Did the British Divide & Rule Ceylon?

 

An often repeated lie is that the British favored the Tamils over the Sinhalese as part of a sinister, Divide and Rule campaign.  This has been used as a justification for the systematic and structural discrimination against the Tamils since the early days of Independence.  Unfortunately this lie has found its way into outside media outlets as well.  The recent telha report and yesterday’s Tamilnet response on this topic can be found here.  

British ruled. Not divided.

There is no evidence to suggest that British followed a policy of discrimination against the Sinhalese.  

It is a flawed logic to assume that a numerically smaller people achieving a bigger share in any employment sector is so because they were systematically favored by those in power.  It is rather racist to conclude that way without analysing the Socio economic background of each ethnic group in the right context.  It is far worse and dangerous to suggest, that people should be held back to their ethnic percentage of the population.  And to do so while the permanent, unassailable, ethnic majority is vested with all the powers.  The British were focused primarily on administrative efficiency: An administrative system that worked to optimize trade. Their investments within the colonies were primarily on infrastructures such as paved roads and railways helping to move goods efficiently.  On a per capita or as a percentage of GDP, they spent very little on the education and medical needs of the subjects.  While the previous rulers, Portuguese and Dutch, also focused on trade, they put religious conversion on par as a priority. And they employed violent methods to prevent the locals from practising their own religion. On the other hand, The  East India company discouraged the work of the missionaries both in India and in Ceylon fearing the backlash of the locals. Influenced by this, successive British Governors Robert Brownrigg and Alexander Johnstone, prevented the American missions from working in the Sinhala areas at their first arrival.  But sent them to work among the numerically smaller Tamils instead.      

Boston Strong

As a result, Americans, specifically missionaries from the Boston area, played a major role in the socioeconomic  development of the Tamils during the early British rule.  The New England missionaries poured money and effort into developing the educational and medical care facilities of the Tamil regions.  Tamils had a head start in English education.  Making that the path for upward mobility through employment in Civil Service.  The British selected their candidates for civil service on a merit basis through an open civil service exam without an ethnic quota.   

No doubt the missionaries were very much focused on converting the “heathens” to Christianity through education. But the uniquely American pragmatism came through with a secular and diverse curriculum but set within a religious environment . The American missionaries who were in the Tamil regions were unique in many ways.  Their work in the Tamil regions and the impact it had on the Tamil psyche deserve an in-depth study. These missionaries were products of  the American revolutionary era. The individual members of the mission were part of the abolitionist movement in the America. And few had worked among the Black slaves in the southern states (way before the Civil war) for 6 years (1) before going to Ceylon to work among the Tamils.  It can not be an accident that the anti British agitation and demand for total independence first came from Jaffna and not from the Sinhala regions.  And they also brought with them a strong sense of social reform. They succeeded, after persistent effort, in getting students of multiple casts to study together(2) and more significantly in getting large number of girls into schooling: A feat all by itself for that era.  It is no coincidence that the Tamil sense of justice was shaped by dissenting and nonconformist puritans of the newly emerged America. Tamils were further beneficiaries of an American approach to education and social reform along the lines of the Calvinist tradition of Ivy league schools in the Northeast of United States.  

Numbers don't Lie.  

American mission worked in close collaboration with the Wesleyan and Church of England missions. By mid to late 1800’s, the proliferation of schools in the Tamil region was so impressive.  For a populations of about 300,000,

1) Christian missions alone had more than 100 schools teaching over 4000 students.

2) This does not take into account the parallel, competing, effort by the Hindu Saiva revivalists such as Arumuga Navalar in establishing schools teaching secular subjects but in a Saiva environment.   

3) So great is the desire for education, that people were willing to pay the full cost. (3)

4) The ratio of total available schools to the student aged population would have been in the single digits. A very impressive statistic.

Writings of the American missionaries in late 1800’s show the quantity and quality of the graduates are such that many, having exhausted employment opportunities in Ceylon,  seeked employment in all parts of India, Singapore and Rangoon (4): Plenty of Supply to meet the demand.

