22 March 2022 12:10 am Views - 1501
70th death anniversary of D.S Senanayake falls today (March 22)
He stated in the House,
“I would like to add my humble tribute to the Hon. Minister of Education and his Executive committee for the excellent report they have submitted, and for the recommendations they have made. I am in agreement with the recommendations made to a degree greater than that evinced by those who seem to be so very enthusiastic in their desire to give effect to these recommendations, and have in fact expressed doubts about the intensions of the Ministers and others over these proposals. I go further than that. There seem to be doubts in the minds of some Members of this Council, and in the minds of people outside it, that for financial reasons the Government does not propose to give effect to the recommendations of the Special Committee on Education. I say that there is no foundation for that fear.”
He, however, warned the Members not to be satisfied with only paying lip service to the concept of ‘Free Education’. To make this concept a reality, he said that trained teachers are absolutely necessary and that it has not been forthcoming. He stressed on infrastructure and objected to ad-hoc structures being identified as schools. These criticisms may have been interpreted by some to unfairly accuse D.S. Senanayake of not supporting ‘Free Education’. But the fact remains that even eighty-six years after these proposals were first introduced in the State Council, many are the number of schools that are badly handicapped without trained teachers. Today even a large number of so called schools are in such a bad state that they are not fit even for cattle to take shelter. Drawing attention to the necessity of these requirements D.S. Senanayake told the House that,
“I maintain that teachers are not in sufficient numbers now. We have the material, and we can train the men. I have not the slightest doubt about that, and I say by the time you have trained the necessary staff of teachers, you will get all the money you want. But I do object to you saying, ‘We are going to give free education to all’, and then proceeding to build schools without roofs; I do object to your using mud huts as schools, to your starting schools without the necessary staff teachers - just as some others propose to run hospitals without Doctors!
I do not believe in doing that sort of thing. We all agree that the first thing we must do is to educate the people, if we are to raise the national income and the standard of living of the people. We are willing to undertake the education of the people, as I agree that money spent on education is never wasted.”
Identifying the need to harness the best talent from the entire population and not to restrict it only to well-to-do classes, He told the State Council that,
“ .... We could find employment for this limited number in the types of work I have indicated, but for these jobs, I do not think we shall require the services of more than 5 per cent of the population of this island.
We must, therefore, choose the best available talent, not from a limited section of the population, from the Well-to-do classes, but from the entire population of the country, opportunities being thrown open to the poorest child in the country, so that we would get the best possible material. We should give all the children of the country the fullest possible opportunities to receive that type of education which would enable us to choose the best from among the people of this country. I am in favour of giving such opportunities to the children of the country as would enable us to select the best material we have in the country for the work of the country. With the object of giving the fullest opportunities to all children of the Island, I am in favour, not merely of free education for them, but also of providing them with free clothing and other needs.”
Good intentions
Objecting to the proposal of giving teachers and Inspectors the sole right to choose the future career of a child, he said,
“I am in favour of giving an opportunity to everyone, to even the poorest child to get this education. However, I cannot think of any other way of making a selection than through teachers and Inspectors, but, at the same time, I feel that it is not satisfactory to make that the sole method of choosing.
Under the circumstances, while taking that opportunity of selecting, let the parents who think that their children should have a university education have an opportunity of giving that university education to their children at their expense. Let it be done at their expense, but do not cut them out. Do not place the children at the mercy of the officers. That is not necessary. We are trying to choose the best method; so let us make the field wider still, but let us not confine ourselves only those selected by Inspectors and others. Let even the parents have the choice.”
He assured the House the support of the Board of Ministers for the recommendations. He said, “I think I have taken too much of time. But I did so for simple reason that I wanted to clear certain doubts. There seems to be an impression that we are not serious about these resolutions. There seems to be an impression that the Board of Ministers would not give effect to these resolutions. I want to say here and now that we are very serious about giving effect to the recommendations of the report. I for one am rather disappointed that instead of giving effect to the report and recommendations and having a practical scheme for disposal, we are carrying on this debate on some argument or other. I should like to have that practical scheme put forward, so that we may come to a decision and set about this task in the right sprit, and we will do all we can to support it.”
Two years after the reforms were introduced; the Education (Amendment) Bill was introduced in the State Council. Speaking on this Bill on March 7, 1947, D.S. Senanayake, however, expressed his dissatisfaction over the bickering that was going on regarding this Bill. He said, “Sir, I feel greatly distressed that there should be so much feeling at this time, when it is the declared wish of the present Government to give as much facilities as possible for the educating the people of Ceylon. As far as the Ministers are concerned, you would have realised that all the money that was asked for or needed was provided, so that every student in Ceylon could get the education best suited to him.
