Midweek Review

Thinking outside Kuppi-box

Published

2 years ago

2021/06/23

by Panduka Karunanayake

The recent series of articles in The Island, entitled ‘Kuppi Talk’, should be commended, for attempting to generate a much-needed discussion on some crucial issues in education. Education builds nations. Destroying education destroys the nation – Sri Lanka (and Ceylon before that) being an evocative example of this. Everyone who knows and acknowledges this would value a discussion like Kuppi Talk.

Several articles in the series were excellent, brief expositions of important issues in education, especially higher education. Everyone with an interest in education, particularly young recruits to the academia, must read them – even if, sadly, they might not make an iota of difference to policy. They could still make an enormous difference within the academia, in its ideas, practices and directions. After all, to command respect from the wider society, the academia must first prove worthy of it – and this proof can come only from within.

Lessons to learn

Niyanthini Kadirgamar’s article on the underfunding of education (March 16) reminded me of the days of University Teachers for Dialogue & Democracy (UT4DD), when we first grappled with this problem. Although time has marched on, it appears that we have remained on or circled around the same spot. Nevertheless, she has brought us uptodate on the situation.

It was particularly saddening for me to note that we missed the bus in the years soon after 2015, not only with regard to improving funding for education but also with regard to the reforms to university governance that we attempted. The report on the university governance workshop that was spearheaded by Professor Jayadeva Uyangoda and published in 2016 remains burried in the dusts of time.

Shamala Kumar’s article on ragging (March 30) is the best encapsulation of the subject I have read. She has brought into it her long experience, wide knowledge, analytical acumen and genuine concern. It would be an unpardonable folly for anyone to embark on trying to understand or solve this problem without first reading this article.

Anushka Kahandagamage’s article (April 13), on the value of arts for nation-building in our conflict-riddled society and the danger of pursuing an exclusively STEM-focused line in education, brought together its argument very eloquently. But I wonder whether she could have balanced her focus on Sinhala-Buddhist supremacy in textbook officialese, by also looking at the co-existing, parallel system of Muslim education and its contribution to differentiation, dissociation and discord (which even moderate Muslims have highlighted). It is noteworthy that this parallel system has a long history (see for instance Mahroof, Journal of Islamic Studies 1995;6:25).

Kaushalya Perera’s article on quality in higher education (May 25) nicely summarised a complex, multi-faceted topic. I was especially pleased to see that she touched on the importance of qualification inflation (although not using that term) in graduate unemployment. This is an aspect that policy-makers and politicians gloss over, because it threatens to take the problem from its soft end (i.e., changing curricula in universities) to the hard end (i.e., expanding the industries to enhance employment opportunities). Her exposition of the dangers of the corporatisation of the academia was excellent.

Kaushalya Herath wrote on the need to decolonise our universities from neocolonial hegemonic knowledge structures and situate them more firmly on our own soil (June 08). It provided an eloquent argument in the fewest of words. Herath rightly laments that “universities, once the executors of cultural colonisation, are being colonised by the corporate sector”. In the 1950s this happened to Vidyodaya and Vidyalankara pirivenas when they were converted to universities (i.e., cultural colonisation), and in the present day it is happening to indigenous medicine where its academics are on a mission to ‘modernise’ it to answer the call of the market (i.e., corporate colonisation).

Thus, current efforts in our universities that try to ‘re-discover’ indigenous knowhow run the risk of re-inventing indigenous knowhow through western epistemologies to fit it into western-styled markets, garnished with a populist layer of ‘heritage’ or ‘naturalness’. If our minds are so successfully ‘colonised’, where can indigenous knowhow turn to? Probably to non-university institutions funded and run by philanthropists (which don’t themselves turn into universities after a few decades). And that says something about our universities!

The other articles were focused on the problem of unemployment or ‘unemployability’ of Arts graduates. This was highlighted by a National Audit Office (NAO) report released in November 2020, which stated that more than 50% of our Arts graduates were unemployed (which the Parliamentary Committee on Public Accounts then famously quoted in March 2021). Sivamohan Sumathy in her article (March 02) shed some valuable light on the methodological problems of the studies that had formed the basis for the NAO report. The articles by Farzana Haniffa (April 27) and Hasini Lecamwasam (May 11) elaborated the problem further.