Now fast forward to 1944. At the time of discussions for full independence, Soulbury commision is having to address the same complaint leveled against the Tamils by the Sinhala leaders.  Note the Sinhala leaders, knowing the fact, did not accuse the British of favoring the Tamils( It only came after the British left Ceylon). Complaint was that the Tamils took up Government employment un-proportionally.  The same argument was repeated again in the 70’s on the topic of education as a justification for the elimination of merit.  The poor governance of the Sinhala leaders has, historically, led to the scapegoating of the Tamils as a deflection mechanism.  

1944 educational statistics submitted by the commision show the explosive growth of the vernacular schools between 1931 and 1944 at the expense of the English schools (5) .  A harbinger for the language issue 20 something years later in 1958. But the increased spending in the vernacular schools is correlated to the transfer of power to the Sinhalese under the 1931 constitution which the Tamils boycotted .  

1) The increase in schools between 1931 and 1944 did not result in a literacy level capable of passing the literacy test (6) had one was implemented to give voting rights.  The earlier Dougnermore commission did hear arguments for and against such a literacy test for voting eligibility.  Since the implementation of 1931 constitution, the government spending was skewed towards the religious buddhist schools and not towards a diverse curriculum.

2)  Having enjoyed an educational infrastructure without the support of a government prior to the transfer of power to the natives, Tamils were right to complain that the new government spending on education was not equitable.

3) The soulbury commission acknowledges Tamils “..benefitted for over a century from  first-rate secondary schools founded and endowed by missionary effort..” (7)

3) In 1938, Tamils held 19.4% of the various government department jobs as a result of this investment in education and not because of favor from the British.  This is not necessarily an outrageous percentage worthy of legislative level correction. Commission notes if ethnic proportionality is what Sinhala leaders were truly pworried about then they should be equally worried about the percentage of Burgher community in the Public services which they were not.   

4) Tamils highlighted to the commission of the manipulation of the Sinhala ministers of the selection board for the Public services and the elimination of Arithmetic as a compulsory subject in 1931 for the General Clerical Services exam as eliminating merit and discriminatory towards the Tamils

5) The commission dismissed this as “small acts of Discrimination”. Little realizing the beginning of the structural nature of the discrimination by the “permanent and unassailable majority”.

Such is the case of Ceylon and then Sri lanka that this permanent majority would continue to seek legislative, constitutional and judicial means to choke out even a reasonable political space for the Tamils people in that island.  And then use their monopoly on violence to deny even the means to advocate for such a political space.  This abuse of the system started in the 1920s progressed to employment in the 1930’s, to language in the 1950’s, and to education in the 1970s.  All along justifying it as somehow correcting an unfair advantage held by the Tamils. This lie still continues.

 British should own up to their catastrophic failure in Ceylon. While keeping for themselves an accommodative and devolved political system in the U.K ( Scottish, Irish) and supporting one in the region ( India, Burma), they sided with the Sinhala leaders against the Tamil wishes in propagating an unfair governance in Ceylon.  And they justified it in 1944 as balancing the benefit Tamils received under the missionaries.  Even when the Sinhala leaders demonstrated their narrow intents repeatedly, the British placed their trust in what became a Sinhala Budhhist system not accountable to anyone else.

That in not in any way a systematic favoring of the Tamils but the opposite.

 

(1)  Seven years in Ceylon: Stories of mission life by Mary and Margaret W.Leitch. pg 124:

(2) Seven years in Ceylon: Stories of mission life by Mary and Margaret W.Leitch.  pg 16

(3) Seven years in Ceylon: Stories of mission life by Mary and Margaret W.Leitch. pg 106

(4) Seven years in Ceylon: Stories of mission life by Mary and Margaret W.Leitch.  pg 110:

(5) Ceylon Constitution 1945. pg 149: http://archive.org/stream/CeylonConstitution-1945/CeylonConstitution#page/n161/mode/2up

(6)  Ceylon Constitution 1945. Pg 49

(7) Ceylon Constitution 1945. pg 49

 

The Sri Lankan (Unitary) Mindset

 

https://sangam.org/sri-lankan-unitary-mindset/

I wanted to write a quick post as a corollary to the recent exchanges between Guru and Dayan in Colombo telegraph.  I was glad to read that exchange.  I was also very happy to see Justice Wigneswaran’s  speech. Hopefully more and more discussions will follow on the nature of Sri Lakan state. I had been arguing that the Sri Lankan state has been inherently racist and violent from its very inception. And nothing sort of a full transformation of the state is the ONLY way to bring lasting peace to the island.  Unfortunately,  there are very few voices in the south that acknowledge this let alone willing to dialog about this.   Sinhala civil society’s focus just on law and order and good governance avoids fixing the problem.

