Who hurled the first stone in Aluthgama?

An interrogation on the contribution of the Freiri-

an notion of ‘Banking Model’ Education in Sri

Lanka in proliferating nationalism

Monday, 07th July 2014

From 4.00 pm to 6.00 pm

at Room No. 228, Faculty of Arts, Unversity of Colombo

The most frequent question in Aluthgama incident focuses on who hurled the first stone. According to

some Bodu Bala Sena had thrown the first stone, while some others point the finger at the Muslim ex-

tremists. Another group holds those who constructed a Sinhalese nationalist ideology responsible for these

developments. However, who are the people who structured a Sinhalese nationalist ideology? Why does a

majority in our society accept myths socialized by them? Does Sri Lankan education have a role in this

regards? Could a country like Sri Lanka with public education contributing to a superior rate of literacy

among the people have such high proportion of nationalism?

This is why we should question ‘Free Education’ which by no means is free and the concept of literacy

which is illiterate on analytics and logic. This is the context in which we should scutinize Sri Lankan edu-

cation system which attempts to deposit knowledge like depositing money in a bank.

Organized by:

Department of History at University of Colombo and Education Renaissance Programme (ERP)

For information– Damith-071-2341311/ Amali- 071-8135581

What is the ‘Banking Model’ of Education?

Banking model of education is a definition put forward by Paulo Freire

on the existing education system. The following are the characteristics

of a Banking model of education.

01. The teacher teaches and the students are taught;

02. The teacher knows everything and the students know nothing;

03. The teacher thinks and the students are thought about;

04. The teacher talks and the students listen—meekly;

05. The teacher disciplines and the students are disciplined;

06. The teacher chooses and enforces his choice, and the students

comply;

07. The teacher acts and the students have the illusion of acting

through the action of the teacher;

08. The teacher chooses the program content, and the students (who

were not consulted) adapt to it;

09. The teacher confuses the authority of knowledge with his or her

own professional authority, which she and he sets in opposition

to the freedom of the students;

10. The teacher is the Subject of the learning process, while the

pupils are mere objects.

Aluthgama Incident and the ‘banking model’ of education in Sri

Lanka

We have an approach to read the story of Dutugemunu and Elara.

Moreover, there is a method according to which we are taught about

the territory, nation and religion. We rarely think beyond these

parameters. Our education system does not indicate the possibility

for falsehood to be included in Mahawamsa, wicked kings being

portrayed as heroes, unwise kings being portrayed as wise ones and

wrong and unjust actions being portrayed as just. While we talk

about ruins of palaces and religious places in Anuradhapura, we are

completely oblivious to the voids in history exposed by the lack of

reference to archeological evidence of housing of the ordinary

people. What nurtures this uncritical mind?

Naivety is the biggest problem in Sri Lankan education system.

While we cannot perceive beyond the Sinhalese edition of our

written history, for a careful assessor of the Sri Lankan education

system it is evident that the education system plays a principal role

in socializing the idea that Sri Lanka is a Sinhalese Buddhist country

and that Tamils and Muslims are outsiders.

Some are of mind that those who created a Sinhalese nationalist

discourse are the ones that hurled the first stone in Aluthgama.

However, who created those who constructed a Sinhalese nationalist

discourse? Why did a majority accept their discourse the instant it

was introduced to the society? Could a society with a favourable

literacy rate as it is the case in Sri Lanka have such high propensity

to nationalism? These are the questions we should pose.

In addition, the context demands questioning the degree of openness

and freedom in free education, reasons for governments for

maintaining a banking model of education which is restricted and

controlled and the manner in which an education system propagate

nationalism.

At the same time, the discussion will focus on the GCE O/L text

books and ‘Peace Education’ introduced a couple of years ago.