Let me now turn to some points to ponder that this series should trigger.

Undergraduate numbers vs. quality

There appears to be some resentment among Social Science and Humanities (SSH) academics regarding reducing the number of students following Arts degree programmes. To me this is puzzling. Would it not be better to settle for a smaller number of students? The available resources could then be used more effectively, to enhance the quality of the graduate (whichever way they may want to define quality).

Perhaps this resentment is driven by a worry that some Arts degree programmes and departments may become redundant. I wonder, however, whether we can innovate solutions to this. For instance, can we not provide SSH as compulsory studies for all undergraduates (and even postgraduates) in their foundation years?

This is not something new. The value of a multi-faceted education in the formative years is increasingly recognised. In 2005 the Supreme Court of India in a much-celebrated, public-spirited decision determined that every undergraduate must be taught a course on environment studies. In 2009 Professor Carlo Fonseka in his Kannangara Oration suggested something similar: “Once students are selected for different courses in the universities, they should be required to spend a year on a Foundation Course in English,…computer literacy [and] cultural studies.” Our university senates still have enough academic freedom to introduce changes of this nature.

Or is this resentment merely driven by an ideology? Is ideology preventing us from seeing the obvious?

Why dichotomise?

To solve the Arts graduates’ unemployment problem, we are constantly asked to choose between two options. On the one hand is the transformative educational experience that academics propose, handsomely described by Sivamohan Sumathy in her article. On the other hand is the neoliberal, competencies-focused education that the World Bank proposes.

But why do we have to choose between them? Why can’t we combine the two? Can’t we combine the “package of skills and competencies” with the sense of “self, person, society” that we want the graduate to develop – rather than seeing these as opposites that can’t mix? The transformative education is what the people need (in our opinion), and the neoliberal model is what they want. Why can’t we give students an education that they need in a form that they would want? In fact, this sort of education is the only sort of education that is worth giving and receiving.

It is true that these current threats and anxieties are due to an externally imposed challenge (i.e., neoliberalism), and one might not like it. But it is important to remember that universities have never been free of or immune to such challenges.

Historically, the arrival of printing, the rise of the nation state, the Scientific Revolution, the Industrial Revolution, the rise of democracy, the Cold War, the rise of the knowledge industries, the slow economic recession of the 1970s and the fall of the Communist bloc all challenged, re-defined and re-shaped the university. (Eric Lybeck’s The University Revolution is a fascinating recent book on this.) It is true that the academia should have its own terms of engagement with society and its own definition of itself (and Sivamohan Sumathy’s article is a good starting point for this). But it is also imperative that we cannot expect to remain meaningful and relevant to society if we lack sensitivity, flexibility and manoeuverability towards society’s immediate anxieties.

Semantic errors

A common error in academic circles is bundling together globalisation, corporatisation, commoditisation and privatisation into one basket of despised entities. This is evident in Sivamohan Sumathy’s article: “In the current context, globalization is another name for the rapid development of capitalist financialization, and a dissolution of labour as a collective force and as a movement toward socialized citizenry.” Well, actually not. Globalisation, as everyone knows, is a neutral phenomenon that can be applied for various tasks, bad and good. She does qualify this tectonic shift in the meaning of globalisation by appealing to “the current context”. But then, let us at least keep in mind that contexts are generated, fluid and reflexive. After all, our context belongs to us.

I have no problem in accepting that corporatisation of the academia is something bad, or that commodification of education is bad. I also appreciate that uncontrolled privatisation of education paves way for the commodification of education. But here, there are two problems. First, uncontrolled privatisation is not the only form that privatisation of education can take place (unless if we prevent the other forms). Second, privatisation of education in one form or the other is here to stay, because of the huge demand, and the public is already consuming it – our real challenge is to shape it to the nation’s advantage.

