by Usvatte-aratchi

Manmohan Singh, a brilliant economist, distinguished public servant, and remarkable Minister of Finance and Prime Minister of India, died on December 27, and his body was disposed of with state honours. Amiya Kumar Bagchi was a brilliant economist, scholar, deep thinker, unexcelled public intellectual, most distinguished author, and the Chancellor of Tripura University. He died on December 28.

 I barely knew Singh, personally. We may have formally greeted each other twice or thrice when he was in Colombo in 1969 (?) to write a paper at the invitation of Lal Jayawardena, then of the Ministry of Planning. Turbanned and in a short-sleeved white cotton shirt, Singh was very quiet and it surprised me that he was later the Prime Minister among ‘argumentative Indians’. Amiya was a close friend of mine for 60 years. I met him when we were both at Cambridge, he was two years my senior. He had completed his thesis and was elected a Fellow of Jesus College. Soon after my thesis was approved, I gave Amiya a copy to read. After three days, he reported back that there was a major error in a chapter and that I should not do anything further with the thesis until that chapter was re-written. (That chapter remains unwritten to date!) Amiya and I met wherever I happened to work or live in: New York City, Bangkok or Colombo. He and Jasodhara (She was a professor of English (at Jadavpur) spent a few days with us in Colombo.) The last time he called me was to tell me he had been made Chancellor of Tripura.

 In the early 1960s, a small band of brilliant young men from India came to Cambridge to study economics. They included Man Mohan Singh, A. K. Sen, A.K. Bagchi, Pranab Bardhan, and Amit Bhaduri. Immediately before them were I.G. Patel and Shukhomoy Chakravarthy. Every one of them was an alpha-magnitude star and when assembled, they formed a brilliant galaxy that illuminated, for several years, the firmament that was economics. Sen was awarded a Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics. I.G. Patel was a distinguished economics administrator who worked, for a short period, for the United Nations Development Programme. A.K. Bagchi was a brilliant academic and prominent author and the Chancellor of Tripura University. Pranab Bardhan taught at both Harvard and Berkeley and authored several books, some on development. In their contributions to the development of the Indian economy, Singh was unsurpassed. In his successive positions as Economic Advisor to the government, Governor of the Reserve Bank, Finance Minister and Prime Minister he had unrivalled opportunities that he grasped with both hands. In his varied contributions to enrich the discipline of economics and understanding of the economy of India, Bagchi stands unexcelled. Amit Bhaduri, the youngest of them all, has taught at JNU and has been a peripatetic professor in many European universities, especially in Italy, and continues enriching the economics literature as he has done over several decades.

Lal Jayawardene and M.R.P. Salgado were Singh’s contemporaries at Cambridge and Singh and Jayawardene were life-long close friends. Amiya Bagchi delivered a lecture in Colombo at the invitation of the Central Bank and he and Jasodhara (She taught English at Jadavpur) were our guests for a few days. Amit Bhaduri delivered the Dr. N. M. Perera Memorial Lecture and was one of our guests more than once.

Although my personal acquaintance with Singh was very little, I decided to write this note lest we pass unnoticed publicly by a man who molded economic policy in India both to cut down poverty massively and to generate billionaires by the dozen. Singh designed policies that went against the widely accepted orthodoxy at that time and remained a beacon to policymakers worldwide. Amiya Kumar Bagchi did not hold public office and his contributions fall into four categories: modern studies of the history of financial systems in India; explorations of the nature of processes of economic development, wherever; distinguished teacher at Presidency College, Calcutta (Kolkata) and prolific writer, especially in Economic and Political Weekly on a wide spread of subjects that included movie reviews. He spent some time at the Centre for the Study of Social Sciences and founded the Institute of Development Studies in Calcutta. He spent some time in the Maison des Sciences de l’homme, Paris and spent a few months in a research institute in Denmark. (I called him there once and as he answered the telephone, a phonograph played Suchitra Mitra singing in Bengali.)

Until the 1990s, the Indian economy was subject to many controls, creating a permit raj. The economy had grown so slowly for several decades that it was derisively called a Hindu growth rate. Singh was appointed finance minister in 1991, when the economy was in crisis, after forty years of permit raj and Hindu growth rates. Ever since then, the economy has been differently managed and continues to grow at spectacular rates. In China, at about the same time, Deng Xiao Ping, (no economist) set out on a voyage essentially similar and these two economies are now the second and third largest economies in the world. (They both have continental-sized populations and income per capita remains low.) Both departed from the economic orthodoxy that prevailed in the last 40 years of the 20th century. Those ideas owed much to Ragnar Nurkse’s book Problems of Capital Formation in Underdeveloped Economies (1953) and the success with which the economy of the USSR grew until 1980 or so. Some economists and other intellectuals strongly espoused those ideas. They included Raul Prebisch of Argentina, Samir Amin of Egypt and Gamani Corea. In 1964, the underdeveloped countries at the UN established UNCTAD in Geneva with Raul Prebisch as Executive Secretary. These ideas were so universally held at that time that when a group of countries following policies contradicting them grew rapidly, their stellar achievements were classified by the World Bank as The East Asian Miracle. There was no miracle there and Singh and Deng both performed it in the normal course of government policy making.

