Relevance of 1956 and failure of SWRD

by Asoka Amaratunga-January 5, 2018, 9:58 pm 

Several letters on the state of education in Sri Lanka today and the benefits and disadvantages of the Sinhala Only Act of 1956 have appeared in these columns recently. Though some writers have attempted to debate the importance of the Sinhala Only Act, unfortunately they have not discussed the socio-political and historical relevance of the greater dimensions of the 1956 upheaval. Some have attributed the victory of SWRD to the unpopularity of the then Prime Minister Sir John Kotalawela and the growing popularity of the Left parties and the "hartal". Others have simplistically called it a victory of the common people. Yet others in a negative sense had labeled it as the beginning of extremist nationalism in this country, the consequences of which are still being witnessed. Even SWRD Bandaranaike may not have fully understood this phenomenon and why people voted for him and his Sinhala Only Act. This may have been the reason for his failure. SWRD may have failed to understand the socio-political and historical undercurrents of the surge that propelled him to victory.

First and foremost one must understand what is meant by nationalism, for what happened in 1956 was more or less a manifestation of national consciousness. Nationalism should not be extremist, racist, aggressive or oppressive and it has never been that in Sinhala nationalism. On the contrary, it has been, in the main, protective, benevolent and generous to all minority communities; that is why they perform so well in every sphere of life in this country. Nationalism must originate, as it has happened in Sri Lanka, from the civilisational consciousness of the people who had built and nurtured a country, protected it from invaders, colonial powers, separatist movements etc. Nationalist feelings develop in the minds of a people, when their country, culture, language and religion are at peril. Historically this had been a persistent threat to Sri Lanka being a small country with strategic importance and a giant neighbour. As a result, the country had suffered and is suffering due to invasions and interference from regional as well as extra-regional countries. Whenever such violations occurred, the people's civilizational consciousness, which exists as a dormant force, harboured in the subconscious mind, could surface and manifest as an uprising or even a rebellion; as it had happened so often in the history of this country. The successful wars conducted against the South Indian and European invasions and the separatists in the recent past bear testimony to this fact. Kings and leaders who gave leadership to these wars and rebellions command great respect, admiration and popularity among the people.

It is no exaggeration to recognize the 1956 SLFP victory as a manifestation of the national consciousness that had been in the minds of the people from the inception of a civilisation in Sri Lanka. From early times there had been leaders who gave leadership to such manifestations. Apart from the heroic kings like Dutu Gemunu of the past, Anagarika Dharmapala could be considered as another leader who realized the need to galvanize this consciousness in order to develop people's resistance against the British occupation. Then there were the leaders who led the war against the Tamil separatist terrorists and who are held in esteem by the people, which again is proof of the presence and its possible surfacing of a civilisational consciousness. This consciousness gradually developed beginning from the time of the first South Indian invasion, and now is a force that rises up whenever the need arises.

Independence from British rule would have brought hope into the minds of people of all communities that they would not be second class citizens in their own country. But that was not to be. The British had, by their cultural invasion, made the ruling elite in the country almost British, sans the white skin. Their motive was to pursue their imperialist agenda via the rulers they had left behind. Nationalism, to some degree, led by people like Anagarika Dharmapala fought against this trend. SWRD Bandaranaike, who had ambitions of coming to power, making use of the opportunity created by the nationalists, adopted the rallying cry of "Sinhala Only". Paradoxically, he had spoken in favour of federalism earlier. He may have somewhat discriminated against the minorities, perhaps driven by political expediency, by opting for Sinhala Only. The word "only" should not have been there in the Sinhala Only Act. There was nothing wrong in making Sinhala the official language and the medium of instruction in schools as P.A.Samaraweera has elaborated, but the Tamil language should have been given its due, and education of English, both in schools and in universities, should not have been neglected. Education, particularly in the universities, was made accessible to the poor rural people by making Sinhala the medium of instruction and this aspect has been discussed at length in these columns. Research studies by educationists have found that education is better when done in one's mother tongue, for both understanding and retention of what is learnt is found to be better. Further, the link between the state and the people is their language, and when the government does business in some other language people cannot communicate with the government, which is essential for good governance. Discrimination against the Tamil language caused by the Sinhala Only Act is water under the bridge; these past mistakes have been corrected and there is no justification in saying that the consequences of that Act are still being witnessed. What is witnessed at present and in the recent past are the consequences of Tamil separatism, which could be traced back to the time before independence.

SWRD did the correct thing in making Sinhala the official language, but he had not realized that what was required was to view all issues from the national point of view. This is what was required to solve the complex problems of the people who had been a subject nation for several centuries. Language, and may be cultural aspects, were not the only issues that needed to be addressed. There was a need to free the people from the colonial yoke. For instance, just to take one important aspect, there should have been an attempt made to develop a national economy. The country's economy was controlled by the western powers to their advantage. The SLFP which was the political party that represented the national interests, failed to address these issues during the period they were in power. From 1956 until 2015 it had failed in this national duty on the occasions when it ruled the country, and this failure proved to be the cause of their defeat at the elections as in 1977 and also in 2014. There are several countries which had successfully developed their country, according to a national programme of work, and freed their countries from the yoke of colonialism. For example, China and to a degree Malaysia, had achieved substantial improvement in most of the important sectors such as culture, language, and economy, adopting a policy based on nationalism. China, particularly, which was comparable to India in the 1940s, has overtaken many countries which were ahead of it and now is second only to the USA and may soon overtake that country too. SWRD no doubt laid the foundation for national development but failed to carry it through. Similarly, his party the SLFP too had failed in this respect.