How can there be good governance of a bad state?

Few points to ponder

1) Once their “permanent and unassailable majority” is enshrined into a unitary constitution, the very constitution that requires a majority of that “permanent and unassailable” ethnic majority to amend,  It is easy to preach the path of incrementalism: Sitting pretty and  fully aware that

1. The game is rigged in your favor.
2. The non existent political space of Tamils can never lead to a challenge of that system.

2) There has been no answer forthcoming from the Sri Lankan leaders to Guru’s earlier question. Why is there even a debate about the implementation of 13th Amendment? something that has been part of the constitution since 1987.  A pathetic debate about partial or full implementation of a constitution selectively to Tamils. Tamils are now forced to reduce themselves to this kind of Sri Lankan political bankruptcy.  Having to fight for something that is constitutional without even acknowledging this duplicity.

3) A new qualifier has been added by the Sri Lankan leaders. The defeated Tamils have to earn the trust of the Sinhalese for Tamils to be eligible for constitutional rights.

4)  By denying the constitutional right, Sri Lankan leaders accept that there is no political space for Tamils in Sri Lanka. Then they taunt Tamils with the 13 amendment as a potential starting point for a future political space. Coupled with that taunt is a threat. If you are not willing to operate in the space that we choose to give you, then you won’t have any space at all.

5)  Can one cite a Sri Lankan initiative since 1921 that showed the state is accountable to ALL of its people? Show that Sri Lankan state is capable of accommodating even the principles of incrementalism. Had that been the case, Sri Lankan state would have taken steps, on its own, without outside pressure, to acknowledge the need for a political space for the Tamils.  Had it been serious of reform, Douglas Devananda ( The darling of Dayan) would have delivered something to the Tamils.  Had it been genuine,  Tamils who chose to work with and within the Sri Lankan state would have been celebrated as leaders by the Tamils.

Sri Lankan leaders continue to work, since 1921, to take away every aspect of political and economic independence of Tamil people by any and every means.  When legislative and judicial means of suppression does not work fast enough, the Sri Lankan state resorts to violence and intimidation.  Dayan’s writings only highlight the continuation of this mindset.  The dismissive attitude he shows towards the Tamil leaders and framing the Tamil struggle either as brinkmanship or as irresponsible is double speak.  Somehow he thinks the Sinhala leaders should listen to the collective will of the Sinhala Buddhists but the Tamil leaders should ignore their people’s collective will and surrender to the Majoritarian mindset.    

Only as an illustration of the principal ( Tamil issue in Sri Lanka is not a minority rights issue as Sri Lankan leaders want us to accept), United States chose to make a political space for Rev. Martin Luther King so that Malcom-X will not create one on his own. Sri Lankan state and its people have never shown that foresight.

Tamil struggle has gone through different phases: Political representation, non-violence protest, and violent self defense. Throughout all this one constant is the Sri Lankan state’s ethnic majoritarian mindset.

Tamils now have a new component that did not exist til the 80’s. The Diaspora. The political space denied to their brethen is avilable to them. A new breed of young people are starting to test the limits of legislative and legal limits of their countries to bring accoutability in Sri Lanka. A more socially conscious and globally connected young generation is emerging in Tamil Nadu.  Living outside the reach of the violent Sri Lankan state, they both are free to take up the cause.  Tamils of Eelam have had a very proud history of dissent and creating pockets of resistance.   Now, that resistance is transnational.  The very imagined Srilankan fear of besiegement has now actually giving life to a pan Tamil colloboration.

Confident in their military victory, people like Dayan can continue to dismiss it.  The cost to defend the forced assimilation and annihilation of Tamils in Sri Lanka will be very high to the state.  But then again, as Dayan has argued, the Sinhala people are willing to pay it to protect the Unitary, Sinhala, Buddhist State.

What does that, then, tell the Tamils?

