Our successes and failures since gaining independence

by Shanie

Why pretend that things have not changed

when they have, planting flowers and exotics

in exotic gardens, the magnolias in full bloom

golden carp in pools to make poems with -

excavate the lawns and you will find weeds

springing out of skulls and the birds in the trees

that sang at dawn grasp the light

with taloned claws dragging nets and setting

snares over the sun;

now darkness covers the land - Jean Arasanayagam

(February 2, 2013, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) It is 64 years since our country re-gained independence after nearly four hundred and fifty years of western colonial rule. It is a common refrain to be critical of the colonial rulers for having exploited the resources of the country for their economic gain. There is undoubtedly truth in this criticism. But, while the country’s resources were being exploited, there were also substantial gains to the country from colonial rule. Overall, by the time the last colonial power left, our country had developed into a modern nation state, socially, economically and politically. The Portuguese made a lasting contribution socially to our language (both Sinhala and Tamil), to our religious beliefs and in many social customs including dress and music. They also developed our economy by encouraging the growth of many cash crops like cinnamon. The Dutch made an invaluable contribution to the legal system which survives to this day; they also introduced a system of land registers throughout the areas under their control. On the economic front, they diversified cultivation and began plantation agriculture, basically coconut growing. Socially, they left behind a new ethnic community of mixed Dutch ancestry who went on to make a distinctive contribution to the life of the nation in all areas of life. The Portuguese had also left behind a community of Portuguese descent but they were a small group in isolated pockets. The British took over from the Dutch and ruled for a little over a century and a half. They ruled during a time when the world was also changing from medievalism to modernity. As a result, their contribution in Sri Lanka’s development was profound in several areas, even if their contribution was naturally marked, as in the case of all colonial rulers, by self-interest. It is evident in the numerous areas of social and political life in the country bearing the influence of the British.

The language of administration was changed to Sinhala Only in 1956 without making any provision for the minorities to use Tamil in their dealings with the state. An attempt was made by the then Prime Minister S. W. R. D. Bandaranaike to strike a deal with the leader of the major Tamil party S J V Chelvanayakam to arrive at an amicable settlement.

The British impact on our country was all pervasive. On the social front, they developed our education system started by the earlier colonial powers and by 1948 when the British left, we had a good network of state and private primary and secondary schools and one full-fledged University and one full-fledged Technical Institute, besides Teacher Training Colleges. There was a vibrant and independent Press in all three languages. Our health services were more than adequate by the standards of that time. The system of justice was built on the British model but keeping the legal system introduced by the Dutch. Economically, with a scheme of food subsidy in place, there was no real poverty. The development of plantations had transformed the economy with tea, rubber and coconut as the mainstays. A network of roads and railways had been built which facilitated the economic drive. Politically, the British introduced a system of public administration modeled on their own experience at home. By 1931, the country enjoyed universal adult franchise based on territorial representation (not long after it happened in Britain itself) and a measure of responsible self-government was introduced with the Donoughmore reforms. So by the time independence was granted in 1948, the people had had some experience of political rights and the first General Election in 1947 showed some maturity among the voters in choosing their representatives to the legislature. Overall, our people enjoyed a quality of life in 1948 which in most areas was superior to that of other countries of Asia-Africa which had been subject to colonial rule.

The Years since 1948

The last sixty-four years have been a mix of successes and failures. But by no means can we now claim high ranking among the other countries of Afro-Asia. In 1931, when universal adult franchise was introduced, the colonial government, based on the recommendation of the Donoughmore Commission, quite rightly rejected communal representation in favour of territorial representation. In 1946, in preparation for the General Election due the following year, a Delimitation Commission was appointed to demarcate the 95 seats that were to be contested. The demarcation was based on both land area as well as population, the more sparsely populated areas getting greater representation. This worked well for the first Election. But unfortunately, with the passage of the Citizenship Act soon after, thousands of voters were disenfranchised and the electoral demarcation in the tea plantation districts became skewed. This was to be the beginning of a long conflict, since the disenfranchised voters were all Tamils.

The new government’s intention was also to develop agriculture in the dry zone areas. For this purpose, a statutory body was created – the Gal Oya (later River Valleys) Development Board. The intention was to colonise the area, provide the colonists with irrigation facilities and help them with growing principally of rice. The principle was good but in the implementation, instead of giving preference to the landless of the area, there was mass state aided colonisation of people from outside the Province, giving rise to the charge that the colonisation scheme was altering the ethnic balance of the electorates in those areas. This lent further cause for the conflict that was soon to emerge.

The language of administration was changed to Sinhala Only in 1956 without making any provision for the minorities to use Tamil in their dealings with the state. An attempt was made by the then Prime Minister S. W. R. D. Bandaranaike to strike a deal with the leader of the major Tamil party S J V Chelvanayakam to arrive at an amicable settlement. But irresponsible elements both within the government as well in the major opposition party not only scuttled such an agreement but went on to instigate attacks on the Tamil community in various parts of the country. The intention was to obviously to gain political mileage by alleging that Sinhala rights were being bartered away to the minorities. Over the years, this mindset has polarised the two communities, seemingly irrevocably. It will require a leader with vision and strength to overcome this if Sri Lanka is to emerge from over 30 years of conflict as a strong united and pluralist nation.

