The Universities and the Government in Sri Lanka
Author(s): KINGSLEY DE SILVA
Source: Minerva, Vol. 16, No. 2 (Summer, 1978), pp. 251-272
Published by: Springer
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41820330 .
Accessed: 25/06/2014 06:04
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
.
Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Minerva.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 195.34.79.111 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 06:04:05 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
The
and
Universities
in
Sri
KINGSLEY
the
Government
Lanka
DE
SILVA
At the end of the nineteenthcenturythe Britishcolony of Ceylon,now
Sri Lanka, had a well-developedsystemof primaryand secondaryschools
but no university.In the early decades of that centurythe island's most
esteemed secondary school, the Colombo Academy supported and
directedby the state,was the main if not sole centrefor such courses of
highereducation as existed. Later known as Queen's College it became
affiliatedto Calcutta Universityin 1859. Renamed Royial College, it
became the first" college " 1 to provide some form of post-matriculate
education since it prepared students for the external examinations
conducted by the Universityof London. Few students,however,proceeded beyond the intermediate examination. The children of the
wealthierclasses were sent to British universitiesfor their education,
and the less affluentwent to universitiesin India. Medical education
was better provided through the Ceylon Medical College which was
establishedin 1870. In general,however,the island continuedto depend
on institutionsoverseas to meet its need for the education of medical
personnelas well in the otherprofessions.
By the last quarter of the nineteenthcenturythere was increasing
demand by the island's educated classes for the establishmentof a
universityin Ceylon. By the firstdecade of the twentiethcentury,this
"
agitationhad developedinto what came to be knownas the university
movement". The early nationalistsregarded a universityas essential
to " national existence" and vital for the purpose of arresting" the
"
process of denationalisation". The two outstandingfiguresin the
"
Ananda Coomaraswamy,
movement werethe greatorientalist,
university
and Sir Ponnambalam Arunachalam, who was the foremostCeylonese
civil servant of his day and who was soon to emerge as one of the
outstandingCeylonesepolitical figuresof the firstquarterof the present
century.The major premise of the argumentsof the leading members
of the universitymovementwas that externalexaminationsconductedby
Britishuniversitieswere a poor substitutefor a real universityeducation
in an indigenousuniversity.
In the Ceylon National Review, the journal of the Ceylon Social ReformLeague founded in 1905, Coomaraswamysketched his ideal of a
"Sri Lankan University": an institutionwhich would impart an education and not merely" estimatethe amount of knowledgepossessedby
" wasusedto designate
1 Theterm" college
a secondary
schoolwhichprovided
postmatriculate
classes.
This content downloaded from 195.34.79.111 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 06:04:05 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
252
Kingsleyde Silva
"
examinées one in which studentswould acquire culture and independence of thought", a residentialinstitutionwhich would revitalise
and promote indigenous culture and oriental languages, while at the
same timeprovidinginstruction" in modernscience,medicine,commerce
and agriculture".2 When Arunachalam,as the spokesmanof the Ceylon
UniversityAssociation which had been establishedin 1906, enteredthe
of:
frayhe spokein muchthe same terms.He too urgedthe establishment
a university
local
to
needs
adapted
[which]whilemakingprovisionfor the
studyof Englishand the assimilationof westernculture[would]take care
thatour youthdo not growup strangers
to theirmothertongueand to their
past historyand traditions.. . . The vernacularliteratureof the day will
thenbe rescuedfromits pedantryand triviality
and be a worthyvehiclefor
the dissemination
of whatis besitin westernand easternculture.« . . Then
at last the massesof our people will be reallyinfluenced
for the betterby
westerncivilization
whichseemsotherwiselikelyto leave no enduringmark
than the additionof some European wordsto our vocabularyand the inof someEuropeancustomsin oursocial life;.3
corporation
It was taken for grantedthat the initiativefor the establishmentof a
universityin the island should come from the state which would also
providethebulk of the financialresources.
What in the meantimeof the attitudeof the colonial administration
in Ceylon to this demand for the establishmentof a university?It was
at everystage lukewarmif not ambivalent.In the early stages- the first
- the governmentviewedit as something
decade of the twentiethcentury
to be " cautiouslybut firmlyencouraged but soon there were second
we must avoid the dictates of noisy impetuosityand
thoughts: "...
rhetoricalexaggerationsand guard above all thingsagainst floodingthe
"4 Nonetheless,it was not
centurywith failed B.A.s!
openly opposed,
when
a
subcommittee
of the Legislative Council of Ceylon, which
and,
was appointed to consider the question, recommendedin 1912 that a
universitybe establishedin a new buildingdesigned for Royal College,
this received the endorsementof the government.It was only in 1921,
however, that the decision was carried out. The delay was partly an
inevitableconsequence of the outbreakof the FirstWorld War; questions
and its site needed to be resolved,
relatingto the natureof the university
but in any case this was not regardeda matterof great urgency.What
emergedin 1921- the CeylonUniversityCollege- was much less than the
universityfor which Coomaraswamyand Arunachalam had agitated.
The UniversityCollege was affiliatedto the Universityof London and
preparedstudentsforthe externalexaminationsof that university.From
the outset the UniversityCollege of Colombo was treated as nothing
more than a half-wayhouse to a national university.The legislation
" Universities,
2 Quoted
inPieris,
Politics
inCeylon Minerva
andPublic
Ralph,
Opinion
,
II,34 (Summer
1964),p. 441.
TheJournal
Association
of theCeylonUniversity
, I, 1 (1906),p. 2.
4 TheAdministration
Reportof theDirector
of PublicInstruction
(1903),quotedin
Pieris,
R., op cit.,p. 443.
This content downloaded from 195.34.79.111 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 06:04:05 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
The Universitiesand the Governmentin Sri Lanka
253
to this higherstatus was ready in 1925.
required for its transformation
The Legislative Council decided, in 1927, in favour of locating it in
"
Kandy, and resolved too that the universityshould be unitaryand
residential".5A draftconstitution
for the universitywas ready by 1930.
All thiswas soon caughtup in a prolongedcontroversyover the question
of wherethe universityshould be located. The choice was betweena site
- or sites- in Colombo and one in or near Kandy. Those who argued
that the universityshould be in the national capital put up a bitterrearguard action, and it was only in 1938 that they conceded defeat. The
Universityof Ceylon was ultimatelyestablishedin 1942 but transferto
its site at Peradeniyanear Kandy was delayedby wartimeconditions.0
The Heydayof University
Autonomy
The Universityof Ceylon has, since its inception,been almost totally
dependenton the state for its financialsupport.Though this could have
led to demands for state control, or at least to a large measure of
influencein the affairsof the University,it was, unlike the University
College (1921-42) which it replaced, a genuinelyautonomousinstitution
from 1942 to 1966. Until 1958, when the two main centresof Buddhist
learning in Ceylon were convertedovernightinto universities,it was
the only universityin the island. The idea that a universityshould be
autonomousfoundwide acceptance amongall sectionsof politicalopinion
in the country,not least withthemain officiaisof the governmentand the
leading intellectualsand economic figuresof Ceylonese society. These
latterput theirtrustin Sir Ivor Jenningsand took comfortin the thought
the Universityand university
education
that,withhim as vice-chancellor,
werein safe and competenthands.
Jenningshad begun his career in Ceylon as the principal of UniversityCollege. In framingthe Universityof Ceylon OrdinanceNo. 20 of
1942 whichestablishedthe Universityas a unitary,residentialinstitution,
he incorporatedin it the safeguardsrequired to protectits autonomy.