Privatisation can take many forms. It can be not-for-profit. We have had examples of private educational institutions that were started by philanthropy and served communities enormously. Sivamohan Sumathy will know the value of the education that American missionaries in the nineteenth century and the philanthropy-funded Jaffna Public Library in the twentieth century added to Jaffna culture. Her friends from the South will know how much H.W. Amarasuriya added to the educational culture of the Southern Province in the twentieth century. Hundreds of thousands of our citizens and families have benefitted from the many private schools and pirivenas set up by indigenous revivalist movements of all three main ethnic groups at the turn of the twentieth century; they were originally private (but supported by the colonial government), and were only later taken over by the state.

To see this broader picture, we need to rename private education as ‘non-state education’ and accept that it belongs in the ‘public sphere’ of our communities and the country – because the word ‘private’ carries too many erroneous connotations and emotive baggage. These institutions serve the public, and the benefits are therefore also public – both individually and collectively. What we must focus on is not their dissolution or ‘nationalisation’, but their quality, cost and access. Quality should be supervised by the state. Cost can be brought down by incentives, which do not necessarily require state funds. And access can be widened by financing mechanisms such as bursaries and loan schemes that ensure that deserving students admitted on merit would not be denied access.

Back to the past or to the future?

Even if one didn’t agree with such arguments, they are still part of a healthy, diverse and inclusive discussion. Such a discussion is not helped by defining globalisation as what it is not, pushing privatisation into the devil’s corner, or presenting the unemployment problem as a dichotomy without middle ground, and building the argument thereon. When our discussion becomes irrelevant and detached from reality, the people ignore us and go on to take whatever option available to them – franchised degrees, cross-border higher education, etc. While we debate on the dichotomy, our students still yearn for those skills and turn elsewhere.

Should we limit our discussion to what our ideologies allow, or have a discussion unhindered by them? Should we live in our past, or reach for the future? That is the crucial question that the UT4DD failed to answer then, to its detriment. Kuppi Talk must address it now.

_______________

The writer is Professor in the Department of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Colombo. His email address is panduka@clinmed.cmb.ac.lk

All News Advertisement

Midweek Review

Broadcasting Regulatory Commission Act jolts Opposition

Published

4 days ago

2023/06/7

Sahan Weerasooriya

New laws contemplated by the government appears to have caused much concern among Opposition political parties for obvious reasons. The constitutionality of the proposed Broadcasting Authority Bill is expected to be challenged in the Supreme Court. The whole process of law making raised quite a stir in the wake of the recent shocking Supreme Court determination that one-third of the Bill titled ‘Central Bank of Sri Lanka’ is contrary to the Constitution and several dozens of amendments are required to pave the way for its passage with a simple majority. It also shows that our judges have a backbone and are not easily swayed by the incumbent all-powerful Executive President, who is only there on a ‘contract’ to complete the remainder of the previous President Gatabaya Rajapaksa’s term after he was ousted by violent protests instigated from outside.

By Shamindra Ferdinando

The Wickremesinghe-Rajapaksa government, continuing to struggle on the economic front, is keen to consolidate its position, both in and outside Parliament.

The media has emerged as the major challenge to the government due to the failure on the part of the Opposition to adopt a cohesive political strategy.

Both the government and the Opposition seem to be in disarray and unable to come to terms with the continuing political-economic and social crisis, fuelled by external forces.

The move to introduce a controversial Broadcasting Regulatory Commission Act should be examined, taking into consideration current political and economic challenges faced by the incumbent administration.

Did the Justice Ministry or the Media Ministry, at least, informally consult President Ranil Wickremesinghe, who is also the Minister of Defence, in addition to being the Finance Minister and the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, on the proposed Broadcasting Regulatory Commission Act, at least after being so thoroughly educated by the highest court in the land on the ‘Central Bank of Sri Lanka’ Bill? A section of the Opposition believes the President hadn’t been aware of this move.