Throwback

 

“my military forces are now in the east and the north. There is a military rule in these two provinces, each with a military governor, yes, I say they are military governors. With my army I will see that there is no repeated attempt to set up a different administration in these provinces.”

  You can be excused if you thought this is a very recent quote from one of the Rajapakses.  But it is a quote of S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike from the Government Parliamentary Group meeting on June 3rd, 1958(1).  And it was said after many Tamils were killed in the pogram.  

After I wrote the previous post , I came across the book Emergency ‘58: The story of the Ceylon Race Riots by Tarzie Vittachi.  I have heard and read about the 1958 riots. I have also read that the story of the Hindu priest being burned alive (explained in the book) is what motivated Pirapaharan to fight back.  But I was actually taken back by the savagery of the 58 riots detailed in that book.  1983 riots dominates the liberal Sinhala and Tamil narratives.  Many tend to highlight 83 riots as a one off aberration. But the details in the book show the 58 riots were a play-by-play rehearsal for the 83 riots in a larger scale.  The planning, the players, the non existent state response during the riot, and scapegoating of the Tamils afterwards were all from the same play book.  Replayed again in 1983.

While many individual heroics are always deservingly highlighted for saving Tamil lives, who will take the accountability for the collective failure to prevent the 1983 in the first place after witnessing 1958?  And to have sat idle and watched 2009 unfold?

Are we embarrassed to admit why it was easy to confuse the above quote for something said in 2013? That we are no better than where we were in 1958.  That no lesson was ever learned.  And yet many among us seem to think that the pending Sep election in the North is a gift from heaven.

Ever since the British, after much debate, transitioned our ancestors from a “representative government” to a “responsible government”, there has been one constant. That is the increasing scale of violence that the state was willing to dispense collectively against the Tamils as culminated in Mullivaikal in May 2009. Or redirect it at anyone unable to defend for that matter (3).  

Clergy men’s hate speeches are captured on mobile phones now and they go viral:  Monk’s gone wild.  Had we had social media in 1958, we could have clearly seen that the role of the monk’s then was no different than than the JHU and the BBS variety of today: Instigators of Intimidation.

If the constitution says the state has to protect Sinhala buddhism, isn't the police doing exactly that by protecting the monks against ill treatment (2)?  Operating dutifully within a constitutional mandate.  I know that is a stretch but the unabashed state patronage (2) to this hooliganism only highlights the sense of impunity the monks, the military, the police, the politician, and even judiciary officials feel in Sri Lanka.

Few posts ago, I mentioned the violent nature of the Sri Lankan state and the seeming tolerance of it by the citizens.  This diagnosis seems to be missing within the Sinhala Buddhist discourse.  As evident by the logic defying, popular, narrative in the south of Sri Lanka that no large atrocity ever happened in 2009. Tamil press can be burned down. Muslims can be intimidated.  

Politicians see the silence of the electorate.  

Few who want to be seen as fashionably liberal, limit themselves to the easiest of the causes: The ones Sivaram called the “Che Guevara t-shirt” variety. They never challenge the system. They don't want to.  The Dayan Jeyatileka kind only want to change the playbook but still keep the game(5).

  Vittachi concludes the book with a question. “Have the Sinhalese and the Tamils reached the parting of the ways?” The question was asked in 1958.  It was definitively answered, 25 years later, in 1983. Another 26 years later, in 2009, we were reminded of the answer.

55 years after Vittachi first asked the question, who in the Sinhala community is willing to openly ask the question,

Do we ever, in good consciousness, entrust the safety and security of the Tamils to a violent state that thinks it is only accountable to Sinhala Buddhists?   

(1) Emergency ‘58. The story of the Ceylon Race Riots by Tarzie Vittachi ( page 85).

(2) http://colombogazette.com/2013/04/12/police-bbs-block-peaceful-vigil/

(3) http://gulfnews.com/opinions/columnists/tears-of-muslims-in-divided-sri-lanka-1.1169972

4) http://za.news.yahoo.com/gunmen-attack-tamil-newspaper-northern-sri-lanka-070652205.html

5) <http://www.dailymirror.lk/opinion/172-opinion/27324-sri-lankas-foreign-policy-lacks-architecture-dayan.html>