Leadership Training - Why Not in the Universities?

One is naturally curious as to whose brain- child this whole exercise was. It’s enlightening to read that "No mention is made of the authority responsible for the curriculum, but a prominent photograph of the Defence Secretary on the cover of the study guide suggests authorship by the Defence establishment." Are we then surprised at the course content of a leadership training that seems more intent on producing "Yes" men and women rather of well-rounded, tolerant citizens who can think for themselves and women.

by Anne Abayasekera

(June 26, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) Other readers besides myself must feel indebted to the members of "FRIDAY FORUM" for their clear and cogent statement on the scheme of Leadership Training for University Entrants that has been suddenly thrust on us with undue haste. They have made it clear that this arbitrary move on the part of the Ministry of Higher Education contravenes the Universities Act No.16 of 1978 and bulldozes the hitherto accepted norms of university governance. Nor has the UGC the authority to determine teaching courses and programmes without prior consultation with the universities. What seems to emerge clearly is that our universities are no longer autonomous but have, like nearly all our formerly independent institutions, been politicized.

It is surely the universities themselves that are best qualified to devise and implement appropriate programmes for university entrants? And where does the military come into the picture? If physical training is considered beneficial or necessary, these school leavers could be put through their paces by the excellent civilian P.T. instructors who are available, in an university setting. Exercises patterned on military manoeuvres could be daunting and can hardly be considered essential for students aspiring to enter halls of higher learning. It is brain, rather than brawn, that universities seek to develop; not rigid conformity, either, but critical thinking and the ability to make wise choices in life, no matter in what direction the herd lets itself be driven. A further objectionable aspect of this scheme is that it is evidently compulsory for all new university entrants, since they are required to produce a certificate to prove they have completed the course.

Nobody in her/his right senses would condone the type of uncivilized ragging that has, sadly, been the bane of our universities for so long, and it is most desirable that the university authorities move to take more effective preventive measures. However, the implication that has been made that military training will help new freshers to combat attempts at ragging, suggests that what is encouraged is aggression towards the aggressors, or meeting violence with violence. Such recourse will surely only lead to greater tragedies in ensuing battles?

The Friday Forum which covers many distinguished and highly respected names, has said it had difficulty in obtaining the syllabus for the training programme and we have to be thankful that they did obtain it and have published the information it contains. I am shocked by the revelation of the course content of the module on history and national heritage. I quote: "The topics are, in order, the arrival of the Aryans, foreign invasions, (who the foreigners are not clear), and the development of Sinhalese kingdoms. `National Heritage’ focuses exclusively on prominent cultural symbols of the majority Sinhala community such as Sigiriya, the Temple of the Tooth and the Aukana Buddha Statue, with none from other communities…………… In a group exercise on world leaders, the names listed as world-famous leaders are Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru, King Dutugemunu, Anagarika Dharmapala, Mahinda Rajapakse, Veera Puran Appu and Ranasinghe Premadasa. Nobody will dispute the claim to fame of the first two – Gandhi and Nehru – but will students be permitted to question the credibility of the Sri Lankans who are listed as "world-famous"? I wonder. And will any student dare to be bold enough to give utterance to a different viewpoint? I doubt it, for we have been told unequivocally that there are now no minorities, only patriots and traitors. It would seem that the only people who count in this country, are Sinhalese (but only Sinhala Buddhists!) There’s not an iota of sensitivity to the feelings of the people of other races and religions who make up our population, but gives a biased, majoritarian view of history and culture, with no attempt at nation-building. While the Govt. talks about peace and reconciliation, its actions suggest that in reality it couldn’t care less!

One is naturally curious as to whose brain- child this whole exercise was. It’s enlightening to read that "No mention is made of the authority responsible for the curriculum, but a prominent photograph of the Defence Secretary on the cover of the study guide suggests authorship by the Defence establishment." Are we then surprised at the course content of a leadership training that seems more intent on producing "Yes" men and women rather of well-rounded, tolerant citizens who can think for themselves and women.