My distant memories about Professor S Mahalingam - Rasika Suriyaarachchi

"Don't go to Peradeniya", a friend of mine advised me strongly when he heard about my intention of studying Engineering at Peradeniya University, "the teaching staff there are BAD for students"!

Of course, I did not listen to him.

Peradeniya was my dream.

But, it was not a dream about engineering at all. My dreams were rather about Hanthana Mountains, Mahaweli River, Lover’s Lane and walking paths coved with Roberrosia petals. That colourful dream was painted in my mind by all those novels, short stories, poems and songs that I had devoured with enthusiasm while studying horrible chemistry, boring pure mathematics, a bit better physics and not-so-bad applied mathematics for the advanced level examination.

As I later found out, my friend was correct, well, at least to a certain extent.

We had some horrible lecturers during our first year with notable exceptions of witty and entertaining Ranatunga, can listen to Ranaweera, somewhat sleepy Maliyasena, neutral Samuel and the sleepy surveying lecturer whose name is not in my mind any longer.

Ours were the days when students at the Peradeniya Engineering Faculty who have definitely done very well at the extremely competitive advanced level examination to get selected to study engineering, were performing very poorly and failing miserably in their university examinations. At the end of our first year of studies, out of batch of 250, about 35 of my fellow batchmates failed to gain entry to the second year of study despite having two chances to pass five out of seven subjects.

However, more or less the same number of students from the batch a year senior to us, had already joined us by that time having had the same fate a year or so before. Therefore, there were still about 250 students at the end of our second year to sit the examinations.

Thirty five students (out of 250) failing to proceed to the second year of study may sound a disaster. However, that was a much better situation than the previous couple of years (before our entry into the faculty) where as many as sixty students have met with the same fate two years in a row.

I have heard some argue that language difficulties faced by students are the main reason for these mass scale failures. That may be just one contributing factor but not at all the end of the story.

We had Sinhala and Tamil lectures for Thermo Dynamics, Fluid Mechanics and Materials Science during most of our first year. That did not mean at all that students performed well in those subjects. Besides, Workshop Technology which was entirely taught in English was perhaps the subject that everyone fared well. Sanath Ranatunga who lectured Workshop Technology undoubtedly won the best lecturer trophy in our first year.

It was pretty obvious that the way knowledge is disseminated to the student by means of lectures was a critical factor in horribly poor performance by otherwise bright students in the faculty. Needless to say, lecturers had a lot to answer here, if they had any concerns about the plight of the students, that is!

I was with a group of senior students working on the one-man musical show of Cyril Galappathi when the news broke out that Thureirajah has been elected as the new dean of the faculty replacing Jayasekara. I very well remember how joyful our seniors became when they heard the news. They were of course still bitter with Jayasekara, having undergone a lengthy struggle during Jayasekara's Deanship to get a decent timetable for year-end examinations. Thureirajah was known as a kind hearted man and an excellent lecturer as well. But he was only teaching third and fourth year students who specialised in civil engineering.

Our second year was not any better when the lecturers are concerned. Needless to say, Gunawardena who lectured applied electricity (or electronics as it was better known) was the worst of the lot. He was more fearsome than Jayatilake and Sivasegaram who lectured us Physics II in the first year, put together.

Fortunately, Mahalingam who lectured us Mechanics of Machines was a dream-come-true for all of us. He was definitely from a different world than the world the most of the other lecturers came from. Mahalingam was extremely methodical in his teaching, neat and precise in his writing on the blackboard, courteous towards students and most of all he was very handsome and charming. He won the hearts of all of us within five minutes of his first lecture itself.

Lectures on Mechanics of Machines required a lot of geometrical diagrams and equations to explain the concepts. Mahalingam came to the lecture theatre equipped with a large wooden compass with a piece of chalk attached to one arm and he drew perfect circles and arcs on the blackboard using that. I think, he also carried a large wooden divider as well and used that wherever it was required to divide a line into equal segments. He also had a good collection of chalks of different colours and his teaching paraphernalia included his own duster as well to wipe out the board once it is needed to write on again.

