No English please, we are Lankans
Rathane Thera says teaching kids in the international language will make them lose their national identity
In 1956, when, at the behest of Sinhala nationalists, S. W. R. D. Bandaranaike introduced his now widely condemned policy of ‘ Sinhala only’, it served to condemn millions of Sinhalese of successive generations to an era of darkness, out of which only today they are slowly emerging. It also succeeded in effectively maintain the class distinctions that had prevailed during the colonial period and subjected all those who learnt only Sinhala and knew no English to second class status.
Their brethren of the upper classes who spoke the Queen’s English stole an easy march over them even though their educational qualifications were minimal. Millions of Sinhala youth found themselves at a bottleneck when it came to occupying top posts both in the government and private sector.
It has taken many long years for the nation to realise the folly of Bandaranaike ’ s ‘ Sinhala only’ policy and having learnt from that grievous error has begun a clamour to learn the international language – the window and door to greater opportunities and access to the accumulated knowledge of all mankind.
Now along comes a monk to turn the tide back and return the nation to the dark ages. And turn its people back to being frogs in the well.
On March 15, addressing parliament during the committee stage debate on the budget, the National List MP, Venerable Athuraliye Ratana Thera, said Sri Lanka is currently following a concept which is not followed in any other country of providing primary education in another language other than the child’s mother tongue.
He gave a new twist as well. It will make them less patriotic, they will not be citizens of this country then, he said.
“If a child is given a primary education in a language other than his or her mother tongue, that child would not be a citizen of that country,” he declared without a blush.
It was evident he had given much thought to it. Learning only one’s own language in the formative years was the way to build national unity.
He said, “Education should be a component which builds national unity. Accordingly, children in the North and the East should be provided education in Tamil, while children in other areas should be allowed to have their education in Sinhala.” He further added that since the majority of Tamils and Muslims who reside in areas other than the North and the East can be provided an education in Sinhala as a majority of them are fluent in the Sinhala language.
When the nation’ s Bandaranaike policy has served only to divide the nation with disastrous consequences, the Thera is now advocating a policy that whilst Tamils in the north can be taught in Tamil, the Tamils and the Muslims should be taught in Sinhalese. The Sinhalese should be taught in Sinhala, else they would not citizens of this country.
Before turning educationalist and propagating this out-ofdate nationalistic policy, he should have known that many of those leaders who fought for Lanka’s independence learnt their subjects in the English medium, including Bandaranaike who was tutored at home by an imported teacher from Oxford. Did that make them any less citizens of this country or any less patriotic?
Does the novice seven- yearold monk who l ear ns Buddhism at the temple privena less of a citizen of Lanka?
One thing more. Even as he gave voice to his bizarre view in Parliament, he should perhaps have paused to ponder what he was doing in a chamber of politicians, engaged in the practice of politics directly forbidden by the Buddha’s disciplinary code for monks contained in the Vinaya Pitakaya.
And also meditate on the fact that the Buddha’s philosophy is meant to promote unity between all mankind and not diversity which leads to conflict. That for the Buddha there were no national boundaries where humans were segregated according to their place of birth but treated as one of all mankind, no matter in which land one was born.