Within-theUniversityand outsideit, his establishedacademic reputation,
buttressedby his influencewith D. S. Senanayake, the first prime
ministerafterthe countrybecame independentand whose trustedconfidential adviser on constitutionalaffairs he was, gave Jenningsa
prestigein the countrywhich none of the successors ever enjoyed. As
its firstvice-chancellor,from1942 to 1955, he gave the universitya style
and standingwhichenabledit to survivewithitsautonomousstatusintact,
if not entirelyinviolate,for a decade afterhis departurefor Cambridge
in 1955.
The transferfrom the site on Thurstan Road in Colombo to Peradeniya on the banks of the Mahaveli was spread over two decades,
5 Jennings,
SirW. Ivor," TheFoundation
of theUniversity
ofCeylon
", University
of
Review
Ceylon
, IX, 3 (July,
1951),pp. 147-162.
6 Ibid.,pp.226-250.
This content downloaded from 195.34.79.111 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 06:04:05 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
254
Kingsleyde Silva
beginningon a modest scale with the facultyof agricultureand the
departmentof law afterthe end of the Second World War, and acceleratingrapidlywiththe shiftof the facultyof artsin 1951-52. At Peradeniya
the Universityhad a site of exhilaratingscenic beautywhichits architects
used with remarkable skill as the settingfor some elegant buildings
designedin the ornate styleof the traditionalarchitectureof the region.
Had Arunachalam and Coomaraswamybeen alive to see the University
in its new settingthey would have approved enthusiasticallyof much
whichJenningsdid. They mighthoweverhave had some misgivingsabout
the opulence of some of the buildingsand they probably would have
been perturbedby the strikingevidence of " anglicism" and the imforthe upper classes. They mightwell
plicationthatit was an institution
have thoughtthatit was too muchof a Cambridgeon the Mahaveli.
This tendencyto regard itselfas a trainingground for persons who
would become membersof the leading strata of Ceylonese societywas
the inevitable,if not the intended,result of an admissionspolicy which
was conservativeif not actually restrictive.On this there was no great
differenceof opinionbetweenthe Universityand the governmentof the
day. In its report for 1949, the council of the Universityargued that
" since educationis at the
expense of the state ... it would be difficult
to justifythe provisionof universityeducation beyond the employment
needs of the country".7 The report of the council for 1954 was even
- it envisagedthe stabilisationof universityadmissionsto
more emphatic
all faculties at around 500 per annum- partly because of restricted
accommodation,and partlybecause it wished to relate the numbersof
Indeed those who
graduatesto the prospectsof graduate employment.8
never
in
the
terms
of
University
thought
planned
large numbers of
students.In 1938 the size they had in mind was a studentbody of 500
in all; thiswas raised to 800 and then to 1,000 in 1940. By the time the
Universitywas establishedat Peradeniya the total number of students
was well over 2,000. As early as 1950-51, Jenningswarned that when
this figurereached 3,500 "steps must be taken in Thurstan Road to
starta second unit".9
Restrictivethough this policy was, it was not withoutbenefitto the
newly established Universitywhich was given a decade of relatively
quiet consolidationto build up a corps of competentteachers,a university tradition,and very high academic standardsin its examinationsas
a resultof which the firstdegreesof the Universityenjoyed an enviable
reputation.At the time Sir Ivor Jenningsleftin 1955, the Universityof
Ceylon had an established reputationand enormous potential for developmentinto one of the major universitiesof the new Commonwealth.
7 Quotedin Jayasuriya,
in University
Education:
The Growth
D. L., " Development
1942-65
Review
of Ceylon,
of theUniversity
, XXIII, 122(1965),
of Ceylon
", University
p. 119.
8 Ibid.
9 Jennings,
W. I., op.cit.,p. 251.
This content downloaded from 195.34.79.111 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 06:04:05 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
The Universitiesand the Governmentin Sri Lanka
255
The firstrumblingsof oppositionto the restrictiveadmissionspolicy
of the Universitywere heard almost simultaneouslywith the transferof
the facultyof arts to Peradeniya.The University,
it was alleged,was far
too exclusive,and it admittedtoo few students.Demands for a reversal
of thispolicy became almost irresistiblewith the change of government
at thegeneralelectionsof 1956.
The Universityconfrontedthis challenge under the leadership of Sir
Nicholas Attygalle who had succeeded Jenningsin 1955. Though he
and dean of the faculty
had been professorof obstetricsand gynaecology
of medicinefor over a decade, Attygale'sskills,so far as the University
was concerned,were political rather than academic. The influencehe
medical practice,which
had in the countryowed much to his flourishing
in combinationwithhis ties of kinshipwith the most influential
political
familyof the day, made him a power in the land. He had helped build
up the facultyof medicineand this now served as the base fromwhich
he won threeconsecutivefive-yeartermsas vice-chancellor.On the third
occasion- December 1964- he was 72 years old. Without his predeto the interestsof the
cessor'sbreadthof vision or principledcommitment
and
at the end of his
a
without
drifted
he
policy
University,
along
the
academic
1966
of
office
in
October
capital he had inherited
period
was well nighexhausted.
In the mid-1950s the Universityof Ceylon faced pressure from the
governmentin regardto two questions: the admissionof largernumbers
of students,especiallyin the arts and the social sciences; and the medium
of instructionin the universities.In effectthese were twinproblems,,or
two facetsof the same problem,for the studentswho were seeking admission in increasing numbers had been educated in Sinhalese and
Tamil and expectedto be taughtin thoselanguagesat the University.The
responseof the Universityto this pressurecould hardlybe describedas
energetic or far-sighted.Because it was a residential university,an
increase in the numbers of studentswas dependent on the expansion
of the capacity of its halls of residence- or an increase in the number
of such halls- and this was necessarily slow and expensive. As for
teaching in the indigenous languages, the vast bulk of the academic
- because they had serious doubts about
staffwere eitherunenthusiastic
what theywere being called upon to undertake- or hostile,and it was
impossibleto get teachers who were both academically qualified and
sufficiently
competentin Sinhalese and Tamil to fill the gap at short
notice.
For the governmentthese problemswere too urgentto await solution
through negotiations with the Universityof Ceylon. Hence it was
- centresof
decided to raise the Vidyodaya and Vidyalankarapirivenas
Buddhist learning- to the status of universities.This decision was an
ad hoc one, and in the nature of a quick, if not desperate,remedyfor
This content downloaded from 195.34.79.111 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 06:04:05 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
256
Kingsleyde Silva
an impossible situation; it was a classic instance of the way not to
establishuniversities.The two new universitiesbegan as non-residential
liberal arts colleges, teachingin Sinhalese. With their establishmentin
1958, the Universityof Ceylon lost its monopoly over universityeducation. If Vidyodaya and Vidyalankara did not, in practice, enjoy the
same autonomyas theirbetterknowncontemporary,
thiswas not because
the ordinance10which raised themto the status of universitiesgave the
governmentany greatercontrolthan it had with regard to the University of Ceylon at Peradeniya. What happened was that officialsin the
- the
Ministry of Education used their influence with the bhikkus
Buddhistmonks who were in nominal charge of these universities,to
gain control over their administrationfor their own ends. One needs
to distinguishthereforebetween the principle of state control per se,
and the particular interestsof officialsof the Ministryof Education
who foundin these new universitiesa rich lode of patronagewhich they
mined with scant regardfor academic standardsor the public interest.
In the meantime,the Universityof Ceylon found that the pressure
from the governmentand the public at large for the accommodation
of substantiallyincreasednumbersof studentsof arts and social sciences,
and for teaching them in Sinhalese or Tamil, was too strongto resist;
it gave way on both in the early 1960s. The change with regard to the
mediumof instruction
had at least themeritsof beingcarefullyconsidered
and carriedout by the University
on the basis of a time-tabledetermined
its
council
and
own
senate.