With all that near perfect qualities as a lecturer, not only he was able to teach us the concepts of the subject effectively but also he did enable us to take good quality complete notes.

Mahalingam also carried a set of hand written notes with him in a file and he would refer to them while lecturing and drawing on the board. When he turned pages of those notes, if you are sitting in one of the front rows, you would notice that they are pretty old and fading in colour. It was an often cited joke that those notes he was using are from the 50s, when he started teaching the subject.

The other thing we noted was that being a mechanical engineer he was still using the mechanical slide ruler to work out the answers for examples he used in lectures. During the study leave period when we work the same examples out we see that the answers we get using our electronic calculators were always a few decimal places different from his answers.

There is no shame in saying that as undergraduates at the Faculty of Engineering at University of Peradeniya, most of us were quite afraid of lecturers such as Jayathilake, Sivasegaram, Gunawardena and to a certain extent Jayasekara. If we see them walking towards us in the faculty corridor, it was always advisable to avoid facing them or walk with your eyes set downwards. Often said story about Jayatilake that he would even keep his eyes on students walking on the road connecting the faculty building with Gampola Road with special rear-view mirrors in his car was not just an urban myth as we found out on 4 March 1985. Furthermore, who would ever forget the "heh, heh, heh, Kalu Banda!" freaky story about Gunawardena once you hear about it?

However, seeing Mahalingam walking along the corridor from the faculty car park close to the canteen towards his office in machine lab or walking along university roads close to Sangamitta was always a pleasant scene. In some of his evening walks, we have seen his wife joining him as well.

Despite being there at Peradeniya for four years and despite being lectured by him in my second and fourth years, unfortunately, I have had only two opportunities of talking with Mahalingam.

I will write about those two encounters in the second part of this article.

Link to part-II: http://efacmemories.blogspot.com/2015/12/yes-of-course-i-do-said-professor.html

-Rasika Suriyaarachchi [E/81/214]

(image: http://tamildiplomat.com/the-funeral-of-famed-engineer-professor-mahalingam-held-yesterday-at-alaveddy/)

Part IV – Student clash on the final day (by Sisira Adikari)

READ:
Parts I & II - Paving the Way to Clear Applied Electricity Backlog
Part III - Aftermath of the boycott

Part IV – Student clash on the final day

For good or bad it is customary on the final day of academic year students to pitch parties especially for final years where this day is the final day of their student life. The fraction among final years was that prominent they were unable to hold a one unified party. “Pro boycotters” (minority among final years) organized a toddy party at the faculty common room while the other group had their party at the Akbar hall dining room. As I was told later (there may be different versions as to how the fight erupted) apparently couple of students who were participating at the toddy party happened to visit Akbar hall. These “pro boycotters” were confronted by a group of “anti boycotters” who were parting at the Akbar hall. The incident was being sited to “pro boycotters” at the Akbar hall and joined to support other “pro boycotters”. This apparently led to a big fight where unfortunately one student lost his eye. When I came to the Akbar hall the fight was about to over.

The big fight followed by few isolated incidents the university premises became potentially unsafe for “anti boycotters”. The engineering faculty was closed indeterminately and students were sent home.

An investigation to the incident was conducted and there were suspensions from both groups. As usual pretty apparent that suspensions were deliberately targeted on student leaders or whom the administration thought as student leaders.

I must command the student leadership: J.P.S. Weerasighe and Channa Rajanayake respectively, for the efforts they had made to dormant the clash. But unfortunately later they, together with me, were brutally targeted by the administration and suspended. It was pretty clear the only reason that I have been targeted was due to growing angry towered me among “anti boycotters” since I supported the boycott.

Lack of other allegations only charge laid down against me was alleged presence on an assault scene. Quite surprisingly not on the day of the main clash (on the 1st day at least I was there) but the following day (Saturday) at the Arunachelam hall among group of students who assaulted “Tin Ton” (I forget his real name to date).

The key witnesses against me, final year anti boycotter Kapila Weerasooriya who provided a blatant false statement mere to knock me to fulfill someone else aspirations, was “kind” enough to state that I was only presence at the scene but not physically assaulted “Tin Ton”. If the allegation levelled against me was good enough for a suspension then on that ground along fair number of students should have been suspended.