However, former External Affairs Minister and SLPP rebel Prof. G. L. Peiris and Frontline Socialist Party (FSP) spokesman Pubudu Jayagoda didn’t mince their words when they alleged the whole exercise was for the benefit of President Wickremesinghe. Prof. Peiris has alleged that the President intended to rein in media in line with his overall political strategy to consolidate his power whereas Jayagoda explained how the Wickremesinghe-Rajapaksa government launched the project soon after the UNP leader’s election as the President in late July last year. Jayagoda insists that the Cabinet has cleared the Bill.

The Broadcasting Regulatory Commission and the committee tasked to investigate complaints against television and radio stations would be dominated by the President’s men to such an extent, it couldn’t be expected to discharge its responsibilities in an impartial manner. Jayagoda pointed out how two persons of the Regulatory Commission could take far reaching decisions regardless of the consequences. In case any member failed to carry out directives received from the President, he or she faced the axe.

Jaygoda questioned the absurdity in appointing the commission for a period of five years in line with the five-year presidential term. Both Prof. Peiris and Jayagoda emphasized the grave danger posed by the President exercising power over the media regardless of some sections of the media pursuing politically motivated agendas.

Against the backdrop of fierce criticism of the proposed law, Justice Minister Dr. Wijeyadasa Rajapakse, PC, on 02 June came up with the face saving reply that no final decision has been taken in this regard.

The former President of the Bar Association said that the issue at hand was still under discussion and a set of proposals, pertaining to the proposed Broadcast Authority Act, were in the public domain. The Minister insisted that the relevant bill is yet to be prepared.

The Colombo District lawmaker said so in his capacity as the Chairman of a Cabinet sub-committee tasked with preparing a regulatory mechanism in this regard. The Cabinet-sub-committee consists of Media Minister Bandula Gunawardena, Labour Minister Manusha Nanayakkara, Health Minister Keheliya Rambukwella and Ports and Shipping Minister Nimal Siripala de Silva.

The media raised the proposed Bill with Minister Rajapakse at a briefing in the Justice Ministry especially called to address issues pertaining to the Office of the Missing Persons (OMP) established in 2016 during the Yahapalana administration.

Dr. Rajapakse has assured that media organizations would be given an opportunity to make representations in this regard.

The latest controversy over the proposed Bill with a set of proposals outlining its possible content already in the public domain, should be examined against the backdrop of strong opposition to the proposed Anti-Terrorism Bill and Bill titled ‘Central Bank of Sri Lanka.’ In addition to those disputed and much discussed Bills, a major debate is likely over the proposed Budget Office. The text of the Bill meant to specify the powers, duties and functions of the Budget Office is now in the public domain. The government certainly owed an explanation as to why it cannot seek a consensus with the Opposition at the relevant consultative committee/sectoral oversight committee in this regard. The country is in such a desperate situation, it cannot under any circumstances afford further political turmoil.

Unfortunately, the government appears to be hell-bent on bulldozing its way through the legislature, regardless of whatever consequences.

The recent sacking of Janaka Ratnayake, the outspoken and highly ambitious Chairman of the Public Utilities Commission underscored the government strategy.

Ratnayake is on record as having said before a parliamentary watchdog committee that he received the influential position for serving the Rajapaksas. But, he was removed by the Rajapaksas’ SLPP at the behest of President Ranil Wickremesinghe. Altogether 123 lawmakers voted for the motion to remove Ratnayake whereas 77 opposed. Government member Ali Sabri Raheem voted against the motion to protest against the failure on the part of President Wickremesinghe and Premier Dinesh Gunawardena to intervene on his behalf after he was caught with undeclared gold and smartphones worth Rs 74 mn and Rs 4.2 mn, respectively, while coming through the VIP/VVIP channel at the BIA, where such people are normally whisked through without any checks.

Rebel SLPP lawmaker Prof. Charitha Herath mounted a no holds barred attack on the proposed Broadcasting Authority Act. At his regular briefing at Nidahasa Jathika Sabhawa (NJS) office at Nawala. The one-time Media Ministry Secretary explained how the proposed law could be utilized against television and radio stations which refused to toe the government line.