The
increase in the numberof students
by
on
the
other
came
in
the formof a series of concessions
admitted,
hand,
extractedby the governmenton an ad hoc basis withverylittleconcern
fortheUniversity's
capacityto cope withthe expansion.
first
the
batch
of studentseducated in the vernacularlanguages
With
to
enter
the
facultyof arts in the academic session of 1959-60,
expected
governmentalpressureon the Universityto begin teachingin Sinhalese
and Tamil increased in intensity.The demands were addressed to the
Universitycouncil. A joint session of the council and the senate was
called to discuss the issue. Though its deliberationswere informaland
the senate outlined the formidableobstacles in the way of taking so
momentousa decision- the acute shortageof textbooksfit for use at
universitylevel, the need to develop terminologyfor technicalsubjects,
and the need to recruitacademic staffto teach in these languages at a
time when the staffavailable to teach in English was itselffar from
adequate- politicaland social insistenceprevailedover academic doubts.
The Universityof Ceylon began to teach in Sinhalese and Tamil in the
facultyofartsin theearly1960s.
The Universityof Ceylon began a crucial and unique experimentof
10TheVidyodaya
andVidyalankara
Act,No. 45 of1958:An Actto make
University
andRegulation
Provision
of theVidyodaya
of Ceylon
University
fortheEstablishment
TheGovernment
andtheVidyalankara
(Colombo:
1959)
ofCeylon
University
Press,,
This content downloaded from 195.34.79.111 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 06:04:05 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
The Universitiesand the Governmentin Sri Lanka
257
impartinginstructionin threelanguages: its staffwas requiredto be able
to teach in English and Sinhalese or Tamil. It has been, if nothingelse,
an extremelyexpensive experimentsince a corps of teachers is maintained for two distinctlinguisticstreams where, in the past, one had
sufficed.Because a teacherdid not lecturein both Sinhalese and Tamil,
studentsin each of these linguisticstreamswere deprivedof the benefit
of instructionby teachers competentin their fieldbut teaching in the
otherlinguisticmedium.Worse still,the lack of a commonlanguage has
resultedin a sharp divisionamong studentsdrawn unabashedlyon ethnic
lines since language is the criterionof ethnicityin Sri Lanka. Served by
inadequate, old-fashionedand poorly translatedtextbooks,and without
any reasonable competence in English, most studentsin the arts and
social sciences are patheticallyand totally dependent on notes taken
- and thereare
downat lectures.Those whose academic interestis strong
veryfewsuch studentsin the arts and social sciences acquire a working
knowledge of English through the classes provided by a unit of the
English departmentspecialisingin the teaching of English as a second
language. Technical terms have been coined in rich if somewhatconfusing and pedantic profusion, but there is a lack of textbooks in
Sinhalese and Tamil for which there is no solutionin sightbecause the
market is so small. The situationis somewhatbetter in medicine, engineeringand the sciences. The studentsin these subjects are generally
much more willingto exertthemselvesto acquire competencein English;
in practice,much of the teachingis bilingual- English and Sinhalese or
Tamil- -ifnot entirelyin English,whichis not the oase in teachingin the
arts and social sciences.As a result,the shortageof Sinhalese and Tamil
textbooks,which is just as acute if not more so than in the social
sciences,does not pose serious problemsfor studentsin the facultiesof
science, engineeringand medicine because of their much greater proficiencyin English. There is little doubt that academic standardshave
declined with the introductionof teachingin the vernacularlanguages
in the arts and social sciences. No dispassionatereview has yet been
attemptedof the impact of teaching in the national languages in the
University,and none is likelyin the near futurefor universityteaching
in the national languages has developed a momentumof its own, and
vestedinterestsas well.
- and basically unFrom the late 1950s there was an unprecedented
controlled increase in the size of the studentpopulationin the universities,in ithearts and social sciences. The new admissionspolicy of the
"
"
governmentof the day was that a qualified candidate had a rightto
a university
education.Each of the universities
had an entranceexamination of its own. Under Sir Nicholas Attygalle,the Universityof Ceylon
yieldedto the government'sdemand thatthe numberof admissionsshould
increase.Though the numberof studentsat the Universitywas now well
over 2,500, no attentionwas paid to planning the " second unit" at
This content downloaded from 195.34.79.111 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 06:04:05 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
258
Kingsleyde Silva
Thurstan Road to which Sir Ivor Jenningshad drawn attention in
1950-51; this was a limitedobjective entirelywithinthe abilityof the
University.There were, of course, pious exhortationsin the council's
reportson the need to establishadditional universitiesto cater to the
education.
growingdemand for university
A facultyof medicinewas establishedat Peradeniyain the early 1960s
- the second facultyof medicineof the Universityof Ceylon, as it was
called- followed by a facultyof science and a facultyof engineering.
The originalfacultiesof medicineand science were retainedin Colombo.
All these were carefullyplanned, in sharp contrast to the expansion
of the faculty of arts. In 1961, the admissions of students in arts
subjects to Peradeniya were doubled to 1,600, half at least of whom
- they were called "external students"- with a
were non-residential
rightto attend lecturesand a limited rightto the use of the library.
The positionof these " external" studentswas anomalous in the extreme.
"
"
They deeply resentedtheir second-class status and formeda core of
discontentedand disgruntledstudentswithin the student body. Their
"
"
admissionto the Universitymarkedthe firstbreach ¡inthe residential
systemat Peradeniya. In 1963 came the next phase in the expansion of
the facultiesof the arts, with the establishment,at last, of a second
unit at ThurstanRoad. Confinedoriginallyto the larger departmentsof
arts and social science subjects,and teachingonly in Sinhalese and for
the general degree, it was indeed a "makeshift arrangementdesigned
to cope with the sudden increase in the number of studentsqualifying
foradmissionto the Arts Faculty". Between 1963 and 1965 the number
of studentsof the Universityof Ceylon doubled and the proportionof
artsstudentsthereincreasedfrom43 per cent,in 1959 to 68 per cent, in
1965.11Indeed, the rapid growthof the Universityof Ceylon in the
1960s lay in the facultyof the arts; therewas a nearlyfourfoldincrease
from1960- the year of the firstadmissionof studentswho were to be
taughtin Sinhalese and Tamil- to 1965.12Along withthisthe numberof
studentsat the Vidyodayaand Vidyalankaracampusesincreasedsteadily.
At this stage therewere no female studentsat these two universities.
The admissions policy pursued since the mid-1950swas reduced to
absurdityin 1965 when the Ministryof Education demanded that the
Universityof Ceylon increase to 8,000 the numberof studentsadmitted
to the facultyof artsat Peradeniyaand Colombo forthe academic session
of 1965-66. The numberadmittedin the previousyear had been 1,800.
Far fromprotestingagainst this stupefyingdemand, Sir Nicholas Attygalle, as vice-chancellor,came up, on his own initiative,witha proposal
11Jayasuriya,
D. L., op. cit.,pp. 111-112.
12Whenthestudent
and Vidyalankara
are included,
the malbodiesof Vidyadya
in thethreeuniversities
wasevenmoire
faculties
thevarious
between
distribution
marked;
ofarts.See,National
Council
ofHigher
werein thefaculties
77-5percent,ofall students
Education
the
Year
Council
National
, 1966-67
of Higher
for
Reportof the
Education,
Council
ofHigher
National
p. 86.
