Comments on: Development or maldevelopment?

By: A. S. U. Kumar

A. S. U. Kumar — Mon, 31 Oct 2011 08:44:58 +0000

Dear Ranil Senanayaka,
For any development, and the correct understanding of the word ‘development,’ the knowledge, analyzing power and constructive imagination of the students and the ordinary people must be increased adequately. Thus, different subjects should be taught in schools and Universities with the aim of increasing the knowledge, analyzing power and constructive imagination. But, it is rare to find articles on media on changes that have to be made on teaching of the subjects like Languages, literature, culture, civilization, religions, fine arts, archaeology, history etc.
Our scholars say the Brahmi scripts were used in Lanka from the 3rd – 2nd centuries B.C. But, in Sri Lanka we don’t find a single small poem or story written with Brahmi scrips.The scholars do not explain what necessity compelled the Sinhalese to invent new Sinhalese scripts.
Failure of our scholars in studying the Pali, Tamil, Sinhala and Sanskrit literature and archaeological finds of Lanka only resulted in the formulation of the imaginary and false doctrine: Aryan – Sinhala – Sinhalese – Theravada Buddhism – Lanka doctrine with one to one correspondence.
Our politicians who crave for power and fame utilized this imaginary and false doctrine to capture power and loot the country.
When we take about Buddhism, we talk about the Sinhala Theravada Buddhism only. The Sinhalese and Tamils do not know the existence of Mahayana Buddhism or Tamil Mahayana Buddhists in the ancient time.
The Sinhala Theravada Buddhists do not know the difference between Theravada Buddhism and Mahayana Buddhism and the impact of Mahayana Buddhism in the Sinhala language, Sinhala literature, Culture, art and architecture of Sri Lanka.
The scholars towed in line with the politicians and wrote everything to satisfy the imaginary and false doctrine of the Sinhala nation.Almost all the ‘ancient’ Sinhala literature were written by the Tamil Mahayana Buddhist Monks. But, the Sinhalese scholars talk about the ‘Sinhalese Literature.’ Like wise, without telling the students ‘the Mahayana Buddhist Art and Architecture of Lanka,’they say ‘Sinhala Buddhist arts and Architecture.’
The Sinhalese scholars talk much about Buddhism. But they have not carried out a scientific study on Symbolization and Symbolization of Buddha and Buddhism.
Professor Paranavithane studied over 2500 Brahmi inscriptions and wrote a big book.
But he did not study over 65 different symbols found marked on them. He did not consider the significance of the Symbols. His method of analysis is unscientific. But, all the other scholars have accepted his explanations and conclusions. The present students cannot raise questions over it. If they raise a question, they will not be allowed to pass the paper or examination.
In the Government official web site, we find the national flag and an explanation on it.
The lion holding a sword on its right fore paw placed inside a rectangle with pinnacles placed at the four corners symbolizes Lord Buddha who himself adhered to what the Four Noble truth emphasize.
But, the students and the people are told that the lion symbolizes the Sinhalese race!
Our scholars say something wrong and imaginary. But, all have to accept.!
Except the subjects maths, and natural science, all that are taught in the other subjects are wrong and imaginary.
Thus, the University students who study the subjects archaeology, history etc. do not know how to study scientifically the coins, seals, statues, sculpture, architecture etc.and come to correct conclusion.
There study has become memorizing things that were taught and reproduce the same in the examination.
With such a system of education,we cannot expect economic, social, political development in our country.The politicians will say the Infra structure development as ‘Economic development.’ Putting new buildings for schools as ‘Educational developmet.’ Allowing the North and Eastern fishermen do fishing after decades as ‘fishery development.’ But the people will accept this and praise the government ministers, M.Ps and others, and cast their votes.
Unless the knowledge and analyzing power of our students are increased through appropriate changes in the study of different subjects, talking about development will be a good time killer. All can enjoy! Why not we?

By: James Chance

James Chance — Wed, 26 Oct 2011 11:09:26 +0000

Nice article. Thank you. It’s nice to see Buddhist ideas being used in such a publicly-spirited way. Isn’t it odd that a government so hostile to the west when it comes to governance and human rights has adopted lock stock and barrel the west’s bankrupt polices of develeopment-as-growth-and-consumption? I hope this critique gets a wide hearing – and that the remaining traces of Buddhist Lanka can re-emerge for the well-being of all creatures.

By: justitia

justitia — Tue, 18 Oct 2011 14:10:43 +0000

An excellent review of the present day socio-political society in sri lanka today.
Development, it seems to most citizens, is mostly of the wealth and power of those who are governing us, mostly to ensure their future.
Citizens are led astray by short term promises, to support and enable them to govern all of us.
This governance is mainly enabled by police and the armed forces, on which more and more is being spent, even after two years of cessation of war.
More is to be allocated in the coming budget.
Why do we need a peacetime army of 200,000 plus navy and airforce, is not clear.
There are those who say that this is necessary as “an invasion from outside may occur” – but not stated, from where.
Are we becoming a military state – like Cuba was under Batista, and now under Fidel’s chosen successer?

By: dinuk

dinuk — Tue, 18 Oct 2011 01:57:33 +0000

Many thanks for this – spot on! I hope it is the beginning of a concerted critique of the militarized, land-grabbing, environmentally and socially destrucutive, neoliberal development model Lanka is following which makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. INEQUALITY is the name of the game! However the Poverty Analysis Centers in Lanka merely keep re-discovering different forms of “poverty” in order to stay in the development BUSINESS and racket! The current development model of Rajapakse Bros Inc is one that is intellectually and morally bankrupt and highly militarized and dangerous. In any case it is a failed consumerist development model that generates greed and craving based on over consumption and DEBT which is now crashing the economies of Europe and North America. This model of development is seriously in question in the rest of the world.
Development has always be a colonial project as as many brilliant academics have pointed out was and is “colonialism by other means” except now the colonized embrace it with more vigor than those who invented it. Mark Duffield has written on how development consists of the perpetual re-discovery of poverty while actually reproducing, policing and maintaining the border between the rich and the poor in his book “Development, Security and Endless War”. Also Nobel winners Stiglitz and Amatya Sen have written on “Mismeasuring our Lives: Why GDP does not add up” and the problem of inequality which leads to conflict and violence.. Keep up the good work Ranil!

By: Amba Yaluwaa

Amba Yaluwaa — Mon, 17 Oct 2011 19:41:07 +0000

Great article. Very nicely written and a pleasure to read. Thank you. However, I have to dispute your premise that the “current vision of development” is one of economic growth, facilitated by capitalist behaviors such as consumerism and greed and poisoned by a dependency on commodities.

It has been long since development discourse broke away from that oft-quoted formula. Development is not only about economic growth but also about how the benefits of economic growth are distributed among people. People-centered approaches to development have been circulating since the 60s, with such ideas as community development, participation and more recently, human development/capability approaches. The consensus today is that the end of development is not industrialization and rampant economic growth/progress but the improvement of human well-being. Amartya Sen’s “Development as Freedom” (1999) argued that development is about expanding human capabilities, enabling people to be and do the things they value. Mahbub ul Haq (1995) similarly explains development as a process of creating an environment in which people’s opportunities and capabilities are expanded, so that they can lead the lives they value.

Many people fall into the trap of stereotyping development as ‘progress’ and progress as ‘economic growth’, but I think this is unfair to development actors who have striven over the past decades to strip development of such shallow tenets. The position in which development stands today, which is, as a holistic approach embracing the participation of the subjects of development with an objective of improving their well-being, I think, is coterminous with Buddhist philosophy. I do not think a Buddhist citizenry needs to fear a future of suffering if they understand development in its modern sense.