Sri Lanka "standardization policy" and quota system

Wed Mar 19 14:26:27 UTC 2008

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standardization - the hidden dangers

Posted in Uncategorized by realitycheck on the March 19, 2008

I had the good fortune of closely interacting with many Srilankan
Tamils in the US and Canada. I could not help notice that almost
uniformly they possessed an excellent command of English, unlike those
in Tamilnadu.  Eventually, I discovered that the refugee Tamil
population in Canada is actually highly educated. Whenever they talked
about the discrimination they faced back in Srilanka, they were
referring to the standardization system which squeezed them out rather
abruptly in 1971. This post is about the mysterious "standardization"
system. 'The qualifying mark for admission to the medical faculties
was 250 (out of 400) for Tamil students, whereas it was only 229 for
the Sinhalese. Worse still, this same pattern of a lower qualifying
mark applied even when Sinhalese and Tamil students sat for the
examination in English. In short, students sitting for examinations in
the same language, but belonging to two ethnic groups, had different
qualifying marks.'

A.M.De Silva (source)

The roots of the current conflict might actually lie in this system.

'By 1977 the issue of university admissions had become a focal point
of the conflict between the government and Tamil leaders. Tamil youth,
embittered by what they considered discrimination against them, formed
the radical wing of the Tamil United Liberation Front. Many advocated
the use of violence to establish a separate Tamil state of Eelam. It
was an object lesson of how inept policy measures and insensitivity to
minority interests can exacerbate ethnic tensions .'

A.Jayaratnam Wilson (source)

So, what exactly is this standardization system.

The Wikipedia entry says.

30% of university places were allocated on the basis of island-wide
merit; half the places were allocated on the basis of comparative
scores within districts and an additional 15% reserved for students
from under privileged districts.

(Wikipedia caution ! it cites the date this policy was introduced as
1973 while most sources claim it as 1971)

In short, after Sri Lankas independence Tamils were first off the line
when it came to English education and were therefore able to compete
better and secure a disproportionately larger seats in Universities. I
am not sure if the standardization policy was devised to "cap" the
Tamils or whether this was a happy side effect. It however seems to be
true that all rural people whether Tamils or Sinhalese were able to
take advantage of the scheme. The worst hit were the educated Tamils ,
for whom doors to education were suddenly shut.
This blog has always maintained that such schemes are extremely
dangerous if not minutely monitored.  The immaturity of the Sri Lankan
government in not being able to secure the rights of Sinhalese without
"capping" the Tamils is what has brought the island state to where it
is today.
The Sri Lankan ambassador to the United States , Mr Bernard Gunatilake
recently published an article in the Washington Times that has caused
some furore.  His article grossly underestimates the damage caused by
such capping policies.  It is clear that even after these years the
Sri Lankan government stubbornly refuses to see merit (!) in the
Tamils feelings of discrimination.

He says:

Furthermore, even though the LTTE is attempting to establish a
mono-ethnic separate state for about 12 percent of "Sri Lankan Tamils"
in the north and east, ("Indian Tamils" comprising 4.6 percent of the
population are part of our democratic fabric), more than half of that
population now lives in safety and peace among the Sinhalese and other
communities in the south.

Source : Article

An excellent response by  Prof Ratnajeevan Hoole

First, he says weighting examinations was never intended to
discriminate against us Tamils. I took the common Advanced Level exam
in 1969 and was admitted to the engineering faculty. The government
then redid the admissions after adding some 28 marks to the
four-subject aggregate of Sinhalese students. I lost my seat. They
effectively claimed that the son of a Sinhalese minister in an elite
Colombo school was disadvantaged vis-a-vis a Tamil tea-plucker's son.
Unable to defend this, in 1973 they created the statistical scheme
equating Tamil and Sinhalese averages with regional preferences to
which the ambassador refers.

Source : Article

I am not interested in taking sides, but the case of Sri Lankan Tamils
have a striking resemblance to the fate of the so called upper castes
in India (esp Tamilnadu). I bet behind the scenes the Sri Lankan
interlocutors waste no time in bringing out a mirror when lectured by
Indians.  (Note for foreign readers : Upper castes should not be taken
to imply the current presence in these groups of dominance in
education, politics, social, or economic life. It is just a category.
) What lessons can be learnt from this system for India ?

For those who do not know India (esp Tamilnadu) has a far more
draconian quota policy. In Sri Lanka, at least the Tamils who are in
rural areas can hope to get the benefits.  In India, the scheme works
on the basis of birth only. The son of a doctor will trump the son of
a cook with higher credits based solely on whether or not his caste is
preferred.  The benefits are also permanent (TN has has this system
for 85+ years and KA for 90 years)  and not subject to monitoring. In
other words, they are unconditional. We have no data to show how
castes (the staging unit for the policy) have benefited from the
system which has been in force for 85+ years.  The Indian judicial
system has also been shy about putting its foot down about data (until
now) like the Sri Lankan judiciary.

A question :

If the quota system in Sri Lanka caused the affected Tamils to rise up
in strong protests ending in violence, why have'nt the affected castes
in India resorted to mass protests leading to a comparable violence ?

The answer lies in the size of India. I suspect when the Brahmans were
suddenly checked in Tamilnadu in the 1930's, many of them who were
rendered "overflow" (could not fit into TN education or state
employment) simply went to places like Bombay, Bangalore, and even
northern India.  Presumably, these states did not have a similar
"check" on them and they picked up their lives there. I think the same
holds true for some Kannadigas and Keralites too.  For Kerala, add
caste, religion, and the communist strangehold to the mix. The private
sector also offered enough outlets.  Leaving is an easier alternative
to blowing yourself up.  The safety valves worked until now.

The current UPA government's policies, most notably its adamant
refusal to monitor the social programs, are designed to further reduce
these safety valves and bring more and more areas of life into this
fold.  They do not realize that immigration opportunities to the west
are limited and that the really backward are also affected by their
policies.  The "life stories over data" approach to social problems
will lead to further disenchantment among those who really deserve
help and will lead them first to extremism.

Tragically, the SL Tamils did not have the luxury of escaping such
capping of their life opportunities. These checks placed by the
standardization policy were permanent and left them with nowhere to
hide. The lack of a safety valve led to deep resentment and
subsequently entered a series of events which lead to a downward
spiral.

Many claim that the standardization policy also impacted the urban
Sinhalese. That may well be true, but its effect on the Tamils has
been devastating. The SL government's inability and immaturity to
provide a soft landing to those affected by this policy is an entirely
different story.

http://realitycheck.wordpress.com/2008/03/19/standardization-the-hidden-cause/
-- 
**************************************
N.b.: Listing on the lgpolicy-list is merely intended as a service to
its members
and implies neither approval, confirmation nor agreement by the owner
or sponsor of
the list as to the veracity of a message's contents. Members who
disagree with a
message are encouraged to post a rebuttal. (H. Schiffman, Moderator)
*******************************************