Education,
1967),
(Colombo:
This content downloaded from 195.34.79.111 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 06:04:05 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
The Universitiesand the Governmentin Sri Lanka
259
to establish three campuses of the Universityof Ceylon at Galle,
- 150, 30 and 200 miles fromPeradeniyarespecKurunegala and Jaffna
tively each to admit studentsfor study only in the facultyof arts and
to do this withinthreemonths.It was a hastilycomposed scheme drawn
up withoutany serious considerationof its financialimplications,its
impact on the harmoniousfunctioningof the Peradeniyacampus, or on
the futureof the University.When it was discoveredthata serious- and
verysuspicious- errorhad creptinto the computationof marksrequired
to gain admission to the University,the cabinet overruled both the
Ministryof Education and the council of the Universityof Ceylon and
insistedon the maintenanceof the entrance requirementsof previous
years.The plan for the threecampuses were jettisonedunceremoniously.
But so much publicityhad been given to this figureof 8,000 that there
was no possibilityof continuingwith the entrancerequirementsof previous years. Instead the number of admissionsof studentsto the Universityof Ceylon was fixed at nearly 4,000, more than double that of
previous years, and the racecourse at Colombo- in convenientlyclose
proximityto the universitybuildingsat ThurstanRoad - was taken over
to accommodate this phenomenalincrease in numbers.The acquisition
of the racecoursewas yet anotherimprovisation.
The admissionsto the arts and social sciencesfor the academic session
of 1965-66 amounted in all to 3,930, an increase of 2,105 studentsover
the correspondingfigurefor the previousyear. Of these studentsno less
than 2,904 were admittedto the Thurstan Road unit; in the previous
yearthe numberadmittedtherehad been 743.
Throughoutthe years 1956 to 1965 but more specificallyafter 1960,
the universitieslost control over the vitallyimportantsphere of the admission of students.Since there was no equivalent of the University
Grants Committeeof the United Kingdom to take a long-termview,
the controversialquestionof admissionof studentsto the universitiesand
in particularto the Universityof Ceylon was discussedonly at a brief
meetingconducted annually withoutreferenceto any long-termplans.
Indeed, neitherthe governmentnor the Universityof Ceylon had any!
The Universityof Ceylon had made no alternativeproposals, and was
usually persuaded to accept the government'sviews on the subject of
admissionwithoutany compensatingbenefitsto the Universityin the
formof an enhancementof its grant commensuratewith its vastlyexpanded admissionof students.Indeed, the sums made available foreach
studentdeclined steadily. In 1960 the governmentgrant was Rs. 9-56
millionfor 3,181 students,with an average of Rs. 3,007 per student.In
1961 it was Rs. 9-12 millionfor 3,684 students,an average of Rs. 2,476
per student.In 1962 the totalgrantwas Rs. 9-5 millionfor4,655 students,
an average of Rs. 1,986per student.In 1963 the grantwas Rs. 9-9 milion
for 5,117 students,an average per student of Rs. 1,935. In 1964 the
grantwas Rs. 12-2 millionfor 5,706 students,an average per studentof
This content downloaded from 195.34.79.111 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 06:04:05 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
260
Kingsleyde Silva
Rs. 2,133. In 1965 the grantwas Rs. 12-9milion far 7,182 students,the
average being Rs. 1,791 per student;and in 1966 the grantwas Rs. 15
million for 10,723 students,with an average of only Rs. 1,391 per
student.In 1966 the average grantper studentat Vidyodayaand Vidyalankarawas Rs. 1,133and Rs. 748 per studentrespectively.13
With the universitiesin this submissivemood, it is remarkablethat
theirautonomous status was not threatenedmore oftenor with greater
persistence,and that the government'sdemands on the universitieswere
limitedto the two issues we have discussed above. The explanationfor
this seems to lie in the events of 1960-61 in the field of primaryand
secondaryeducation,when the great bulk of the denominationalschools
were broughtunder state control.Primaryand secondaryeducation was
now theresponsibility,
in the main,of the state.(A small groupof private
schools survived,but theywere active mainlyin tryingto protectthemselves fromextinction.)The administrativeresourcesof the Ministryof
Education were stretchedfor a year or two to cope with the sudden
expansion of its responsibilities.As a result its officialshad less time
than theymightotherwisehave had to begin a systematicencroachment
on the autonomyof the universities.There was no single administrative
unit or divisionwithinthe Ministrywith special responsibilityfor formulatingplans of highereducation or indeed for maintainingany formal
linkswiththe universities.14
By 1964 plans were afoot for greater control over the universities
by the Ministry.The target in fact was the Universityof Ceylon.15
Officialsof the Ministryalways had informalbut effectivecontrolover
Vidyodayaand Vidyalankara. These plans were put into effectin mid1966 with a new governmentin power and under a controversialand
different
MinisterofEducation,I. M. R. A. Iriyagolla.
The Beginningsof State Control
The HigherEducation Act No. 20 of 1966 markedthe startof a more
organisedsystemof state interferencewith universityeducation in Sri
Lanka. This ordinancewas introducedas a remedyfor some deep flaws
in tertiaryeducationin the island.Among the deficienciesspecifiedby the
administrative
Ministryof Educationwere: studentindiscipline,inefficient
arrangementswithinthe universities,and in general a lack of co-ordina13Ibid.,p. 56.
14Theonlyformal
linkwasthatthedirector
of education
wasan ex officio
member
oftheuniversity
council.
15Fewuniversities
in theworld
hadbeenreported
on bycommissions
of inquiry
more
TheMinistry
of Ceylon,
hadbefore
themtwosuch
thantheUniversity
often
Peradeniya.
the
Commission:
Sessional
The
XXIII
CeylonUniversity
reports: Reportof
Paper
of
Com1959(Colombo:The Government
Press,1959),andtheReportof theUniversity
1963
The
XVI
Government
mission
(Colombo:
of
, 1962:Sessional
Paper
Press,1962-63).
indictment
oftheadministration
of SirNicholas
This
wasa damning
Thelatter
Attygalle.
in 1966bya Report
on
the
the
Commission
wasfollowed
ofInquiry
of
Peradeniya
University
111
1966
The
Strike:Sessional
Students'
Government
(Colombo:
Paper of
Press,1966).
This content downloaded from 195.34.79.111 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 06:04:05 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
The Universitiesand the Governmentin Sri Lanka
261
tion of the teachingprogrammesof the various universities.Some of
theseproblems,especially.theendemicstudentindisciplinéand the regular
eruptions of violence, were the inevitable consequence of increasing
to the adequacy of staff,buildingsand
studentnumberswithindifference
for this state of
librariesin the universities.The primaryresponsibility
affairslay with the Ministryof Education. Charges of maladministration
and waste of public funds were levelled in the main against the new
universities,but interference
by officialsof the Ministryin appointments
and in the day-to-dayconduct of these universitieshad contributedin no
small measure to the faults to which the officialsof the Ministrydrew
attentionin the course of theircampaign.Protestsagainstthis ordinance
came thick and fast. Opposition to the bill withinthe rulingparty in
parliamentsucceeded in postponingits introductionfor a few months;
this gave the universitiestime to prepare their counter-attackand to
make representationsfor the eliminationof what they regardedas the
more obnoxious features of the bill. They were given a second such
opportunitywhen the Prime Minister decided to place the ordinance
before a select committeeof the House of Representatives.Though
some of the more controversialfeatures of the bill were deleted, the
general principlesembodied in it were not substantiallyaltered. The
Ministerof Education and his officialswon the day for many reasons.
Universityopinion was divided,and especiallycrucial in this regardwas
the splittingof the academic staffinto factions in the Universityof
Ceylon; these factionswere formedabout the personalityof Sir Nicholas
Attygalle.Some sectionswithinthe academic staffregardedthe prospect
of increasedinterference
by officialsof the Ministryin the Universityas
a small price to pay if it could at the same time bringto an end the
autocraticcareer of the ageingSir Nicholas Attygalle.The academic staff
of the two new universitieswere in no positionto act effectively
and the
drift of public opinion in the country was in favour of greater
controlover the universities.
governmental
The key featureof the new structurewas a National Council of Higher
Education of nine members,whichhad a range of functionswell beyond
those normallyperformedby a universitygrants committeefollowing
the patternobtainingin the United Kingdom.16This deviationfromthat
patternwas a deliberateact of policy. Accordinglythe firstdraftof the
ordinance,the chairmanand all its memberswere to be appointedby the
Ministryof Education. An officialof the Ministryof Education was an
but the latterunlike the
ex-officiomemberas were the vice-chancellors,
ministerialrepresentativehad no vote. The Minister of Education was
entitledunder the act to issue " directions" to the National Council of
HigherEducation whichwas under an obligationto carrythemout.