Well, that particular Saturday early morning I left the campus to conduct my weekly tuition for few young female AL students where one of these students later became my life long partner. You may imagine how important that tuition has been for me than the “student movement” if you will. All my close associates are aware that I was not at all at the scene. It was a big fat lie. On the face value the lie was able to suspend a student for couple of weeks but was able to result much more repercussions. In short lie that potentially contributed to where and who I am now.

To make the long story short subsequently an inquiry was held just for a formality. Finally I was sentenced for couple of week suspension just prior to my Final Part II examination and the suspension was suspended allowing me to sit for the examination.

- Sisira Adikari

TO BE CONCLUDED with PART V - Revenge

Editor's note: Please leave your comments.

Part III : Aftermath of the boycott (by Sisira Adikari)

Read Parts I and II first:

Part III: Aftermath of the boycott

In my view, students’ demands were granted so comfortably due to personal conflicts between then dean of the faculty Prof. C.L.V. Jayathilake and the Electrical and Electronics department.

After the demands were granted, Prof C.L.V. Jayatilake, who signed an agreement with students granting demands, was ousted by a decision made by the Faculty Board. As a bonus to students Prof. Milton Amaratunga, who is truly a professor and a gentleman, was appointed as the new dean.

Thereafter more gentle Dr. Ekanayake became the in-charge for AE course. It was not sure Prof. Gunawardena willingly gave up AE or the subject was taken away from him. No matter what the key demand was achieved. Academic activities were continued smoothly until the very last day of the academic year.

In my view the most benefited group from the action was the long listed AE repeaters. In the subsequent AE paper most of repeaters had a rear chance to get thorough thanks to much “user friendly” paper and humane marking scheme I believe.

After the boycott whole engineering students were basically divided to two fractions - those who were with the boycott and those who were opposed. Almost all non final years with minority group of final years became “pro boycotters” and majority of final years became “anti boycotters”. I am sure there were some non final year students whose subconscious opposed the boycott but kept silent for obvious reasons.

The division was prominent among final year students where majority were “anti boycotters” and minority were “pro boycotters”.

Then there were threats and silent intimidations from each group “anti boycotters” threatening to “take care” juniors when their time come to serve as instructors where as “pro boycotters” claiming you better get through your all subjects or do not come to the faculty to repeat your exams.

- Sisira Adikari

TO BE CONTINUED with PART IV - Student clash on the final day

Editor's note: Please leave your comments.

Paving the Way to Clear Applied Electricity Backlog (by Sisira Adikari) - Parts I and II

Part I – Introduction

Aim of this article is, as a first hand witness and victim, to outline events happened at the Peradeniya Engineering Faculty in 1986 leading to take away (or given away) Final Examination in Engineering Part I, Applied Electricity subject from Prof. J Gunawardena and subsequent revengeful incidents occurred that adversely effected to my career.

The write-up would substantiate some facts put forward by Rasika Suriyaarachchi in his recent article.

For past 20 years I dearly wanted to publish this to off the pressure out of my mind and also to unveil some incidents. Once I had a futile attempt to publish the core of this article in a Sinhala newspaper. Being not an artistic and creative writer I have no surprise as to why my attempt was not materialized.

I would like to thank the publisher for publishing this article in this blog.

Part II –Applied Electricity boycott

If you were in the faculty during 1980 -1987, I do not have to explain how tricky the second year Applied Electricity (AE) course and not to mention associated laboratory work had been before the subject was taken away from (or given away by) Prof. Gunawardena.

In my time as a student (1984 -1990) there were few standard questions that students be prepared before step into the laboratory; one has been the chemical equations of an alkaline battery cell. Students would come to AE lectures bit early not because of enthusiasm but for the mere reason not to be ended up sitting in an aisle seat (in order to avoid scrutinized by the lecturer).

In that era students were ruthlessly being chased away from AE laboratory classes. In 1986 (i.e. in my third year) bit extraordinary (meaning above and beyond “normal” chasing away from AE laboratory classes) situation was being developed among my immediate junior (i.e. then second year) batch.

