Colonial hangovers 59 years after independence

by Janaka Perera

How many of us are really enthusiastic about our National Day as we are, say about Sinhala-Hindu New Year, Vesak, Christmas or Ramazan?

Perhaps the reason is that since 1848 we waged neither a violent nor non-violent (civil disobedience) struggle to win freedom from the British. It came to us largely as a result of India's independence movement and World War II. Our non-violent `struggle' was for the most part a call for more power sharing and constitutional reforms - a campaign which continues in a different form to this day!

The political transformation that Sri Lanka underwent in 1947-48 has been controversial. When Sri Lanka was granted dominion status both nationalists and Marxists called it a colonialist trick and they were not wrong.

The Ceylon Independence Act 1947 of the British Parliament did not raise our country to the status of a free and sovereign state but merely conferred on it the status of a self-governing member of the British Empire. As a reaction to this farce members of the Buddhist clergy gathered at the Kelaniya Temple on January 6, 1947 issued a Proclamation which declared that Sri Lanka is a Free and Independent Sovereign State.

This proclamation has now become historic as the Kelaniya Declaration of Independence ("Revolt in the Temple").

To the SLFP and its supporters greater independence came with making Sinhala the official language and the nationalization of British military bases after 1956. But to the JVP it was no freedom. So they launched the abortive April 1971 insurgency and ended up being charged with "waging war against the Queen" under the Soulbury Constitution.

In 1972 we were introduced to the Republican Constitution, which its architects claimed was the foundation of true national independence. In 1977 came the Executive Presidential System under which there have been so many constitutional amendments that a wag termed the Sri Lanka Constitution a monthly magazine!

Not surprisingly this lack of a clear political vision on national issues marked the beginning of a scourge that hit us in less than 40 years after British rule ended. It is the LTTE's monstrous and bloody `liberation struggle' which has led to nothing but absolute misery for the majority of Tamils - not to mention other communities. Nothing better illustrates this than TULF Leader V. Anandasangaree's appeal last week for urgent action to save the Tamil people from total annihilation by Prabhakaran. In other words the country has been pushed into second struggle for freedom - this time from a rogue State that has invaded our territory with the blessings of traitors and political clowns among us. Fortunately however their attempt to secure legal status for the ISGA and P-Toms failed miserably.

Often you find here people who say it would have been better for us if we had continued to be a British colony. Others say that the English should have been the official language rather than Sinhala or Tamil. We cannot really blame them for saying so in the light of their experiences of the past several decades. Nevertheless such expressions display their half-baked knowledge of colonial rule and of Sri Lanka's history. It is a reflection of a confused society that is still groping in the dark nearly 60 years after the British departed.

But among Indians we find virtually no such confusion about European rule. They have had a clear vision and formulated a national policy accordingly soon after India regained independence.

In 1983, 'Los Angeles Times' roving correspondent David Lamb said of some of the newly independent African states: "The colonialists designed the scenario for disaster, and the Africans seem to be trying their best to fulfill it." ('The Africans') This has largely been the case of Sri Lanka too.

When the British introduced to Sri Lanka ethnic representation in politics and administration under their divide and rule policy on communal lines it was the recipe for today's ethno-linguistic morass that we find ourselves mired in. In fact the British foresaw this prior to 1948, when some reportedly expressed the view that "the natives would not be able to govern themselves" once independence was granted because the white man had completely changed the country's political landscape to meet his colonial objectives. They included making Sri Lankans look down upon their own history and heritage.

The last King of Kandy and two of his predecessors were Tamils. But what mattered to the Kandyan people was not really the monarch's ethnicity but that he upheld the country's time-hallowed cultural and religious traditions and the ancient laws and customs. Buddhist-Hindu harmony thus helped Sinhala-Tamil amity. But our immediate post independence governments never seriously studied this. When colonialism ended many of our leaders and middle-class citizens had turned into `people with brown skins and white minds.'

Having lost their bearings they simply continued from where the British left off with only a few cosmetic changes - instead of initiating the socio-economic, cultural and educational transformations required for an independent nation. This failure was a grave lapse on our part.

Its first danger signal was the attempt on January 27, 1962 to overthrow the Sirima Bandaranaike government. The conspirators were a group of military and police officers that belonged to a generation, which was virtually alienated from Sri Lanka's history, culture and traditions and consequently failed to comprehend the complex and sometimes controversial socio-political changes that swept Sri Lanka since 1956.

The 'spiritual heirs' of the conspirators of 1962 are however still with us. In fact two years ago one of them wanted to commemorate the 500th anniversary of the Portuguese encounter in Sri Lanka. Another - a business tycoon - told the foreign press that the Tigers are not terrorists but genuine freedom fighters!

These two characters symbolize the aberrations and deformities in our society which today needs a strong national cultural base if we are to forge ahead. Dr. Gunadasa Amarasekera quoting Samuel Huntington (in 'Who are We?') writes: "Throughout American history, people who were not white Anglo-Saxon Protestants have become Americans by adopting America's Anglo Protestant Culture and political values. This benefited them and the country. American National identity and unity, as Benjamin C. Schwarz has said, derived `from the ability and willingness of an Anglo-American elite to stamp its image on other peoples coming to this country'." ('Sunday Island" December 17, 2006)

This is the example we Sri Lankans need to follow in going back to our roots.

If the United States which has a history of less than 300 years can adopt such a system there is no reason why Sri Lanka with a written history of over 2500 years should not pursue such a policy. In fact it should be the basis of our education system, which is today almost totally divorced from the country's historical, social and geographical reality - which was the foundation of its culture, economy and way of life.

The country experienced the tragic consequences of our shortsighted educational policies in two Southern insurgencies. To a great extent the same can be said about the start of the crisis in the North and East. It is therefore a small wonder that almost six decades after independence we are still a developing Third World nation.

When the State of Israel was formed, it was expected that English, French or German would be adopted as its official language. But the Israelis revived their Hebrew language, which did not have much of a modern vocabulary. And the Israeli media played a big role in developing and spreading the language.

By trial and error the modern Hebrew language came into being. Under the Meiji restoration (1868), Japan formulated its educational policy on the European model, but made it an indigenous system that provided equal opportunities to all Japanese. And thus they all became equal partners in national development.

Today Japanese are keen to learn English to widen their intellectual horizons and expand international business opportunities.

But no Japanese finds it impossible to get a good job because he or she is not proficient in English. I shall conclude by citing the experience of a former colleague, the late Malcolm Vijithapala, former Senior Assistant Secretary, Education Ministry and freelance journalist. He was present when an Indian professor who gave a lecture to a foreign audience. Before the lecture the professor had conversed in what we call a `polished' English accent with a few people who had gathered there. But later during the lecture, the same professor had spoken English with a typical Indian accent. When a member of the audience asked him the reason for it, his reply was:

"Because I want to show that I am an Indian." It is a moot point how many Sri Lankans have such feelings about their country and heritage.