside agency present in the war zone during the final phase, used various statistical indicators to conclude that the total number of noncombatants killed was around 7,000. Lord Naseby, a British parliamentarian and longtime advocate for Sri Lanka, announced in the House of Lords in November 2017 that he had managed to pry classified documents out of the Foreign Office through a freedom of information inquiry. These documents, which were dispatched from the British Defense Attaché in Colombo during the final days of the war, reported that about 7000 people had been killed. Amnesty International wrote that . . . “derived independently from eyewitness testimony and information from aid workers [we estimate that] at least 10,000 civilians were killed.” This figure is in line with the estimate of an anthropologist working in Australia who questioned LTTE government servants and others who survived the final battles. This academician estimates that total fatalities from January 1 to May 19 ranged from 15,000 to 16,000, including some 5,000 Tiger dead. He cautions that any final figure must take into account the 600-900 deaths due to non-military causes that would be expected at standard death rates for a population of several hundred thousand over a period of five months, especially under very difficult conditions. He emphasizes that it was very difficult to distinguish civilians from combatants because the latter often did not wear uniforms.
According to some commentators, the prevalence and resilience of the 40,000-fatality figure can be attributed in significant measure to the publicity given to it by Gordon Weiss, an Australian journalist, who served as spokesperson for the UN mission in Sri Lanka from 2006 to 2009. In that official capacity Weiss reportedly used the fatality figure of 7,000 for 2009 and noted that, for the Sri Lankan Army, it made no tactical sense to kill civilians. Yet, in interviews to promote his popular book on the final days of the war, he used the unsubstantiated figure of 40,000, presumably for its shock value. When the book was published, the fatality figure had been reduced to 10,000.
On July 9, 2009, the US Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Issues, John Clint Williamson, met in Geneva with Jacques de Maio, Head of Operations for South Asia for the International Committee of the Red Cross. Williamson requested the meeting in order to collect information required for reporting to the US Congress. This information was invaluable because the ICRC was the only international organisation allowed by the GSL onto the northeastern battlefield for humanitarian work. In his diplomatic cable to Washington on that meeting, Williamson quoted de Maio as saying that “the Sri Lankan military was somewhat responsive to accusations of violations of international humanitarian law and was open to adapting its actions to reduce casualties.” The ambassador added that de Maio . . . “could cite examples of where the Army had stopped shelling when ICRC informed them it was killing civilians. In fact, the Army actually could have won the military battle faster with higher civilian casualties, yet chose a slower approach which led to a greater number of Sri Lankan military deaths …. On the LTTE, de Maio said that it had tried to keep civilians in the middle of a permanent state of violence. It saw the civilian population as a ‘protective asset’ and kept its fighters embedded amongst them.
De Maio said that the LTTE commanders’ objective had been to keep the distinction between civilian and military assets blurred.” In April, as the fighting was nearing its climax, both the United Nations and the Group of Eight nations strongly condemned the LTTE for using civilians as human shields.
This writer can assure that the manuscript he is preparing with the retired Senior Foreign Service and Intelligence Officer of the Department of State Dr. Robert K. Boggs will disclose startling evidence of Washington’s foreign policy trajectory toward Sri Lanka, and how successive governments in Sri Lanka since 1980 – to date – displayed their utter ignorance that led to the infantile foreign policy approaches.
(The writer, Daya Gamage, is a retired Foreign Service National Political Specialist of the U.S. Department of State accredited to the Political Section of the American Embassy in Colombo, Sri Lanka)
Excitement galore for Janaka
Another artiste who is very much in the limelight, these days, is singer Janaka Palapathwala, who specializes in the golden hits of the past, made popular by Engelbert Humperdinck, Elvis, Tom Jones, Jim Reeves, and the like.
He has been seen crooning away at some of the prestigious events, in Colombo, and is now ready to entertain those who love the golden oldies…in Canada and the States.
Janaka, who plans to reveal a new identity soon, indicated to us that he is eagerly looking forward to this particular overseas tour as he has already been informed that the opener, on 3rd June, in Washington D.C., is a ‘sold out’ event.
“Summer Mega Blast’, on 3rd June, will have in attendance the band Binara & The Clan and DJ Shawn Groove.
On 16th June, he will be in Toronto, Canada, for ‘Starlight Night’, with the band 7th String.
He has two dates in New York, on 24th June and 28th July (‘Welcome To My World’); Nebraska, 4th July (‘An Evening With Janaka’): Los Angeles, 15th July, and San Francisco, 22nd July.
Both the Los Angeles and San Francisco events are titled ‘Memories Are Made Of This’ and Janaka will perform, backed by the group Dynasty (Apple Green).
On his return home, he says he has to do the St. Peter’s College Welfare Society Dinner Dance, “Wild West’, scheduled for 26th July.
There will be plenty of action at this Peterite event, with the bands Misty, and Genesis, Shawn Groove, Frank David, Mazo, Ricardo Deen, Dinesh Subasinghe and Clifford Richards.
Navy divers retrieve 148 from watery graves within a year
Establishment of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission
Draft report on the inquiry into the destruction of North-Eastern archaeological sites and interference with conservation activities handed over to the Prime Minister
‘Dates have the highest sugar content to fight Coronavirus’
Sunday Island 27 December – Headlines
#Sundayisland Sunday Island- 31 January- Headlines
Features7 days ago
Jerome Fernando and his profane gimmicks
Opinion7 days ago
Pastor Jerome Saga: Buddhist perspective
News6 days ago
Gold smuggling govt. MP walks free after paying Rs 7.4 mn fine
Opinion6 days ago
Jerome Fernando and his profane gimmicks – II
Business7 days ago
Elephant House SuperHeroes powered by Dialog returns for a second phase to discover Sri Lanka’s future leaders
Sports6 days ago
When sport clean-bowls politics
Features5 days ago
Murders, exhumations, sacking: hence never a dull day in Paradise
Business7 days ago
Report to be soon out on those who slip through the tax net