We were hoping that there would be some Ordinance or some arrangement whereby that desire of the Ministers would receive whole-hearted support from the country. Unfortunately, there seems to be a good deal of suspicion, a good deal of doubt and a good deal of anxiety prevailing all over the country. We find that the people on whom we depend most to carry out this policy are at each other’s throats. They are rather fighting each other, saying the worst things possible of each other: and unfortunately we are not getting closer to having a scheme that will give effect to our desires.”
He went on to say, “Even in this new scheme that has been put forward, we know that the Hon. Member for Dumbara is the originator of what we call free education which has been taken up by the Hon. Minister with enthusiasm. We know how anxious those two and the others are to give this facility to everyone in Ceylon to receive this education. I cannot understand, when there are those two parties with noble ideas and with determination to do the best for this country why there should be this antagonism.
“I feel that it is quite possible that the scheme that we are taking up, or the step we are taking, is far in advance of what we are doing now; and the anxiety of both parties concerned makes them rather doubtful whether any hasty step would result in what they are hoping to achieve. I for one feel that if this scheme could be properly launched, no name in Ceylon would be immortalised to same extent as our Hon. Minister’s name would be. But at the same time I feel that if this scheme is not properly launched, perhaps his good intensions and his great desire to help the people, or the great opportunity he had of living in the memory of all, may be lost.
“I do not doubt the Hon. Minister’s intentions: nor do I say that his enthusiasm is not worthy of the cause. But I certainly feel that when we are venturing on something big, we must be patient. Let us be patient. Let us consider all aspects of the question and try to evolve a scheme which is sound in all respects and into which everyone would come with confidence and with enthusiasm.
“The part of the Executive Committee of Education and also took exception to the manner in which the matter was handled,” he said,
“It may be that my good Friend, the Minister of Education, is called names now. I remember that even the Special Committee on Education was called names. When, however, the Report of this Committee was published, the public was compelled to admit that magnificent work had been done by those responsible for the Report. Let us not be worried about being called names, but let us try and achieve the object we have in view.
“In this country it is not unusual for people to forget the terms of the Constitution under which we function. It is often not realised that responsibility for bringing forward schemes that concern any Ministry is with that particular Ministry itself, and that it is after proposals have been made that the Members of the Board of Ministers get an opportunity of agreeing or refusing to provide the necessary funds.
“The duty of making the actual proposals is entrusted to the Executive Committee concerned. When the Report of the Special Committee on Education was published, the Executive Committee of Education were quite right in regarding it as part of their function to consider that Report and put forward their own recommendations to this House. But I have one little complaint to make in this regard. Although an Executive Committee is entitled to take that step, we must remember that in this country when we an Executive Committee, does, or omits to do something, the only body that is blamed for it is the Board of Ministers. It is also a fact that when the proposals of an Executive Committee come before this House, Members of the Executive Committee sometimes leave their Ministers severely alone and vote against him in this House, and then expect the other six Ministers to share the blame with their Minister.
“In these circumstances, one feels that it would be well if the Ministers as a body were given an opportunity of considering a report as a whole and were able to put forward their own proposals.
“There is this further point. When the Executive Committee of Education realised that by themselves they were not - I would not use the word ‘competent’ - when they felt that they needed the assistance of other educationalists in preparing the report, it was only fair that the report of this joint body of educationalists should have been placed before us, that the entire proposals should have been put before us, and not merely the proposals that appealed to the Executive Committee of Education, the rest of the proposals having been rejected or ignored. That is my complaint”.
Influence of the priests on the laity
Holding a brief for religious education and opposing the proposal to curtail denominational schools, D.S. Senanayake went on to say,
“It may be that there was a decision that there should not be further denominational schools. There may be the objection that Buddhists do not get religious education in Christian Schools and Christians do not get religious education in Buddhist Schools; in mixed schools there will be that difficulty. But the ingenuity of man is not so bankrupt that he would not be able to think of a way of giving religious education to children in their religion, without destroying what is good.
“Is religion to be so lightly thrown away? Are we going to say, ‘No; do away with religion, as far as the State is concerned? As a Buddhist, I say that the Buddhists will suffer very much more than anyone else from such an attitude.
“If I had a grievance as a Buddhist against the British occupation, it was this: I happened to read some of the early dispatches when I was a Minister of the old Executive Council, and I was really surprised to find that pirivena education had been taken away merely because of the influence of the priests on the laity; and they thought it better to take away that influence. We have suffered because of the removal. We may call ourselves leading Buddhists, but we know in our hearts that we have not had that opportunity - we may have had that love for our religion - but we have not had that opportunity of having our religion ingrained in us, and by that we have suffered.