The essential elements of these policies were seeking and establishing wider domestic and foreign markets. (That should remind you of physiocrats and Adams Smith.) Japan, Korea, Taiwan (China) and a few other economies grew fast selling their output in rich countries, where there was purchasing power. The European Common Market was an early success story. Singh recognized the value of ‘free markets’ to economic growth, which are free because goods and services could move with as little interference in domestic and international markets. The state played a leading role in those economies.

Three principal innovations helped, after the 1939-1945 war, to reduce the cost of transporting goods with a consequent rapid growth in trade. The first was containerizing shipments, beginning in 1952. The second was the fall in the mass (volume and weight) of goods because of miniaturisation (The transistor radio is a good example.) and the consequent fall in the cost of transport. The widespread use of transistors was a major factor there. The third was the development of technology that permitted the production of components in different countries and the transport of parts to be assembled, at a point to be put together, finally. These and other developments permitted the production of goods, wherever the cost of doing so was cheapest. Cheap labour economies found opportunities to compete profitably in markets where high-income countries bought them. Both capital and technology swiftly moved seeking profits. Service industries grew rapidly in most economies and a lively market for both skilled and unskilled labour grew rapidly.

The processes of economic growth that took place in both, India and China, resulted in increased inequality in the distribution of household income. However, income at both ends increased. In China and India, together perhaps a billion people began to receive incomes above poverty levels. Those developments satisfied Sen’s understanding of ‘development as freedom’ and John Rawls’ test of ‘justice as fairness’.

(My collection of books (2383) was gifted to four universities and my notes were thrown away recently. I kept a few for company till the end. Consequently, I can write only from memory and mistakes are almost inevitable.)

by N. A. de S. Amaratunga             

It is scientific research that has enabled the world to advance in knowledge and find solutions to the mysteries of the universe and also to the innumerable problems that confront man including his health, environment, etc. Although research methodology has greatly advanced, the basic principles have more or less remained the same since the ancient man with his inherent inquisitive mind delved into the mysteries of his environment. He observed, hypothesised, experimented and concluded. The shortcomings of the ancient man’s powers of observation have significantly been overcome with the advent of devices like the microscope, telescope etc. which enabled the modern man to perceive the phenomena of the universe and develop his technology to solve the problems that confront him.

Thus, science and research need not be the monopoly of advanced countries. All the people in the world who descend from ancient civilizations in Mesopotamia, China, India and Egypt where science began have a claim to science and its benefits. Further there is nothing called western science. The science that grew in ancient Sri Lanka particularly in areas of medicine, surgery, metallurgy, water management etc. stopped its advancement with colonization in the 16th Century. Due to this misfortune we have remained an underdeveloped country to the present time. Scientific research organized in a methodical relevant manner would go a long way in helping the country achieve meaningful development.

Research in the universities in Sri Lanka are largely carried out for the benefit of the researchers either in the course of a degree program like a PhD or in order to gather sufficient points for a promotion to professorship. There is no organised system that focuses on the country’s needs in research or a mechanism that ensures the new knowledge created reaches the people. For instance, there is a substantial quantity of quality research done in the medical faculties most of which may deal with the health problems of the country. However, the topics for this research are not selected on a priority basis which recognises the more acute and important health problems of the country. Instead very often the area of research is the pet subject of the researcher or the supervisor. The bigger problem however is that even when the findings are of national importance there is no mechanism in place that transmits this knowledge to the health delivery system and moreover there is no discernible enthusiastic attitude and readiness in the latter to adopt and implement the recommendations made by the researchers. There is no dialogue between health researchers and the health services.

The Dental Faculty, University of Peradeniya, for instance, has carried out a huge amount of research on oral cancer, which is the number one cancer in men in Sri Lanka, including its causes, behaviour, treatment protocol and also, very importantly, its prevention. Yet, the incidence of oral cancer has not been reduced by any significant degree. As those afflicted with cancer are from the less affluent sector, the burden of treatment which is huge has to be borne by the government. This research has found that the main cause of oral cancer is betel chewing and the causative ingredients in the chew are tobacco and betel nut. The government hitherto has failed to bring the sale of this lethal combination of the betel chew under effective legal control.

Funds available to the universities for research may be insufficient, yet the little that is available must be utilised for the maximum benefit to the public who supply this money. It may be said that researchers, particularly the university dons, must be given total freedom to decide what research they do. Such a policy may be morally justifiable if the funds available are not limited. But in a developing country the meagre resources have to be judiciously managed.

Therefore, a comprehensive policy on research that should be undertaken by research centres that receive government funding may have to be drawn up taking into consideration the priority areas relevant to the problems and needs of the country. In this regard economic development and health problems may have to be considered as priority areas. Further research that has already been done in other countries and the findings are in the public domain need not be repeated here which often happens when the intention is accumulation of merit by increasing the number of publications by individual researchers and score high in research indices in order to gain international recognition. Such endeavours have little benefit to the people of the country and the little money they provide should not be used for such activities.

