This refers to the piece by Tissa Jayatilaka titled "The Warnapala Doctrine" in The Island on 22 October 2008, seemingly raising an issue of academic freedom or ‘academic authoritarianism’. The author has unfortunately stooped into a personal and a political attack on Professor Wiswa Warnapala, the Minister of Higher Education. I write this rejoinder in my capacity as the Convener of the "Conference on Fundamental and Operational Research for Development" organised by the National Centre for Advanced Studies in Humanities and Social Sciences (NCAS), where the said ‘Warnapala Doctrine’ was expounded.

As Professor Warnapala is the Minister of Higher Education in the present Government, anyone is free to criticize him on higher education policy although the terms used like ‘the ruling clique,’ ‘frogs in the well’ or ‘a la Chinthanaya’ might betray the political motives of the critic. However, for a person like Tissa Jayatilaka, being the long standing Director of the Fulbright Commission in Sri Lanka, obviously a personal jibe like referring to the ‘Warnapala Technique in winning Peradeniya damsels’ is not appropriate.

What is most disturbing is the apparent misunderstanding or the obvious misinterpretation by Jayatilaka. Professor Warnapala’s key note address at the conference was aptly titled "Sri Lanka Needs Development Oriented Research." The subject derived from the very purpose of the NCAS conference where 74 abstracts and 58 fully written papers were delivered. It is unfortunate if people like Jayatilaka does not like research by university academics being geared to the country’s development or its people. He calls Sri Lanka ‘our indigenous well’ and its people, the proverbial ‘frogs.’

After the inauguration of the conference, Jayatilaka left even without waiting for the modest reception, and wrote his piece to The Island apparently on the same day. When it was not published immediately, he circulated the ‘piece’ to whom he considered ‘concerned people’ by email (including me) while accusing The Island being in the clutches of the government! This haste was intriguing. If his piece was published before the publication of the Minister’s speech, then it was possible for some to be mislead on the subject. When his piece appeared on page nine and the Professor’s on page ten on the same day, anyone interested could compare and come to his or her own conclusions.

Nowhere in the Minister’s speech was there any assertion made, directly or indirectly, that academics should not go to the West for postgraduate studies. This was Jayatilaka’s invention. The Minister was primarily referring to research, both content and methodology, and of course he was critical of what he called ‘academic colonialism’ and ‘academic imperialism.’ Jayatilaka’s polemical questions (three of them altogether) such as, "Why cannot the younger generation be given the choice of deciding to study where they want?" are grossly misleading.

There are 58 NCAS grantees through Government funding, pursuing their postgraduate studies abroad - quite a number of them in the West. Two of them even submitted full papers to the conference in absentia. There are many more in the West through other scholarship schemes or through their personal means after obtaining leave from the university system without any hindrance. Could Jayatilaka cite any instance where an academic was not allowed to go to the West for postgraduate studies? No prudent policy maker, however, would hold that all academics should go to the West for their postgraduate studies. To believe that, as Jayatilka does, is servility to the West. Sri Lanka needs a more diverse approach to postgraduate studies and measures should be taken to strengthen advanced postgraduate education within the country itself. This is what some people are disturbed about.

There were of course critical comments by the Professor, being a leading social scientist himself, about some of the ‘western academic approaches,’ particularly in recent decades in respect of ‘conflict resolution,’. He did say that much of the research conducted by NGOs in this field, were inimical to the country’s interest. He gave examples and elaborated his points very clearly and succinctly. He did ‘name and shame’ the ICES, perhaps a method he learnt from the West (naming and shaming!).

According to Jayatilaka’s thinking, "The Minister who himself is a beneficiary of post-graduate study in the West" should not have "deplored the western academic tradition." This is not a new argument for those who are familiar with the warped critics of colonial studies.’ "The Warnapala Doctrine" obviously goes along with the ‘critical post colonial studies’ that Edward Said boosted with his well known work ‘Orientalism’ in 1978. As Edward Said once said these critics ‘fail to grasp the cultural hegemony of the West in academic enterprise’ which is the focus of the Professor’s criticism. Instead they question why Said was teaching at the Columbia University or Warnapala studied in the West!

Jayatilaka says "He [the Minister] went on to tell us that all academic research in Sri Lanka must be ‘relevant’ (to whom or what was not spelt out) and of use to the policy makers!" However, when you look closely at the text of the speech by the Minister published in The Island even this is not the case. At the outset he has said, "The second principle which needs to guide research in any discipline is its relevance, which in my view, could be described as social and developmental relevance." Thereafter, he has elaborated in detail the ‘issues of relevance’ to society and development. It is grossly incorrect, to say that the Minister did not spell out the question of ‘relevance to whom or what.’