If we have suffered to that extent, are we going to say, ‘Well, all the other people too must suffer in this world, let there be no religion’? Why do we revere the name Colonel Olcott? Because he came and established Buddhist Schools here: because he saw the value of religious teaching. People of the older generations thought that, however inconvenient it might be, however unpopular it might be, they must continue religious education.”
He posed the question, “What I want to impress on the House is the fact that the impossibility of giving effect to the resolution was recognised by the Members of the Executive Committee themselves when they went behind the resolution and tried all sorts of means to establish denominational schools all over the place. When that is our experience, when that is what had to be done during the short period, what is the use of having a law here saying ‘You are not going to have any more denominational schools’?”
After identifying the lapses in the proposed Legislation, he concluded his speech by appealing to the Executive Committee of Education to take its time and bring forth a comprehensive set of proposals that would make the concept of Free Education a real asset that would transform this nation.
He went on to say, “Let us, in patience, evolve a scheme that would be of lasting benefit to Ceylon and in advance of any other country. If that is done, I certainly feel that the country would be prepared to make any sacrifice required and I feel certain that Ministers whoever they may be, whether this Board of Ministers or future Board of Ministers, would be willing to give all the necessary assistance. Do not be suspicious. The desire is to advance. Let us then all join and advance.”
- If I had a grievance as a Buddhist against the British occupation, it was this: I happened to read some of the early dispatches when I was a Minister of the old Executive Council, and I was really surprised to find that pirivena education had been taken away merely because of the influence of the priests on the laity; and they thought it better to take away that influence
- Let us, in patience, evolve a scheme that would be of lasting benefit to Ceylon and in advance of any other country. If that is done, I certainly feel that the country would be prepared to make any sacrifice required and I feel certain that Ministers whoever they may be, whether this Board of Ministers or future Board of Ministers, would be willing to give all the necessary assistance. Do not be suspicious. The desire is to advance. Let us then all join and advance
Since the concept of Free Education is acceptable to all baring certain proposals which were criticised by many speakers in the State Council, the Speaker at the end of the debate on the second reading, forwarded the Bill to a Standing Committee to arrive at a compromise solution. On 27th May 1947, the Report of the Standing Committee was taken up and after certain amendments accepted without a division.
Although accusations are leveled against D.S. Senanayake, he never opposed or obstructed the ‘Free Education’ Bill. In fact, as the leader of the House and as the Vice Chairman of the Board of Ministers, he supported the concept and saw to it that all monies requested by the Ministry of Education for the implementation of the Free Education programme was granted. But he did caution the Executive Committee of Education not make any mistakes on such an important matter as it would do untold harm to the Nation. Yet it has been insinuated in some recent publications that, Hon. D.S. Senanayake as the head of first independent Government of Sri Lanka did not appoint Hon. C.W.W. Kannangara, who was the Minister of Education for sixteen years, as Minister of Education in his Cabinet, it has been argued that Hon. D.S. Senanayake was hostile to Hon. Kananngara and to the concept of ‘Free Education’. But the fact is that Mr. C.W.W. Kananngara could not be appointed as Minister of Education or as any other Minister for that matter simply because he lost his seat in the General Election of 1947. Incidentally he was defeated by a Planter who contested as an Independent Socialist. Almost all the Left Parties in Ceylon (Sri Lanka) and their senior leaders actively supported the Planter to defeat Kannangara. If at all it is the voters of Matugama and the left leaders who should be blamed and certainly not D.S. Senanayake. After all, unlike today, there was no will nor provision then to appoint defeated candidates to Parliament, leave aside to the Cabinet, on the whims and fancies of Party leaders or a political party. However, Mr. Kannangara was duly recognised by the Government by appointing him as the Ambassador to Indonesia for the invaluable service he rendered to his country.
For the past eighty-six years Sri Lanka has gone through vast changes in its educational policy within the free education system. We have witnessed Governments with left leanings, nationalizing private educational institutions and trying to bring Education under complete State control. This policy not only created a huge economic burden on the State, but also created an absolute mess in the educational system. The country that once proudly proclaimed that it is providing free education to the Nation is today struggling to find schools for the vast multitude. Admissions to schools have become a nightmare to parents for whom it is a herculean task to get one’s child into a school today.
These very same left Governments now have grown to accept that private educational institutions are necessary and are an integral part of modern educational system. They are now even attempting to establish branches of foreign universities in Sri Lanka, not only to prevent large sums of foreign exchange being sent abroad by private individuals to educate their children, but also to provide opportunities to vast numbers of foreign students to study in Sri Lanka, thereby making it a viable economic venture. However, the main obstacle to these proposals has risen from the beneficiaries from free education, prompting an unfortunate situation of recipients of ‘Free Education’ obstructing ‘Freedom of Education’.
(This article is compiled by the Senanayake Foundation)