Academic opinionwas criticalof these proposals. The academics were
16Forthepowers
oftheNational
Council
ofHigher
seeAppendix
Education,
A, p. 27Í.
This content downloaded from 195.34.79.111 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 06:04:05 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
262
Kingsleyde Silva
criticalof the provisionwherebythe National Council was to have the
powerto presenta listof candidatesfor appointmentto a vice-chancellorship withthe power of appointmentto restwiththe Minister.They were
also critical of the proposed power of the Minister to appoint all the
membersof the boards of regents.Nor did theylike the
non-university
proposalthattheNational Council shouldhave the power- forone yearto reviewall appointmentsmade to the staffof universitiesand to dismiss
those appointeeswhom they foundnot to be academically qualifiedfor
the posts to which theywere appointed. The provisionthat all appointmentsmade outsidethe frameworkof accepted termsof referenceshould
in the futurehave the approval of the National Council was also distastefulto them. They did not like any of these provisionsbut they
were willingto accept the lattertwo provisionswhich gave the National
Council powers " introducedto suit the local academic environment
".
They did not like the firsttwo provisionseither,but theypreferredthat
the powerstheyassigned should be in the hands of the National Council
rather than in the hands of the Minister. Nonetheless, rather than
concentratetheir fire on these, they directed their attack against the
Minister'spowersin dealingwiththe proposedNational Council of Higher
"
Education,his rightto appointits membersand the range of the direc"
tions he was entitledto issue. In the finalversionof the act, it was the
Governor-General
and not the Ministerwho was to appointthe members
of the National Council of Higher Education, a change in formrather
than substance since the Governor-Generalwould act on the advice of
the Ministeron thesematters.There was greatersatisfactionin academic
circles in regard to the change in the Minister's power of issuing
"general" or "special writtendirections". The strongestobjection was
to the " special " directions.The Ministryshrewdlydropped the word
"
"
" written"
along with special and the second versionof the draftread
"
"
"
general directions but in the finalversion the word written was
"
restoredafter general".
The original version of the act gave the Minister a wide range of
powers in academic matterswithinuniversities.His prior approval was
required for the establishmentof new posts and new faculties, for
ordinances drafted by the universitiesfor the creation of academic
departmentswithina faculty,and for the affiliationof a universitywith
other institutions.The age of retirementof teachers was fixed at 62,
but in the case of professorstheirservicescould be extendedto 65 with
the approval of the Minister.The Ministerwas also the final point of
appeal in regard to compulsoryretirementand dismissal of university
staff.In the second,and in the finalversionof theact, the Ministereither
yieldedall these powers completely,or, as in the case of the establishment of the facultiesand departments,shared them with the National
Council of Higher Education. The Minister's power to extend the
services of professorsbeyond the age of retirementwas deleted, and
This content downloaded from 195.34.79.111 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 06:04:05 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
The Universitiesand the Governmentin Sri Lanka
263
the National Council of Higher Education, not the Minister,became the
and dismissals.
finalauthorityin regardto compulsoryretirement
Universityopinion regarded the right to elect the vice-chancelloras
an integralelementin universityautonomy.Up to 1966, he was elected
by a universitycourt in which the overwhelmingmajorityof members
were universityteachers. The Higher Education Act No. 20 of 1966
changedall that; the vice-chancellorwas to be appointedby the Minister
whose choice was limitedto one of fivenames submittedto him by the
National Council of Higher Education. Much of the oppositionto this
- not merely the
act stemmed from this change but the government
Ministryof Education was inflexibleon this. They argued- and on this
public opinion was with them- that the election to vice-chancellorship
had been the crucial factorin the factionalismwhichwas rampantwithin
the universities.
The only change made in the finalversionwas to confine
the Minister'schoice to one of three nomineesof the National Council
of Higher Education. Besides, the Ministerwas given a free hand with
regard to the firstvice-chancellorto be appointed after the act came
into effect.In the case of the Universityof Ceylon, the Ministerchose
a senior civil servant, much to the dismay of the universityteachers
who believed he had deliberatelyslightedthem in his disregardof the
claims of seniorprofessors.
- they were called secretariesunder
The registrarsof the universities
the new act- were also appointedby the Ministerand forthese positions
he chose officialsfromthe Ministryof Education. These officialswere
generally treated with considerable suspicion within .the universities.
None of them leftmuch of a mark on the administrationof the universitiesand it is doubtfulwhetherthey ever achieved any success in their
intendedrole as watch-dogson behalf of the Ministryof Education.
- boards of
The members of the governing council of universities
called
as
were
were
the
National
Council
regents they
appointed by
of Higher Education. Their nominees formed a clear majorityin the
- the deans elected by the
board and the academic representatives
- were very much like the vice-chancellorwithinthe National
faculties
Council of HigherEducation,witha rightto a voice withinthe National
Council but not a vote. This inferiorstatus of the deans was a ground
foroppositionto the act, but on thistoo, no concessionwas forthcoming.
In retrospect,
however,the National Council of Higher Education and
the boards of regentsappointedby them protectedwhat remainedof the
autonomy of the universitiesfrom encroachmentby the Ministryof
Education far more effectively
and with much greater dedication and
convictionthan theirsuccessors of the 1970s. It was feared that ministerial directivesto the National Council of Higher Education would flow
in rapid successionand that,withthe permanentsecretaryto the Ministry
of Education in an influentialrole withinthe National Council of Higher
Education, that body would be easily subordinatedto the Ministryof
This content downloaded from 195.34.79.111 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 06:04:05 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
264
Kingsleyde Silva
Education. In practicethisdid not happen.,The membersof the National
Council of HigherEducation assertedtheirindependenceand wereseldom
intimidatedby the Ministeror his officials.In fact the National Council
of Higher Education proved to be a more efficientbuffer against
ministerialinterferencein universityaffairs-thanthe advocates of the
new machineryof control anticipated.The boards of regents,for their
part, were more independentof the National Council of Higher Education than the criticsof the new arrangementshad expected. Most of
these " regents" were men of considerable achievementin their own
spheres of activityand they dischargedtheir duties with a keen regard
forthe interestsof the universities.17
Among the achievementsof the National Council of HigherEducation
in its period of officefrom 1966 to 1970 were the preparation,for the
firsttime, of long-termplans for tertiaryeducation,and the establishment of some uniformityof standards and procedures in regard to
appointmentsto universityposts, and in the terms and conditions of
serviceof universitystaff.All of this was done after close consultation
with universityteachers. It also establisheda centraladmissionsbureau
to co-ordinateadmissions to the universities18;it founded a College
of Advanced Technologyon the outskirtsof Colombo and a new universitybased on the Colombo unitsof the Universityof Ceylon.The appointmentof the firstlay vice-chancellorsof Vidyodayaand Vidyalankarawas
also one of theiraccomplishments.