Further an effective mechanism to ensure that research findings of national importance are transmitted as early as possible to the relevant ministries for the implementation of the recommendations made thereof.

07 January 2025 is the 125th birth anniversary of Senator A Ratnayake, State Counsellor, Member of Parliament and the last President of the Senate.

Ratnayake Wasala Mudiyanselage Abeyratne Ratnayaka, widely known as A Ratnayake was born the eldest of 13 siblings to Punchi Banda Ratnayake and Dingiri Amma Ratnayake. His father was a stalwart of the Kandy Temperence Movement. Ratnayake was first educated at Dharmaraja College, Kandy and later at Royal College, Colombo. He entered Ceylon University College, now University of Colombo and obtained the Bachelor of Art (London) degree.

Mr. Ratnayake first became a teacher at Ananda College, Colombo. In1924, he was appointed Principle of Maha Bodhi College by late Anagarika Dharmapla, his mentor and who had a great influence on young Ratnayake. Thereafter he studied Law and qualified as an Advocate in 1931. Mr. Ratnayake married Amawathie Andarawewa Kumarihamy, a daughter of a ‘Rate Mahatmaya’ the Head of an administrative locality called a ‘korale’. They had 7 children.

However, his first love was always politics. Mr. Ratnayake was elected to the first State Council of Ceylon from Dumbara constituency in 1931 when the legislative name and the structure of Ceylon was changed from the Legislative Council of Ceylon to The State Council as recommended by the Donoghmore Report. Under the new legislature, members of the State Council were selected to seven special executive committees, the chairmen of these were the Ministers. Mr. Ratnayake chose to be in the Education Committee. On reflecting why he chose education over others; one wonders whether his observation of the plight of his constituents’ educational opportunities compared to the wealthy and the connected in the South and North of the country played a part. Additionally, his awareness of his own privileged education and a desire a provide a similar education for all must have played a part too.

It is worthwhile recounting in detail the story behind Mr. Ratnayake’s role in the free education described in Sir Ivor Jennings memoir, Road to Peradeniya posthumously published in 2005. Sir Ivor was also a member of the education committee. He had stated that Mr. Ratnayake brought the idea of free education for all to the special committee but could not attend subsequent meetings due to ill health from a road traffic accident. However, as fortune may have it, he attended the very last meeting at which the motion was to be signed. Mr. Ratnayake had asked whether the motion contain free education for all. CWW Kannangara, then Education Minister had said that it provided free education up to the age of 14 and thereafter the brightest 25% would be offered scholarships. On hearing this Mr. A Ratnayake is said to have asked whether in the age of the common man they were prepared to deprive the poor student making education a middle-class monopoly. The passionate wish to change education that is not dependent on one’s birth or creed contrasts with other more powerful and influential politicians of the day who were said to have opposed his motion. Mr. Ratnayake’s insistence and strong persuasive powers won the day as the report was rewritten with amendments necessary to provide free education for all. In 1944 the revised motion amounting to a vast increase in the education budget was presented to the State Council by CWW Kannangara.

In 2009, late Professor Carol Fonseka in his CWW Kannangara Memorial Lecture brought these facts to the fore. He asserted that free education would not have been conceived at all if not for A Ratnayake, but it would be stillborn if CWW Kannangara had not put the energy and the enthusiasm to make it into reality.

We now know that child development is variable and very individual and those who do not show early potential can be late developers and achieve great heights that would not have been possible if the opportunities were not provided. Mr. Ratnayake’s vision for education undoubtedly helped this potentially neglected group who would have lost the opportunity if the initial plan of scholarships to the brightest at 14 was implemented.

Mr. Ratnayake played a significant role in other areas of development too. In1948, he became the First Minister of Food and Cooperatives in the post independent Cabinet of Prime Minister D S Senanayake. Mr. Ratnayake initiated the Cooperative Movement in Ceylon, a worldwide organization that began in Great Britain which he advocated to be managed by the people. He inaugurated the Cooperative Federal Bank, which later became Peoples Bank, providing credit to rural folk who otherwise had to depend on money lenders.

In 1952, under Prime Minister Sir John Kotalawela as the Minister of Home Affairs Mr. Ratnayake proposed to the government to commemorate 2,500 years of Buddha Parinibbana a promise he had made to his mentor, the late Anagarika Dharmapala when the two resided at the same accommodation whilst Mr. Ratnayake attended school at Royal College. The translation of the Tripitaka to Sinhala, an encyclopedia on Buddhism in English and the restoration of the Dalada Maligawa were all carried out during his tenure as the Minister of Home Affairs.

It is imperative that the younger generation of today to be made aware of the achievements of Mr. Ratnayake, his determination to provide education for all from kindergarten to university which has benefitted generations of Sri Lankans and continues to do so today. In addition, his contributions to uplift religion, language and culture in the post independent era is worthy of recognition.

When the history of this period is recorded, the name of A Ratnayake will be written in golden letters as a true patriotic son Sri Lanka.

Dr Manouri Senaratne