The NJS comprises 13 MPs elected and appointed on the SLPP ticket/accommodated on its National List.

Acknowledging the need and the responsibility on the part of the government to introduce the Broadcasting Authority Act, National List lawmaker Herath questioned the intention of those behind what he called a despicable move.

The country’s radio and television stations are allowed to operate in terms of the Ceylon Broadcasting Corporation Act (No 37 of 1966) and the Sri Lanka Rupavahini Corporation Act (No 06 of 1982), respectively. Herath also explained how the Telecommunications Act applied to broadcasting operations.

The MP said that no one could dispute the need to introduce a new law to regulate radio and television stations. But the proposed Bill now in the public domain revealed the government’s intention to suppress those who would dare to challenge it on whatever issue, lawmaker Herath said, warning the government of dire consequences if it pursued such a strategy.

Asked to explain, MP Herath alleged that the proposed Act dealt with radio and television stations in a manner that they were yet to be established in Sri Lanka. The architects of the new law conveniently ignored the fact that radio and television stations were in operation here for several decades and couldn’t be subjected to a new law the way it dealt with a new entrant.

“The bottom line is that the proposed Broadcasting Authority Act completely ignored Article 14 of the Constitution that guaranteed the freedom of speech and expression, including publication. If the enactment of the proposed Broadcasting Authority Act takes place as it is, that will deliver a deadly blow to democracy. We do not want a North Korea type situation here.”

Referring to the composition of the commission, MP Herath questioned the rationale in restricting the total number of members to five and the quorum three. Pointing out that of the five members of the proposed commission, two – a Secretary to a Ministry (most probably Media Ministry) and the Director General of Telecommunication Regulatory Commission were ex-officio, the lawmaker said the President would name three remaining members subject to the approval of the Constitutional Council.

Alleging that this commission would be nothing but a highly dangerous tool in the hands of those at the helm of political power, lawmaker Herath said that it could be used selectively against any media organization that took a stand contrary to that of the government in respect of any issue – ranging from national security to what the architects of this destructive piece of legislation called the national economy. The operations of the offending media could be either suspended or permanently closed down, the academic said, urging the print and electronic media to vigorously take up this issue.

MP Herath lambasted the government for seeking to prohibit the media taking up economic issues. Alleging that such provisions were political, the lawmaker said that the issue is who would interpret the term ‘national economy’ in an economically ruined country. Would it be President Wickremesinghe, in his capacity as the Finance Minister, Governor of the Central Bank Dr. Nandalal Weerasinghe, State Finance Minister Shehan Semasinghe or the International Monetary Fund, he asked

Prof. Herath expressed serious concern over the proposed committee consisting of three persons headed by the Director General, TRC, to investigate complaints directed at radio and television stations. Pointing out that there is ambiguity pertaining to the appointment of such a committee, the MP questioned how two out of the three-member committee could decide either to suspend or permanently close down operations of an ‘offending’ broadcaster.

Impact on Parliament

However, MP Herath didn’t discuss how the proposed new law could even hinder the coverage of parliamentary proceedings as well as the reportage of shocking disclosures at parliamentary watchdog committees. Depending on the stand taken by the government on a particular issue, in terms of the Broadcasting Authority Act, action can be initiated against a television station for its reportage on a matter even discussed in Parliament.

The UNP may use the new law to suppress reportage and discussion on Treasury bond scams perpetrated in 2015 and 2016 under its watch. The SLPP may find the new law useful to pressure the media over the reportage of circumstances leading to the economic ruin due to a spate of ill- advised decisions taken by President Gotabaya Rajapaksa.

The committee tasked with investigating complaints against media organizations may find even the exposure of serious lapses on the part of the bureaucracy offensive. A case in point is the shocking disclosures made in the relevant parliamentary watchdog committees how the officialdom addressed critical issues at hand. The recent revelation that taxes, interest and penalties amounting to Rs 904 bn hasn’t been collected by the Inland Revenue underscored the need to address this issue urgently.