With the passage of time the National Council of Higher Education
became in fact a universitygrantscommitteeon the Britishmodel, but
this did not soften the opposition of the vast majority of university
teachersto it, or to the HigherEducation Act No. 20 of 1966. What they
wanted was a returnto the status quo before 1966. In addition, the
17Theappointed
members
oftheNational
Council
in 1966-67
ofHigher
Education
were
Professor
as follows:
G. P. Malalasekera,
one-time
deanof theOriental
diplomat
faculty,
andBuddhist
Dr. E. W. Adikaram,
educationist
withan unusual
backscholar,
chairman;
ofacademic
in Oriental
interests
andmodern
W. A. de Silva,
ground
languages
sciences;
in hisearlier
of thedistinguished
CivilService,
andlaterMember
yearsmember
Ceylon
of Parliament
andbusinessman;
Dr. M. C. M. Kaleel,medical
andonetime
practitioner
an eminent
cabinet
T. P. de S. Munasinghe,
Dr. H. A. Passe,emeritus
minister;
engineer;
ofEnglish
at Peradeniya;
W. A. Perera,
andonetime
professor
philanthropist
educationist,
Member
of Parliament;
N. Sinnetamby,
former
a
puisnejudge;andW. Thalagodapitiya,
commissioner
in October
former
ofassizes.
1966.In 1967theywere
Theywereappointed
W.A. deSilva.
chief
whoreplaced
former
justice,
joined
byM. C. Sansoni,
had somesupport
withinthe NationalCouncilof Higher
Thoughthe Minister
byandlargehe couldnotanddidnothavehiswayexceptby persuasion.
Education,
theregents
weremuchthesamesortofmen.Among
ofregents
Members
oftheboards
forexample,
weremenof thecalibre
of Ceylon,
of L. A.
at theUniversity
Peradeniya,
one timeheadof the
Dr. W. G. Wickremasinghe,
former
auditor-general;
Weerasinghe,
andlaterMember
onetimedistrict
of
C. X. Martyne,
medical
judge,businessman
service;
andlaterhighcommissioner
oftheCeylon
CivilService
a member
N. J.L. Jansz,
Parliament;
bothpermanent
secretaries
at the
andG. V. P. Samarasinghe,
in Australia;
M. Rajendra
a distinguished
administrator
ontheboard;andDr.G. Ponnamperuma,
service
timeoftheir
research.
ofscientific
18 Eachuniversity
or requirements
had eachitsownentrance
examination
up to the
a uniform
was introduced.
of thisbureau.Thereafter
establishment
system
This content downloaded from 195.34.79.111 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 06:04:05 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
The Universitiesand the Governmentin Sri Lanka
265
personalityof the then Minister of Education, I. M. R. A. Iriyagolla,
contributedgreatlyto sustainingthe oppositionof the academics to the
act and everythingand everybodyassociated with it. He invariably
respondedtactlesslyto harmlesscriticismsof his policies.
"
Universityopinion believed that [the Higher Education Act No. 20
of 1966] transformeduniversities. . . into ignoble colonies of the
Ministryof Education, and some universityadministratorsinto conspicuous satraps of the imperial presence in Malay Street [the headquartersof the Ministry]. . . [and] virtuallyconverteduniversitiesinto
governmentdepartments.. . ." 19
It was in thismood that universityteachersthrewtheirweightbehind
the oppositionalUnited Front in the electoral campaign of 1970. The
election manifestoof the United Front promised to repeal the higher
education Act; to establish a universitygrants committee;to assure
" full academic freedom and
to restore universityautonomy. The
";
in
this
manifesto
were
embodied in the new government's
promises
firstspeech fromthe thronefollowingits overwhelmingvictoryin May
1970. The academic communitylooked to the futurein pleasant anticiof these promises,and there were great hopes
pation of the fulfilment
of a more harmonious relationshipbetween the governmentand the
universities,especially because a universityteacher was appointed
permanentsecretaryto the Ministryof Education. What was expected
was a reversalof some of the trendsestablishedin the years 1966-70.
What in fact happened between 1970 and 1977 was the consolidation
of governmental
controlof the universities.
The State Calls the Tune: 1970 to 1977
Between its decisive victoryat the general electionsof May 1970 and
the outbreak of the insurrectionof April 1971, the governmentformed
by the United Front made an honestattemptto re-definethe relationship
betweenthe Ministryof Education and the universitiesin keeping with
their pledges on higher education in their electoral manifesto.In the
firstweek of April 1971 a new ordinance on the universitieswas tabled
beforethe House of Representatives.It made provisionfor a university
grants committeeand for the restorationof some of the featuresof
universitygovernmentabolished in the Higher Education Act No. 20 of
1966-,it restoredthe election of the vice-chancellorand the full voting
of studentsin univerrightsof deans. It also stipulatedthe representation
at
and
similar
forthe auxiliary
sitygovernment everylevel,
representation
staffof theuniversities.
This ordinancewas quicklyabandonedin theaftermathof the insurgency
whichbroke out on the day afterit was tabled in
The
parliament.
prospectof a more harmoniousrelationshipbetweenthe
universitiesand the governmentvanishedalmost as soon as it appeared.
is University
ofCeylon
Teachers'
Association
statement
on" University
(Peradeniya),
press
in August
1972as a pamphlet.
Reorganisation
published
This content downloaded from 195.34.79.111 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 06:04:05 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
266
Kingsleyde Silva
The government'sattitudeto the universities
changedalmost overnight
to one of distrustand hostility,on the discoverythat the insurgentshad
convertedthe halls of residencein the universities,but especiallythose
at Peradeniya,into stores for the collectionand manufactureof bombs.
administrationhad watched
The governmentcharged that the university
helplesslywhile the campuses had become a threatto the securityof the
state. The indignationof -thegovernmentwas unjustifiablesince it was
its own policies which had made it impossiblefor the university
administrationto restrainthe studentradicals on the campuses engaged in the
productionand storingof bombs. After the electoral victoryof 1970, a
senior memberof the cabinet had visitedthe campus and promisedthat
the police would never again be allowed to enter the campus. At
Peradeniya, for instance, a combination of radical teachers, radical
studentsand radical members of the auxiliary staffvirtuallyran the
campus. Intelligencereportson thesituationat Peradeniyawere available
to the governmentbut theywere disregarded.The universitieswere made
into scapegoats for the government'sown tolerance,if not encouragement,of agitationand conspiracy,in which the key figureswere radical
studentsand trade unionistsboth of whom were closely linked with the
constituentpartiesof the United Front coalition.
The full array of the government'slegislativepowers was turnedon
the universities.On 8 May, 1971, " in termsof Regulationsframedunder
the Public SecurityOrdinancethe powers and functionsof the National
Council' of Higher Education were vested in the Honourable Minister
of Education who in turn delegated such powers and functionsto the
"
"
permanentsecretary".20Using the same powersas well as emergency
clause of the Higher Education Act, the ministerreconstitutedthe
boards of regentsof the Universitiesof Ceylon: Colombo, Vidyodayaand
Vidyalankara,from20 June, 1971. The board of regentsat Peradeniya
had ceased to functionfrom3 February, 1971, with the resignationof
the vice-chancellor,ProfessorE. O. E. Pereira. The man who replaced
"
him, a professorof the medical faculty,took officeas compietent
authority" not vice-chancellor;he enjoyed emergencypowers with the
He was in charge of the Universityat
full backing of the government.21
the timeof the outbreakof the insurgency.
in April 1971, the governImmediatelyafterthe outbreakof insurgency
control
on
a
of
over
the universities.It hit
ment resolved
policy tighter
this
about
of
the
device of a single
bringing
through
upon the idea
all
the existinguniversitiesforming
universityfor the whole island with
constituentunits of such a structure,and with a central controlling
20National
Councilof Higher
Reportof theNationalCouncilof Higher
Education,
Council
National
ofHigher
Education
(Colombo:
Education,
1971),
fortheYear,1970-71
p. 89.
Ibid.