When we attained independence in 1948, and for some years thereafter, a Tamil trader from Point Pedro was successfully able to do business in Galle. A Sinhala baker from Matara bought property and set up a bakery in Jaffna. A Tamil student at Jaffna Hindu College learnt Sinhala from a Sinhala teacher as part of his regular curriculum. A Sinhala Student at Ananda College similarly learnt Tamil from a Tamil teacher as part of the regular curriculum. These were not isolated happenings; they were part of the life of the people and the community accepted and embraced the ‘other’ into their own community.

Paying lip service to pluralism

We seem to have come a long way from those distant days. Now, there is opposition to the ‘others’ doing trade in our community – whether it is Maharagma, Kiribathgoda or Kuliyapitiya. It may perhaps be the same for a Sinhala trader in the North if he or she did not have army protection. This is why need leaders with the vision and the strength to keep the rabble rousers in place and to ensure freedom and equality for all, irrespective of ethnicity. A few days ago, Vasudeva Nanayakkara proposed that our National Anthem be sung in two languages at this year’s official Independence Day celebrations in Trincomalee, in keeping with the recommendation of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission. The cabinet spokesperson nonchalantly says that it cannot be changed overnight as proposed. This spokesperson conveniently ignores that the National Anthem was sung in both languages (to the same tune and the same translated words) ever since the Anthem was introduced over sixty years ago until its singing in Tamil was unilaterally banned overnight by the incumbent President and the cabinet. We cannot merely pay lip service to unity and pluralism. We need to courageously stand up for the rights of all citizens and not just appease the wrong-doers who violate those rights. That is the only way we can build up a liberal pluralist democracy.

Public Services

In education and health services, the country has certainly made progress since independence. After free, compulsory and swabasha education was introduced in 1945 (compulsory education was in the statute book from 1911), the adult literacy rose from 60% to 90%. With only one university catering largely to the English-educated in 1948, today the numbers passing out as graduates in all disciplines has increased significantly, even if the resources allocated to education by the state has decreased in relation to the GDP. Health services have also continued to grow though they are still far below the required levels. Private Hospitals cater to the affluent but those who require attention in state hospitals could do with better care. This is not stated as a criticism of the health personnel but to draw attention to the need to provide greater resources to health care.

Public Services like transport and postal services have also had a mixed success. The bus services at the time of independence was in private hands and restricted only to profitable routes. After nationalization and the setting up of the Ceylon Transport Board under the chairmanship of ex–civil servant Vere de Mel, there was a process of rationalisation of the routes and a marked improvement in the services to the people in the rural areas. But the state monopoly could not be sustained in the absence of men of the calibre of Vere de Mel and the bus services were again privatised. Over the years, the success of this has been mixed with some routes being well serviced while there is deterioration on the less profitable routes. Similarly with the postal services. At independence, letters reached their destination usually within 24 hours. Within Colombo, letters posted before a certain were delivered the same afternoon. The system was well organized with the night long distance trains carrying a mail sorting carriage at the rear and letters were sorted and delivered to the respective stations on the way from where the mail bags were delivered to appropriate Post Offices. All that is from a distant past and mail takes several days to be delivered to destinations. But post offices in the urban centres are now able to provide additional services and the authorization of agency post offices has also helped.

Dissent and Press Freedom

In 1948, we had a robust and free Press that readily criticised and lampooned the political leadership. Of course, this was from a right wing perspective. When a non-UNP government emerged in 1956, the Press was largely hostile and often unfair to the new leadership. This weakness was overcome when a multiplicity of newspapers began publication, opening the way for divergent views to be published. But recent trends have unfortunately been to stifle the freedom of journalists with intimidation and threats, including physical violence, some of them resulting in deaths and disappearances. Some journalists have even sought refuge in other countries but continuing to write on political events in Sri Lanka.

But it is on the political front, that the country has taken a real beating from a succession of recent governments, some more pronounced than others. Political dissent is not tolerated. In the recent celebrated case of Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake, even judicial judgments that hurt the party in power were unacceptable to the government. Sarath Fonseka, like the Chief Justice, did not receive a fair trial. While the former’s distinguished record as an academic and a judicial officer is sought to be erased, the latter’s distinguished service as the Army Commander who ended the northern insurgency is also sought to be erased. Both have been victims of a flawed process that violatesnatural justice and the rule of law. In the pre-independence and the immediate post-independence period, there were two political cases where the Courts ruled against the government’s position and which the government accepted in the nature of the rule of law. One was the celebrated Bracegirdle Affair where the British government sought to deport a left-inclined young Australian planter. The Supreme Court struck down the deportation order as invalid. The other was the celebrated Trine case where the Theja Gunawardena, editor and publisher of the pro-left Trine newspaper was charged with defamation of the then Prime Minister. Here again, the Supreme Court dismissed the plaint brought forward by the Attorney General. Despite recent events, we can only hope that the Judiciary will as a body safeguard the rights and liberties of the citizen in terms of the rule of law, as their predecessors did.

It is not possible in a short column to fully analyse our successes and failures and to show clearly what we must do in areas where we have gone wrong. But one thing is clear. The country needs a leader who will have the vision, the character and the ability to mine-sweep the vermin with their hidden bombs intended to blast the unity and pluralism of our people.