During the media briefing lawmaker Herath explained how the media could be targeted on the basis of alleged abuses in the coverage of issues. In the absence of interpretation of the term abuse of power, the committee headed by the Director General, TRC would be able to find fault with any broadcaster to appease his/her political master. It would be pertinent to mention that just two out of a three-member committee is authorized to decide on the fate of a media organization. Even the criticism of the controversial postponement of the much delayed Local Government polls indefinitely may attract the attention of the Broadcasting Authority as the government propagated the myth that economic recovery should be given priority, therefore election process can wait.

Prof. Herath explained how members of the commission can be removed in case they didn’t toe the government line. Instead of the very purpose a Broadcasting Authority is required to primarily have a level playing field, the one proposed can be a threat to media freedom. In the hands of politicians who pursue destructive self-aggrandizing strategies regardless of consequences, therefore the proposed Broadcasting Authority can be a tool to harm the free media. Prof. Herath regretted that the previous attempts to establish a Broadcasting Authority hadn’t been successful.

Harsha takes a strong stand

Samagi Jana Balavegaya (SJB) front liner Dr. Harsha de Silva is another MP who came out strongly against the proposed law. The former UNP non-Cabinet minister flayed the government over the move at a media briefing held at the Opposition Leader’s Office on Sir Marcus Fernando Mawatha.

The top SJB spokesman warned that this legislation, touted as an effort to advance the mass media, actually would serve as a tool for the government to crack down on and manipulate the media to suit its own agenda.

According to Dr. de Silva, the proposed Broadcasting Authority Bill contained provisions that enabled the government to exert pressure on and control media outlets that do not align with its ideology. Such measures, the economist argued were fundamentally incompatible with the principles of a democratic society.

“One of the cornerstones of a democracy is the freedom to hold differing opinions. The media cannot be subject to the whims of a particular authority that operated at the behest of the government. The media should enjoy the independence to express their views”, Dr. de Silva asserted. “This right to free expression is a fundamental tenet of any democratic society. The proposed Broadcasting Authority Act aims to stifle the media, and we will not stand for it”.

Dr. de Silva further cautioned that the government’s motives behind this legislation mirror its previous attempts to suppress the media through the failed Anti-Terrorism Act. The MP asserted that, having faced resistance to their oppressive measures, the government is now seeking alternative avenues to fulfill its objective of muzzling critical voices, and the Broadcasting Authority Act is their latest attempt to do so.

The concerns raised by Dr. Harsha de Silva who was once widely tipped to be the Finance Minister of the Wickremesinghe-Rajapaksa government, underscored the need for a robust and independent media, one that could act as a vital check on governmental power and foster a thriving democratic society. The MP stressed the pivotal importance policymakers and citizens alike closely examine the proposed legislation and its potential implications on press freedom, ensuring that any changes made to media regulations did not infringe upon the democratic principles that underpin our society.

SJB and Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa has alleged that the government’s latest bid was meant to create an environment in which only those who propagated the government line could operate.

Lawmaker Premadasa has said that the move to throttle the media seemed to be a critical part of the government’s overall strategy and should be considered as an extremely dangerous move against the backdrop of indefinite postponement of Local Government polls. MP Premadasa, like his opposition colleagues Prof. Herath and Dr. de Silva, alleged the licenses were to be issued on the basis of the media organizations’ loyalty to the government.

Censorship

Several decades ago, Sri Lanka exercised censorship to control the media, at a time television posed no real challenge.

Having joined The Island in June 1987, the writer remembered how print media had to submit all ‘copies’ that dealt with security and political issues to the government censor for approval. Successive governments imposed censorship to cover up military reversals in the Northern and Eastern Provinces and part of the overall strategy to deal with the second JVP-led insurgency 1987-89.

Successive governments harassed the print media and attacks directed at journalists and private media institutions over the years were part of that despicable strategy. Whatever the provocations, the assassinations of journalists cannot be condoned. Perpetrators of such heinous crimes had never been arrested. The assassination of The Sunday Leader Editor Lasantha Wickremetunga on January 08, 2009 is perhaps the case that attracted the most media coverage though there were many other attacks.