This content downloaded from 195.34.79.111 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 06:04:05 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
The Universitiesand the Governmentin Sri Lanka
267
authoritysituatedin Colombo, A committeeof academics favourableto
this governmentalpolicy was appointed in May 1971 to reporton the
re-organisationof highereducation. They were asked to completetheir
work in seven weeks. This they did, and their report,more or less in
keeping with the declared policy of the Minister of Education, recommended the creation of a single universityconsisting of several
campuses, and the re-organisationand rationalisation of university
courses. The report argued that this would result in administrative
economies,the best utilisationof scarce financialresourcesand scarce
academic staffand the preventionof unnecessaryduplicationof courses
of study.This reportwas eagerlyaccepted by the governmentand most
of its recommendationswere incorporatedin the Universityof Ceylon
Act No. 1 of 1972 which became law on 15 February,1972.
The new act reduced the universitiesof Sri Lanka to the status of
administrative
units- campuses as theywere called- of a singleuniversity
withits headquarters,called Senate House, in Colombo. It was envisaged
that this re-organisationwould take at least two years duringwhich the
Ministryof Education, acting through an appointed vice-chancellor,
would have complete authorityin the direction of universityaffairs.
22
During the transitionalperiod section 85 of the Ordinance gave carte
blanche to a group of officialswho includeda vice-chancellor,presidents
- all appointed by
of the various campuses, a registrarand a treasurer
the minister and the deans of facultiesof each campus, all of whom
were appointed by the vice-chancellor.The governingauthorityof the
- the board of governors
- and the various academic bodies
University
such as the senate, the campus boards, the facultycouncils and the
facultyacademic committees,forwhichprovisionhad been made, would
functionin purelyadvisorycapacities to the vice-chancellor,the campus
presidentor the dean of the facultyrespectively.The storm of protest
which eruptedagainst the new act fromall the prospectivecampuses of
the new monolithicUniversityof Ceylon could not extract a single
concessionof any significancefromthe government.
The oppositionto the act was strongestand most consistentand lasted
longest at Peradeniya where cooperation in the working of the new
systemwas withheldin most of the faculties. At other campuses the
the oppositionwas less prolongedand therewas some measure of consent
with regard to settingup the various academic bodies envisagedin the
act.
The Ministerwas given the power to extend the period of transition
at his own discretionand all that was required was a notification
published in the GovernmentGazette. The period of transitionwas
extendedone year at a time from15 February,1974, when the firsttwo22SeeAppendix
B,p. 272.
This content downloaded from 195.34.79.111 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 06:04:05 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
268
Kingsleyde Silva
year period expired,to October 1978, giving evidence therebyof the
durabilityof ostensiblytemporarydevices.
Whetherthe extensionswere the inevitable result of the reluctance
of the Ministryof Education to relax its grip on the University,or
whetherSenate House had a vested interestin maintainingthis centralisedsystemof controlsis at present uncertain.But there is surely
one reason for these extensions:the act in the formin whichit emerged
could not possiblyhave worked with any reasonable degree of smoothness. The administrativemachineryenvisagedwas inordinatelycomplex
and the potentialfor conflictin the spheresof authorityof its multitude
of academic bodies was enormous.The outcome was that the University
of Ceylon Act No. 1 1972 was never carried out in full, and from 15
February,1972, its componentcampuses were governedunder its transitional provisions.
The rationale behind the monolithicuniversitystructurehas been
that it would ensure administrative
economiesand also preventneedless
of
of
courses
studybeing offeredand the resultingwastage
duplication
and dispersalof resources.In fact these objectiveswere never realised.
and rationalisation
On the contrary,the re-organisation
begun in 1972-73
resultedin a chaotic distributionof facilitiesas each campus moved
successfullyto retain what it had. The one campus which failed in this
enterprisewas Peradeniya.In 1971 whichwas thelast yearof its existence,
the National Council of Higher Education had a staffof 39 persons
of all categories.The Senate House whichreplacedit had by 1975 a staff
of 150 personsand thisincreasedto 161 by 1977. Nor was this enormous
increase in personnelat Senate House accompanied by a corresponding
reductionin administrative
positionsin the campuses. These increasedas
well. The results were bureaucratic lethargy,administrativedisorder,
extremecentralisationof decision, and vastlyincreased expenditureon
administration.
The academic communityat Sri Lanka had long believedthatthe most
of centralisedgovernmentalcontrol over universities
useful instruments
had of necessityto be officiaisof the Ministryof Education or any other
civil servants.The experience of the years from 1971 to 1977 showed
that pliantacademics appointedto positionsof authorityon the basis of
politicalcommitmentratherthan academic achievementwere even more
usefulas instrumentsof governmentalcontrolover the universities.
In one area, real economy has been effected,namely in the tight
controlover admissionsto the campuses. In this and in this alone has
there been any continuityin policy between the National Council of
HigherEducation and Senate House. Both have been far more restrictive
in increasingthe number
thanthe regimesbefore1966,and more effective
of studentsin the sciences courses and in holdingin check the numbers
of studentsin the coursesof arts and social sciences (Table I).
This content downloaded from 195.34.79.111 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 06:04:05 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
The Universitiesand the Governmentin Sri Lanka
269
Table I
UniversityAdmissionsin Sri Lanka 1966-75
Arts
Science (including
Total
medicine and engineering)
1966-67
1967-68
1968-69
1969-70
1970-71
1971-72
1973
1974
1975
790
2,858
3,648
872
2,888
3,760
809
2,762
3,571
792
2,285
3,077
955
2,502
3,457
3,338
2,239
1,099
2,243
1,177
3,420
2,236
1,296
3,532
2,394
1,395
3,789
"
Source: de Silva,C. R., Weightage
in University
Admissions
and District
Quotas
in SriLanka,1970-77 Modern
Studies
Ceylon
V, 2 (July1974),pp. 168-171.
The one constructiveachievementof the governmentin the fieldof
education,the openingof a campusin the northernpart of the
university
the constraintsunder which it has worked. The
illustrates
country,
was
established
for political as much as for " academic"
campus
- a desireto show a concern for the welfare
reasons. Perhaps the former
- was the prime factor. The financialresources
for the Tamil minority
for the establishmentof the new universitywere obtained by the simple
device of using for this new venture funds allocated to the Colombo
campus.
With the completionof the transitoryprovisionsof the Universityof
influenceintrudedintoeveryaspect
CeylonAct No. 1 of 1972 governmental
of universityadministration,
withthe possible exceptionof appointments
to academic posts. With regard to the latter,the position varied from
campus to campus. There was no systematicattemptto interferein the
contentof courses or in teachingand research.Even so academic morale
was so low and the atmosphereso menacing that academic freedom
barely survived.Universityautonomywas dismissedas an abstract,alien
and irrelevantprinciple.23The government'sattitudeto the question of
autonomousacademic bodies was expressedin the clearesttermsin 1974
when the Law College- Sri Lanka's equivalent of one of the Inns of
Court- was broughtunder the control of the Ministryof Justice.The
it was asserted,was incompatiblewith the
autonomyof this institution,
sovereigntyof parliament.There was not a whimperof protestfromthe
23Seethespeeches
ofF. R. DiasBandaranaike,
Minister
ofJustice,
Public
Administration
andLocalGovernment,
andDr. ColvinR. de Silva,Minister
of Plantation
and
Industry
in thedebateon TheCouncil
Constitutional
ofLegalEducation
Affairs,
Law
(.Amendment
No. 6 of1974):Hansard
(SriLanka),X, IV (5 March,1974).
This content downloaded from 195.34.79.111 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 06:04:05 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
270
Kingsleyde Silva
usually voluble academic communitywhen the Law College lost its
autonomy.