By about half way through the academic year about half of second year students faced the risk of failing AE laboratory classes due to being chased away from AE laboratory classes. This obviously led to develop a tense situation among second year students.

The matter was discussed extensively in the Engineering Student Union (ESU). The second year students, as a protest, overwhelming wanted to boycott AE course and laboratory work. As an initial measure, ESU took the matter up with the subject in charge, Prof. Gunawardena. His point was to carryout laboratory work safely one got to know fundamentals. Fair enough, but unfortunately there was no plan or desire to deliver these fundamentals. Given the fact that there were not much differences between equipment used for laboratory work, how most of students who performed their first year laboratory work “safely” became lack of fundamentals to become “unsafe” in the second year is an interesting question to be raised. One may argue that first year subject in charge had ignored safety of students. On the other hand in my mind it was hard to justify how the chemical equation of alkaline battery cell is connected to safety in the laboratory. Since arguments can be made both ways, I am not going to further discuss credibility of the point made by Prof. Gunawardena.

Not to surprise the dialogue with Prof. Gunawardena did not do any better and the situation continued. Soon, one Wednesday there was highly intense ESU general body meeting to discuss the situation and to determine further actions. First year batch top of the victimized second years, Sanath Alahakoon (currently Dr.), key activist and representative for the second year students, delivered the opening speech. In his speech he explained the background and strongly recommended to boycott AE.

Majority of final year students opposed any boycott action. Although not exposed openly there were couple of key reasons (a) They wanted to complete before Moratuwa and hopefully secure lucrative jobs sooner than their Moratuwa counterparts (by that time due to some strike actions Moratuwa was behind Peradeniya) (b) Since they were in the final year they (specially electrical folks) did not want to send a wrong message to their teachers.

Here came in my view most influenced few words that I have ever spoken to change my destiny. But I did it gracefully and no regrets to what I said. It was a factual statement.

As it matters to what you probably will read afterwards I shall mention now I obtained the R.H. Gunaratne prize for the best academic performance from the Final Part I examination with straight five “A”s obviously including AE. In layman terms I became the “batch top” in my second year. In my third year I served as the secretary of the Electrical and Electronics Engineering society. In the following academic year I became the Vice President of the ESU. I personally had no problem with Prof. Gunawardena’s teaching and digesting his subject. No doubt that he is an exceptionally smart but unfortunately controversial teacher.

During my second year one day I had a chance to have a small talk with one of my friend, who was an undergraduate in an American university vacationing in Sri Lanka, at the Colombo public library. We obviously talked about our undergraduate experiences. I was very enthusiastic telling about Prof. Gunawardena and his teaching methodology. I mentioned that one time only 3 out of 33 students were able to get through one of Prof. Gunawardena’s subjects. At one time my friends’ comment was if such a thing happened in his university, especially in a year after the first year, the administration would definitely point the finger to the course instructor.

With my view that something is not right with Prof Gunawardene’s teaching, attitude and marking methodology for AE specially in terms of catering for average students together with having that chat in my mind what I simply said at the meeting was one time only 3 out of 33 students were managed to pass a particular paper by Prof. Gunawardena, given that I believe there is a serious problem in the way that AE course is being delivered. In no time Prof. Gunawardena’s loyal must have conveyed that to his and perhaps some other influential ears.

Some remarkable statements were made in that meeting. One final year student stated that “If there is any boycott I will cut my hand and hang it on some prominent place (can’t remember the place he mentioned). One second year female student loudly asked final years to pat their back to see whether they have backbones.

With heated, some instances unpleasant, arguments finally a decision was made to boycott the AE. As a strategic measure all office bearers of the ESU were resigned. Finally the boycott began with some demands which I do not remember exacts.

After about couple of weeks boycott and talks between the dean, academic staff and administration finally students’ demands were accepted at least to a degree that the student leadership could respectfully claim the victory.

- Sisira Adikari

TO BE Continued with Part III - Aftermath of the boycott

Editor's note: Please leave your comments.