Keith Noyahr, Defence correspondent at the now defunct The Nation newspaper earned the wrath for his critical weekly column titled ‘Military Matters.’ His abduction and subsequent release in May 2008 exposed the then government though the investigation was never brought to a successful conclusion even after the defeat of that government in January 2015!

The proposed Broadcasting Authority Bill has taken the government’s battle (whichever party in power) to a new level. Now political strategy is aimed at closing down whole television or radio stations.

Midweek Review

Jayantha Dhanapala (1938 – 2023)

Published

4 days ago

2023/06/7

Sahan Weerasooriya

By Tissa Jayatilaka

The splendid career as well as the many glittering prizes won by Jayantha Dhanapala is common knowledge and does not require reiteration here. Rather I wish to focus on the man himself in this tribute to an exceptional person whom I had the privilege of getting to know personally at the tail end of the 1980s. I had of course heard of Jayantha and his many accomplishments long before our first meeting. Having read a newspaper review of North-South Perspectives, an international affairs journal that I edited, which focused on the promotion of greater understanding between the ‘developed’ and the ‘developing’ world, Jayantha telephoned me to ask if we could meet. I readily agreed and thus began a friendship that lasted until his death a few days ago.

Although I had not known at the time of that first meeting of ours, I soon learnt that encouraging those of the younger generation to contribute their mite to the betterment of Sri Lanka and the world outside of her shores was a priority for Jayantha. In the process, he enabled those of us who came into contact with him to better ourselves in order to continue to give of our best. In his appreciation of Jayantha ‘s life and career, former diplomat A.L.A. Azeez (who joined the Sri Lanka foreign service in 1992) talks at length of the marvellous role of guide and mentor of younger colleagues, including himself, that Jayantha played throughout his days in the foreign service. In the same spirit, after his retirement from the UN and upon his return to Sri Lanka, he served as a Trustee and member of the Board of Advisers of Sri Lanka Unites, mentoring a local youth movement dedicated to the transformation of Sri Lanka to a land free of religious and ethnic strife. He was involved from the inception in the establishment of the Friday Forum, an informal and self- financed group of older citizens dedicated to democracy, good governance, human rights and the rule of law.

Our friendship grew over the years, I happen to think, because we shared much in common. We both schooled and spent our formative years in Kandy– he at Trinity in the 1950s and I at Kingswood in the 1960s. Later he and I both entered the University of Ceylon, Peradeniya at different times, given that he was a decade older, where we both read for the Special Degree in English. His extra-curricular activities at Peradeniya, like mine, included sports– rugger in his case and cricket in mine– and theatre. We both took part in plays, held office and were participants in the diverse activities of the University Drama Society (DramSoc).

Jayantha and I also shared a fondness for the spoken and written word and, not infrequently, combined our resources in this area. We jointly edited A Garland for Ashley: Glimpses of a life celebrating the life of Ashley Halpe and His 50 Years of University Teaching (2008). He was instrumental in making me the editor of SIRIMAVO – Honouring the world’s first woman prime minister (2010) for which publication he wrote an excellent essay on The Foreign Policy of Sirimavo Bandaranaike. He contributed a chapter titled, A City Upon a Hill for Excursions and Explorations Cultural Encounters Between Sri Lanka and the United States that I put together in 2002. He reviewed Peradeniya: Memories of a University (1997) that I jointly edited with K.M. de Silva. Jayantha served as keynote speaker while I introduced the publication at the launch of the late Tissa Abeysekera’s collection of essays on culture and the arts titled, Roots, Reflections and Reminiscences (2007). A couple of years ago, Jayantha and I teamed up one more time to write an essay titled, A Study in ‘Creative Compassion’ for The Fourth Lion – Essays for Gopalkrishna GANDHI (2021) edited by Venu Madhav Govindu and Srinath Raghavan.

In the 1990s, when our friendship had matured to an extent that I could ask the Dhanapalas for a personal favour, I would on certain of my regular visits to the United States, stay with Maureen and Jayantha whenever they were free of pressing official commitments. I stayed with them in Washington while he was our ambassador (1995-1997) and later in New York when he was serving as Under-Secretary General for Disarmament Affairs (1998-2003). In New York, they would book tickets in advance for plays on Broadway to make my visits even more enjoyable. Their friendship and warm hospitality knew no bounds. I also recall a visit to the UN with my wife Lilani and our daughter Lara when Jayantha hosted us to lunch at a restaurant in the premises of the UN headquarters.

No account of Jayantha would be complete without a reference to the solid and sensitive supporting role played by Maureen in his life and career. She was a superb fellow-traveller who had known Jayantha from a very young age and were fellow undergraduates at Peradeniya as well. If marriages, as we are told, are indeed made in heaven, then theirs undoubtedly would be one of them. They were an extremely compatible and congenial pair to the very end. After their return to Sri Lanka, we had the opportunity to meet Jayantha and Maureen in more relaxed settings over food and drink, either at our home or theirs or in the homes of common friends.

Lilani and I went up to Kandy to spend a long- promised weekend with our senior colleagues and intimate friends Gananath and Ranjini Obeyesekere at April’s end. Knowing of our strong desire to meet Jayantha and Maureen during our visit and, as all of us were close mutual friends, our kind and thoughtful hosts invited the Dhanapalas to lunch at their lovely home. It was when we sat to lunch that it struck me that all six of us around the table, belonging to different eras, had been through the Department of English and read for the Special Degree in English at the University of Ceylon, Peradeniya which later became the University of Peradeniya. Little did we know that one of us would be gone in less than a month and not be around for another meeting over lunch! Impermanence is all.

My one-time teacher (he taught Lilani too, in later years), senior colleague in Peradeniya’s Department of English and close friend, Professor Thiru Kandiah, and his wife Indranee, have shared a friendship of much longer standing with the Dhanapalas. Thiru was a year senior to Jayantha at Peradeniya while Indranee and Maureen, who had been schoolmates and close friends at Girl’s High School, Kandy, resumed their friendship at a later date at Peradeniya. Their fathers had been members of the Trinity College staff, very close friends and neighbours. Trinity’s Lemuel House was founded when Jayantha was a student at the school with Indranee’s father, the illustrious teacher and Head Master Mr. R.L Kannangara in charge. Jayantha was one of the most outstanding students of Lemuel and Indranee’s father soon came to respect and, also like him very much.

The Kandiahs now live in Perth, Australia and realising that they may be unaware of Jayantha’s passing, I wrote to inform them of the sad event. Soon there was a flurry of emails exchanged amongst the three of us and I found myself in total agreement with their assessment of the Dhanapalas.

Here is Thiru on Jayantha:

Jayantha was held in especially high esteem and regard by absolutely everybody. This was not least for the obvious brilliance of his mind. But closely allied with that, there was in addition this very distinctive way in which he tended to come across to people in his interactions with them- as of his very nature a signally intellectual sort of person: always impeccably reasoned, and very definitely and firmly so, if in an unostentatious and quietly unassertive, also exemplarily courteous, manner that lent him great dignity; with the unmistakable integrity of the positions he adopted on matters and what he stood for adding considerable power to the strikingly impressive impact he had on people.

Indranee’s pertinent observation is that Maureen is as good natured as she is beautiful and gentle and that the school, “could not have found a better head prefect than her”. She goes on to say that Maureen’s father was a very caring and helpful person and her mother, a gentle and gracious lady. These are sentiments that deserve to be widely shared and hence my doing so.

All in all, Jayantha Dhanapala was a formidable personality, though, never aggressive or unapproachable. He was friendly and unfailingly courteous at all times. I wish to end this tribute with another most appropriate quote from Thiru Kandiah:

Much will, I am sure, be said and written of Jayantha at this time of his leaving us. But the man we were fortunate to know and whom we had such affection and respect for will remain in our hearts and minds as long as we are around.