by Kath Noble
(June 11, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) I'm always intrigued by people who turn up in a foreign country and are immediately convinced of all kinds of things that ought to be done to transform it. Visions appear to them even before they collect their bags at the airport. Imagination is a wonderful gift. We probably need more of it if the world is to really prosper. But it doesn't ever seem to work the other way around. I haven't yet met anybody like that in these parts who is also keenly looking for lessons to apply back at home.
Professor Grassie is a wonderful example of the type. He came over here to spend a few months working as a fellow at the Department of Pali and Buddhist Studies in Peradeniya University. But he was soon sharing his thoughts on what he described as a strategy for: 'Creating a Best Case Scenario for Sri Lanka'. Lanka Business Online reported on a speech that he made recently at the Bandaranaike Memorial International Conference Hall.
I rather expected it to be about Buddhism. Or at least religion. Professor Grassie is the founder of an American network of academics that tries to foster collaboration between scientists and those concerned with spiritual matters. I was curious.
Professor Grassie began with a few words on the conflict. 'When I first arrived in Sri Lanka, I was amazed by all the soldiers and police, who spend most of their days standing around idle and bored, waiting for something terrible to happen,' he said. This wasn't just a throwaway comment either. He continued, 'The resources diverted into maintaining this militarised state must be calculated.' It seems that security is a waste of money.
I'm pretty fed up with this way of thinking. Sri Lanka faces a fairly serious threat from the LTTE. Prabhakaran has in the last couple of weeks managed to kill quite a lot of ordinary people as they went about their everyday lives on buses and trains in Colombo. The Police clearly have their faults, but without them we could only expect more bombings. Defence spending may not all be absolutely necessary either, but the solution surely doesn't lie in reducing the number of soldiers. The LTTE isn't on the verge of giving up its struggle, and it doesn't need any encouragement from those who profess to be worried about the budget deficit. Sri Lanka doesn't have much of a choice in the matter.
I also wonder whether any similar thoughts would strike him if he arrived in a country like the United Kingdom. Gee, what a lot of surveillance cameras! One for every twelve citizens! Bet they don't catch many criminals or terrorists that way! The British government surely has better things to do with Rs. 100 billion! I doubt it.
Professor Grassie went on to describe what he called his worst case scenario for Sri Lanka. Tamil separatists will continue their violence without a political deal, and it will spread to the Sinhalese and Muslim underworlds. The Muslim community will arm itself. The Sinhalese will rally around a Big Man leader who promises law and order but delivers political patronage and demands total loyalty. Debt incurred to pay for the war will result in runaway inflation. Foreign investment will flee and aid will dry up too. Tourism will come to an end. Middle and upper class youth will move overseas in greater numbers than ever. Poverty, hunger and disease will increase. Essential services will falter. Communal riots will return as well. Sri Lanka is pretty much at this low point already, said Professor Grassie.
I don't have much time for this kind of talk either. Sri Lanka has enough of its own merchants of doom not to need to import any from other countries, and it really only helps to increase nationalist sentiment. I would suddenly find myself telling everybody how wonderful my homeland was if I had to listen to such exaggerated criticism from an outsider. America isn't exactly a paradise.
It isn't the point. I mention all of this just because it sets the scene for what came next and demonstrates the mindset in which it was envisaged.
Professor Grassie finally got around to presenting his grand plan for Sri Lanka. 'Imagine a new transport network that would unify the country in fact and not just name,' he said. This must have come as somewhat of a surprise to the audience. He elaborated, 'Sri Lanka can and should build a 2,000 km limited access toll road encircling and bisecting the island. People would be able to travel from Colombo to Trincomalee in two hours, and from Jaffna to Colombo in three hours.' It would certainly be different from the situation today. He summed up: 'Let's call it 'The Road to Peace and Prosperity'.' Sri Lanka would apparently be transformed if it implemented such an infrastructure project.
Lanka Business Online was so taken with the idea that this made the headlines. It said, 'Building superhighway key to solving Sri Lanka's problems: Scholar'.
I find it hard to believe that anybody could suggest such a thing with a straight face. Especially after spouting such a long list of serious issues requiring attention.
Professor Grassie clarified his point about prosperity. He repeated a rather familiar line: 'If a farmer in Anuradhapura cannot market his produce effectively, for instance, choosing between the highest prices in Colombo, Galle, Batticaloa, or for that matter Tokyo, then the agricultural sector will be disadvantaged. If a labourer cannot choose the best paying job, whether it be in Jaffna, Kandy, or Matara, then the labour market will be disadvantaged.' We have heard all of this before from the theorists at the World Bank.
It sounds tempting. But it simply doesn't work like that in practice.
Anuradhapura farmers have problems marketing their produce effectively, but this isn't due to a lack of superhighways. It is because middlemen control them. They are all smallholders, and bargaining is pretty difficult when you have gone into debt to purchase your inputs and there is no organisation to back you up. Individuals might take their harvest to the next town, but it isn't ever going to feasible for them to transport it hundreds of miles. Especially when you have to pay for the privilege of saving a few hours and gallons of diesel on the way, even after you reach the limited number of access points. Superhighways would only make it easier for somebody else to profit from their work.
Labourers may also have plenty of reasons for choosing not to commute to Jaffna, Kandy or Matara. Travel time surely isn't the issue here.
I can't help thinking of the infrastructure projects in the Colonial Period. The British administration built plenty of roads and railways to the hills, but it wasn't the ordinary people who benefited. Sinhalese lost their land and Indian Tamils were invited to work in semi-slavery. Tea was brought out, but all of the profits went to the planters. The purpose was to speed up the extraction of wealth. And it worked. The Colonial Government obviously wasn't the only problem though. The Hill Country remains one of the poorest regions in the country today, despite the fact that its main product is being shipped around the world.
Professor Grassie then tried to explain how it would also lead to peace. He proposed the following: 'Government shouldn't manage the new transport network; let's think about tolls leading to profits, shares of ownership leading to dividends. Indeed, the division of stock ownership can be used as an incentive in the peace process.' The LTTE is to be offered shares in a superhighway to tempt it out of its fight for Tamil Eelam. I think that might just be the most ridiculous suggestion that I've ever heard.
Development has to build on and take account of reality if it isn't to go wrong. Imported ideas simply don't work as this example demonstrates only too clearly. People end up paying for these failures too. Dreaming should be left to those who can appreciate the positive in what exists and those who would experience the negative if it didn't work out.
What's the most intriguing in all of this is that anybody listens to the likes of Professor Grassie. I'm afraid that they might.
- Sri Lanka Guardian
Post a Comment