Towards the end of its administrationthe governmentmade one additional effortto consolidate its hold furtheron the universities.On 30
September,1975, amendmentsto the Universityof Ceylon Act No. 1 of
1972 were published in the GovernmentGazette. Ostensiblythey were
designedto bring the period of transitionto an end but the price the
campuses were being asked to pay for this privilege was enormously
high. Through these amendmentsthe Ministersoughtpower to appoint
the vice-chancellorof the University,the presidentsof campuses, and
at his sole discretion,and to appoint
theregistrarand additionalregistrars
the deans of facultieson the recommendation
of thevice-chancellor.More
ominouswere the provisionsof Clauses 4 (5) (a) and (b) of the amending
bill. These gave him .the rightto remove any or all of his appointees
"
" when he considersit
necessaryto do so and to preventsuch removal
"
frombeing called in question in any court of law whetherby way of
writor otherwise
It was in November 1976 that these amendmentscame up for debate
in the National State Assembly.Universityteachers and studentsin all
campuses went on striketo protestagainst the proposals.More effective
was the strong oppositionto the amending legislationin the National
evidence of hostilityto the
State Assembly.Confrontedby overwhelming
in these amendments,
embodied
state
control
over
universities
of
policy
the governmentwithdrewthem with the promise to introducea fresh
set after consultationwith universityopinion. This was a face-saving
tactical retreatby a regimewhich was losing its controlof the National
State Assemblyand over the country.
The most significantfeature of the debate was the speech of Mr.
R. G. J. de Mel, M.P.,24the chief spokesmanof the oppositionUnited
National Party on that occasion. Afterdescribingthe amendingbill as a
" Draconian
piece of legislation. . . hatched in secrecy and incubated
in darknesswithoutany referenceto, or withoutconsultationwith the
persons most concerned in universityeducation", he proceeded to
explain that his party was committedto the abandonmentof the oneuniversitysystem and its replacement by a number of independent
universities;and to the appointmentof a universitygrants committee
vested with the powers and functionstraditionallyassociated with such
a body.25For the partywhich 10 years earlierhad introducedthe Higher
Education Act No. 20 of 1966 this was a remarkablechange of policy.
This was incorporatedinto the manifestoon which the United National
Party fought the general elections of July 1977, and after its over24Mr.de Melhadbeena member
itsinception
from
tillhis
oftheboardofgovernors
1975.
in September
fromthegovernment
resignation
25See TheParliamentarian,
fora summary
of the
1977),pp. 206-207,
LVIII, 3 (July,
debate.
This content downloaded from 195.34.79.111 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 06:04:05 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
The Universitiesand the Governmentin Sri Lanka
271
whelming victory on that occasion, they were incorporated in the
statementof government
policyplaced beforethe NationalState Assembly
on 4 August, 1977. To demonstrateits commitmentto these principles
of the universitygrants
the governmentappointeda chairman-designate
of
him
with responsibility
entrusted
committeein November 1977 and
the
of
law which would convertthe campuses
draftinga new university
Universityof Sri Lanka into autonomous universities.
The Prospect
The prospectis more encouragingthan it has been for over a decade
fora positiveand constructiverelationshipbetweenthe governmentand
the universitiesbased on a recognitionof commoninterestsand responsibilities. A chastened academic communitygrown increasinglymore
cynical of governmentpronouncementsshould take a dispassionatelook
at the autonomyit is being offered;it will suspect that the government
will delivermuch less than it promises.At the same timea realismborn
of the unpleasant experiencesof the 1970s imposes restraintson their
there
conceptionof what autonomyshould mean. As forthe government,
seems to be some realisation that the ill-definedsubordinationof the
universitiesto the Ministryof Education since 1966 has had a deleterious
effecton them. As a liberal regimewitha pluralistoutlook, the present
governmenthas no ideological antipathy to autonomous institutions.
Nevertheless,because of all that has happened in the universitiesin
recentyears,thereis a tendencyto regardthe restorationof autonomous
statusto universitiesas an act of faithat best and, at worst,as a leap
in the dark.
APPENDIX A 1
THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF HIGHER EDUCATION
The Objects,Powersand Functionsof theCouncil
3. The objectsof the National Councilas laid down in Section8 of the
HigherEducationAct are(1) To advisetheMinisteronon highereducation.
and controlof expenditure
(a) The apportionment
(b) The maintenanceof academic standardsin higher education
institutes.
of suchInstitutes.
(c) The administration
of highereducationwiththe needsof thenation
(d) The co-ordination
and
forsocial,culturaland economicdevelopment,
(e) Any othersuch mattersas the Ministermay referto thatcouncil
foritsadvice.
and dutiesas are specifiedin thisAct.
suchotherfunctions
(2) To perform
1 TheNational
ofHigher
Council
Council
of theNational
Education,
Report
ofHigher
TheGovernment
Education
p. 51.
, 1966-67
Press,1967),
, (Colombo:
This content downloaded from 195.34.79.111 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 06:04:05 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
272
Kingsleyde Silva
of theNationalCouncil
4. Amongthemoreimportant
powersand functions
arethefollowing:
(1) To prepare,fromtime to time,in consultationwiththe Board of
Regentsof each university,
quadrennialbudgetsfortheirmaintenance
and development.
to the Ministeras to the amountof
(2) To make recommendations
out of publicfunds.
grantswhichshouldbe made to each university
fromtime to time,the total numberof studentsto
(3) To determine,
be admittedto each highereducationalinstituteand itheapportionmentof thatnumberto thedifferent
coursesof studyin thatinstitute.
5. The National Councilis empoweredto make regulationsin respectof
such mattersas it may deem necessaryto enable it effectively
to exercise,
dischargeand performits powers,functionsand duties under the Higher
EducationAct. Amongthe moreimportant
mattersspecifically
mentionedin
the Act for whichregulationsmay be framedare the termsand conditions
of serviceof the staffof universities
and theirschemesof recruitment
and
the establishment
and maintenanceof minimumstandardsof instruction
in
universities.
APPENDIX B 2
THE VICE-CHANCELLOR AND HIS POWERS
85
[Section]
(b) The firstvice-chancellor
may be appointedby the Ministerat any
timeduringthatperiod,and ifso appointed:
(I) he may exercise,dischargeand performin respectof the
all suchpowers,functions
and dutiesas are conferred
university
or imposedon him underthisAct or any appropriate
Instrument;
hold officeuntilsuch
(II) he shall,unlesshe earliervacatesoffice,
timeas arrangements
for the transition
to the new structure
are completedas determined
by the Minister;and
(III) notwithstanding
any other provisionsof this Act, the first
vice-chancellor
shall have the power to reallocatethe staff,
students,
equipment,
land,buildingsand otherfacilitiesof the
inclusiveof those of the old universities,
university,
among
the severalcampusesof each campusincludingthe faculties,
the departments
and sub-departments
and the disciplinesand
subjectsthatare to be assignedto such faculties,
departments
and sub-departments
and he shallduringthetransitional
period
have and exercise powers of the board of governorsand
namedunderthis
any personor personsinclusiveof officers
Act forthe purposeof organising,
out and directing
carrying
of theuniversity
thefunctioning
duringthetransitional
period.
(c) The firstpresidentsof each of the campusesmay be appointed
bytheMinisterat anytimeduringtheperiodand if so appointed
(I) They may exercisein respectof the campusessuch powers,
and dutiesas are imposedon themunderthis Act
functions
or anyappropriate
Instrument;
(II) the firstpresidentof each campus shall, unless he earlier
hold officeuntilsuch timeas arrangements
vacatesoffice,
for
the transition
to thenew structure
are completed.
2 University
ActNo. 1 of1972
of Ceylon
, pp.62-63.
This content downloaded from 195.34.79.111 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 06:04:05 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions