by S. Rasalingam in Toronto(December, 19, Toronto, Sri Lanka Guardian) Recent weeks have given us an opportunity to go back to the Senanayake era and reflect on history with the wisdom of hindsight. Unfortunately, Chilcott's diplomatic faux pas and ignorance of Sri Lanka history did not help much in the recent oration at Dudley's commemoration, probably written by some ghost-writer of the British Mission. We thank Mr. Hullugalle for doing the needful in the most diplomatic manner possible.
The Senanayakes, father and son, followed the concept of a United Sri Lanka, where all communities could join in as "Ceylonese". I quote from Dudley's father's speech in the State Council, in 1946: " ... throughout this period the Ministers had in view one objective only, the attainment of maximum freedom.
***************************************
Dudley Senanayake's politics was a genuine continuation of his father's policy of the "Ceylonese" nation. In 1946, even G. G. Ponnambalam renounced his highly confrontational politics and called for "responsive cooperation with the Sinhalese leaders", and agreed to join the D. S. Senanayake Cabinet. ***************************************
Accusations of Sinhalese domination have been bandied about. We can afford to ignore them for it must be plain to every one that what we sought was not Sinhalese domination, but Ceylonese domination. We devised a scheme that was favourable to the minorities; we deliberately protected them against discriminatory legislation. We vested important powers in the Governor-General... We decided upon an Independent Public Service Commission so as to give assurance that there should be no communalism in the Public Service. I do not normally speak as a Sinhalese, and I do not think that the Leader of this Council ought to think of himself as a Sinhalese representative, but for once I should like to speak as a Sinhalese and assert with all the force at my command that the interests of one community are the interests of all. We are one of another, whatever race or creed."
Dudley Senanayake's politics was a genuine continuation of his father's policy of the "Ceylonese" nation. In 1946, even G. G. Ponnambalam renounced his highly confrontational politics and called for "responsive cooperation with the Sinhalese leaders", and agreed to join the D. S. Senanayake Cabinet. This was when Chelvanayagam and others saw an opportunity and rushed into the Tamil nationalist arena vacated by Ponnambalam.
Ponnambalam was denounced as a ‘traitor’ by the Chelvanayagam band-wagon which went on to form the "Federal Party". Calling anyone who attempts to work with the Sinhalese a "Traitor" is also the hallmark of today's LTTE.
The "Ilankai Tamil Arasu Kachchi" was founded by Chelvanayagam and others, and took up a strident cry which was firmly rejected by the Tamil voters in 1947.
The name ‘Arasu Kachchi’ implies "sovereign Party" a fact explicitly stated in the Tamil language publications of the ITAK. This was surely not lost on the Sinhala nationalists.
The ITAK stood for confrontation with the Sinhalese, the very opposite policy of the Senanayake politics. They attempted to project Senanayake as a Sinhalese Chauvinist who discriminated against Tamils in Colonisation, jobs, education etc., i.e., the very same accusations by G. G. Ponnambalam that the Soulbury commissioners had rejected. Most leaders of the country in the late 1940s developed a fear that the leftists would capture the key tea-estate sector. This was the rationale for the disenfranchisement of the Indian Estate Tamils, engineered by Senanayake and Ponnambalam.
Accusations of Sinhalese domination have been bandied about. We can afford to ignore them for it must be plain to every one that what we sought was not Sinhalese domination, but Ceylonese domination. We devised a scheme that was favourable to the minorities; we deliberately protected them against discriminatory legislation. We vested important powers in the Governor-General... We decided upon an Independent Public Service Commission so as to give assurance that there should be no communalism in the Public Service. I do not normally speak as a Sinhalese, and I do not think that the Leader of this Council ought to think of himself as a Sinhalese representative, but for once I should like to speak as a Sinhalese and assert with all the force at my command that the interests of one community are the interests of all. We are one of another, whatever race or creed."
Dudley Senanayake's politics was a genuine continuation of his father's policy of the "Ceylonese" nation. In 1946, even G. G. Ponnambalam renounced his highly confrontational politics and called for "responsive cooperation with the Sinhalese leaders", and agreed to join the D. S. Senanayake Cabinet. This was when Chelvanayagam and others saw an opportunity and rushed into the Tamil nationalist arena vacated by Ponnambalam.
Ponnambalam was denounced as a ‘traitor’ by the Chelvanayagam band-wagon which went on to form the "Federal Party". Calling anyone who attempts to work with the Sinhalese a "Traitor" is also the hallmark of today's LTTE.
The "Ilankai Tamil Arasu Kachchi" was founded by Chelvanayagam and others, and took up a strident cry which was firmly rejected by the Tamil voters in 1947.
The name ‘Arasu Kachchi’ implies "sovereign Party" a fact explicitly stated in the Tamil language publications of the ITAK. This was surely not lost on the Sinhala nationalists.
The ITAK stood for confrontation with the Sinhalese, the very opposite policy of the Senanayake politics. They attempted to project Senanayake as a Sinhalese Chauvinist who discriminated against Tamils in Colonisation, jobs, education etc., i.e., the very same accusations by G. G. Ponnambalam that the Soulbury commissioners had rejected. Most leaders of the country in the late 1940s developed a fear that the leftists would capture the key tea-estate sector. This was the rationale for the disenfranchisement of the Indian Estate Tamils, engineered by Senanayake and Ponnambalam.
***************************************************
The Senanayakes and Ponnambalam have been defamed in the Tamil language publications, and their vision rejected and replaced by the vision and propaganda of the Arasu Kachchi started in 1948, as an Ultra -Nationalist organisation. It has gradually become "moderate" in comparison to the LTTE.
***************************************************
But, this was again used by the ITAK to present Ponnamabalm as a "Traitor" to the Tamils, ignoring that unlike Ponnambalam, many Tamils opposed the enfranchisement of the Indian Tamils due to their caste. Senanayake had also supported the enfranchisement in 1941, at the Indo-Ceylon Talks. It should also be noted that the majority of Indian Tamils had never gained franchise as it was had been restrained by Governor Stanley in the early 1930s in response to the demands by Sinhala Kandyan and Tamil elitist (caste-minded) leaders. The leftist nightmare that DSS and others had feared, and tried to prevent, in installing the Indian citizenship act, reappeared as a general "Hartal" (work stoppage as a prelude to capturing power) in 1953. This was greatly feared by Dudley Senanayake. Dudley developed a stomach ulcer, regretted the use of force and resigned. Power went into the hands of Kotelawala, the least sensitive (or sensible) senior man in the UNP.
The Federal Party may never have become much but for the rise of S. W. R. D. Bandaranaike (SWRD). Did SWRD leave because he felt that DSS was grooming his son for power? Or did DSS feel that SWRD was too much of a Sinhala Nationalist who could not be trusted with the balancing act? In dealing with SWRD, the ITAK began its "Sathyagrahas", fully knowing that they were going to end in bloodshed. This was exactly what they wanted in keeping with its separatist ("Arasu") agenda. Even in the USA, in the 1950s, civil rights protests led to riots and violence. Thus, I believe that the Federal party set the stage, willy nilly, for what is history. There were no "bridge-building efforts" launched between the two communities. All acts of the Federal party were directed towards the aggravation of the confrontation, while pretending that they were "peaceful demonstrations". J. R. Jayewardene also fuelled the fire with his anti-Tamil marches. The political environment was not favourable for the Banda-Chela Pact to work. When Dudley came to power again, he, too, tried to solve the problem. Here the Federal party played a double game. In Jaffna they vowed not to cooperate with a Sinhala government but used Senator Thiruchelvam as its cat's paw. During this period, too, there was no attempt to build bridges between the two communities.
In 1965 an armed youth group was formed in Trincomalee ("Pulip Padai") with the connivance of the ITAK. It was in such an atmosphere that Dudley Senanayake tried to adopt a "district based" approach to rectify the errors of the Bandaranaike government.
Although Senanayake and other "anglicised" Singhalese and some Tamils still supported the united "Ceylonese" approach to the national problem, I am not at all sure if the ITAK honestly believed in the Dudley-Chelva district council politics.
Even though no one can justifiably claim that Dudley was a Sinhala Chauvinist, this label was stuck on him. Dudley merely had a minority government which couldn’t be expected to resolve the problem. But, his vision was the same as his father’s. Dudley was defeated by Sirima’s coalition which had a strong majority and the capacity to solve the ethnic problem. Instead, it simply followed the "Indian Model" of Indira Gandhi, who wielded the big stick in dealing with Sikh separatists.
The ITAK leaders were jailed and they became heroes of sorts. They had achieved their objective, and it was time for Vaddukkodei Resolution of 1974, where any cooperation with the Sinhalese was rejected, and Ealam was officially sanctioned. Those who cooperated with the government were branded ‘traitors’.
With the passage of time, Sivakumaran, the first militant to take cyanide became a hero, and "Traitors" like Alfred Dureiappah marked men. "State terror" was heroically welcomed in several public speeches in Jaffna that I attended.
J. R. Jayewardene came to power with a crushing majority in 1977. Unlike the highly democratic Dudley Senanayake, who did everything after seeking consensus, J.R. did what he thought was needed.
He met most of the demands of the Tamils, granted citizenship to the Indian estate Tamils, and (at least on paper) rectified the sins committed in the past. Tamil MPs like Canagaratnam rushed to the UNP to give support to the JR regime. Unfortunately, Cangaratnam was deemed a "traitor" and assassinated. Tamil public servants who tried to enact the Tamil provisions were threatened, as Tamils needed to continue to maintain their grievances. The Tamils and our TULF, led by Amirthalingam had now become the pliant, voiceless tail of the Tiger. Even being the Leader of the Opposition was unacceptable.
The Senanayakes and Ponnambalam have been defamed in the Tamil language publications, and their vision rejected and replaced by the vision and propaganda of the Arasu Kachchi started in 1948, as an Ultra -Nationalist organisation. It has gradually become "moderate" in comparison to the LTTE.
But, this was again used by the ITAK to present Ponnamabalm as a "Traitor" to the Tamils, ignoring that unlike Ponnambalam, many Tamils opposed the enfranchisement of the Indian Tamils due to their caste. Senanayake had also supported the enfranchisement in 1941, at the Indo-Ceylon Talks. It should also be noted that the majority of Indian Tamils had never gained franchise as it was had been restrained by Governor Stanley in the early 1930s in response to the demands by Sinhala Kandyan and Tamil elitist (caste-minded) leaders. The leftist nightmare that DSS and others had feared, and tried to prevent, in installing the Indian citizenship act, reappeared as a general "Hartal" (work stoppage as a prelude to capturing power) in 1953. This was greatly feared by Dudley Senanayake. Dudley developed a stomach ulcer, regretted the use of force and resigned. Power went into the hands of Kotelawala, the least sensitive (or sensible) senior man in the UNP.
The Federal Party may never have become much but for the rise of S. W. R. D. Bandaranaike (SWRD). Did SWRD leave because he felt that DSS was grooming his son for power? Or did DSS feel that SWRD was too much of a Sinhala Nationalist who could not be trusted with the balancing act? In dealing with SWRD, the ITAK began its "Sathyagrahas", fully knowing that they were going to end in bloodshed. This was exactly what they wanted in keeping with its separatist ("Arasu") agenda. Even in the USA, in the 1950s, civil rights protests led to riots and violence. Thus, I believe that the Federal party set the stage, willy nilly, for what is history. There were no "bridge-building efforts" launched between the two communities. All acts of the Federal party were directed towards the aggravation of the confrontation, while pretending that they were "peaceful demonstrations". J. R. Jayewardene also fuelled the fire with his anti-Tamil marches. The political environment was not favourable for the Banda-Chela Pact to work. When Dudley came to power again, he, too, tried to solve the problem. Here the Federal party played a double game. In Jaffna they vowed not to cooperate with a Sinhala government but used Senator Thiruchelvam as its cat's paw. During this period, too, there was no attempt to build bridges between the two communities.
In 1965 an armed youth group was formed in Trincomalee ("Pulip Padai") with the connivance of the ITAK. It was in such an atmosphere that Dudley Senanayake tried to adopt a "district based" approach to rectify the errors of the Bandaranaike government.
Although Senanayake and other "anglicised" Singhalese and some Tamils still supported the united "Ceylonese" approach to the national problem, I am not at all sure if the ITAK honestly believed in the Dudley-Chelva district council politics.
Even though no one can justifiably claim that Dudley was a Sinhala Chauvinist, this label was stuck on him. Dudley merely had a minority government which couldn’t be expected to resolve the problem. But, his vision was the same as his father’s. Dudley was defeated by Sirima’s coalition which had a strong majority and the capacity to solve the ethnic problem. Instead, it simply followed the "Indian Model" of Indira Gandhi, who wielded the big stick in dealing with Sikh separatists.
The ITAK leaders were jailed and they became heroes of sorts. They had achieved their objective, and it was time for Vaddukkodei Resolution of 1974, where any cooperation with the Sinhalese was rejected, and Ealam was officially sanctioned. Those who cooperated with the government were branded ‘traitors’.
With the passage of time, Sivakumaran, the first militant to take cyanide became a hero, and "Traitors" like Alfred Dureiappah marked men. "State terror" was heroically welcomed in several public speeches in Jaffna that I attended.
J. R. Jayewardene came to power with a crushing majority in 1977. Unlike the highly democratic Dudley Senanayake, who did everything after seeking consensus, J.R. did what he thought was needed.
He met most of the demands of the Tamils, granted citizenship to the Indian estate Tamils, and (at least on paper) rectified the sins committed in the past. Tamil MPs like Canagaratnam rushed to the UNP to give support to the JR regime. Unfortunately, Cangaratnam was deemed a "traitor" and assassinated. Tamil public servants who tried to enact the Tamil provisions were threatened, as Tamils needed to continue to maintain their grievances. The Tamils and our TULF, led by Amirthalingam had now become the pliant, voiceless tail of the Tiger. Even being the Leader of the Opposition was unacceptable.
The Senanayakes and Ponnambalam have been defamed in the Tamil language publications, and their vision rejected and replaced by the vision and propaganda of the Arasu Kachchi started in 1948, as an Ultra -Nationalist organisation. It has gradually become "moderate" in comparison to the LTTE.
 Recent weeks have given us an opportunity to go back to the Senanay...){kind=link}
Post a Comment