Nation Building; A Narrative Ignored in Sri Lanka

Speech by

Victor Ivan
Founder Editor "Ravaya" newspaper and social critique
On 12 May, 2016 at the SLFI, Colombo
The forum was organized by the social activist group 'DecentLanka2015' on the theme "Nation
Building and Reconciliation" based on the collective of articles published as "Unearthed Ten
Years in Sri Lanka; 2005 to 2015" by journalist and political critic Kusal Perera

In my speech, I propose to discuss the problem of Nation Building in the

context of Sri Lanka. I also wish to examine the reasons that helped India to
succeed in nation-building while Sri Lanka failed.
In modern terms, a nation can be broadly defined as a mass of people consisting
of one or more races, castes, religions and languages, associated with a
particular territory or country, sufficiently bonded by a strong and common
sense of "belonging" to that territory.
The emergence of modern "States" and modern "Nations" which are essential
for the beneficial existence of the former is an outcome of the historical process
that paralleled capitalist transformation which occurred in the face of the decline
of the ancient feudalism. The emergence of capitalism in Europe can be
considered as a natural outcome of the crumbling of feudalism caused by the
intensification of internal rifts and strife that grew within the system itself. But,
in countries like Sri Lanka which were under colonial rule, the situation was
different. Emergence of the capitalist system in these countries was a direct
outcome of the influence of the colonial administration.
The Nation states that emerged in Europe did not have a need for nationbuilding on a planned basis. The emergence of Nations and Nation States in
those countries can be considered as an outcome of great events that took place
over a period of nearly three centuries and the renaissance associated with it.
The great schism in the Catholic Church, decline of the monopolistic power
enjoyed by theology over a long period, great developments in science, revolt
against feudal system, phenomenal growth in the spheres of Politics,
Philosophy, and Art, the decay of the feudal monarchies, the birth of
representative governments and the industrial revolution were among several
important events that led to make Europe into nations that think intelligently
and in keeping with modern trends.

DecentLanka2015 Forum on Nation Building & Reconciliation / 2016 May 12 ; SLFI

Page 1

However, in countries like Sri Lanka which were under colonial rule, no such
changes occurred corresponding to the emergence of capitalism. People of Sri
Lanka did not revolt against the feudal system or the system of feudal
monarchy. The people who lived in those days were not even aware of the great
upheavals such as British, American and the French revolutions. It was after
over one hundred years of their occurrence that we came to know of such great
social upheavals.
Introduction of a plantation economy in Sri Lanka during the British Colonial
rule resulted in the elimination of the feudal system and the country being
eventually transformed into a capitalist system. Along with this, a central
system of administration and a judicial system embracing the whole island came
into being. The whole country was co-ordinated and connected into one single
entity by linking remote areas through roads, railway and communication
networks. In this special backdrop a situation more or less similar to that of
nation states in Europe was created. Nevertheless, there was no potential for
spontaneous emergence of a new or a homogenous nation in Sri Lanka as
happened in Europe.
The factors such as the abolition of the rajakariya system which served as the
main foundation of caste system, disintegration of feudal bonds to the land,
introduction of a legal system in which everybody was acknowledged as equal
and expansion of school education created a strong background conducive to
creating a new nation if it were so desired. However, this background alone is
not adequate for a new nation to emerge on its own. It remained a thing to be
achieved consciously and through concrete effort. Making this historical task a
reality was the responsibility of the movement for an independent Ceylon and
its leaders.
The challenge of nation building did not remain an issue confined only to then
Ceylon. It was a common issue encountered by all countries which gained
independence after long years of colonial rule. India, our immediate neighbour
too, had to face this problem. Though India was relatively a large country
compared to Sri Lanka and was with a capitalist system firmly established, India
still had similarities with then Ceylon in the way the nation states were been
formed.
Both countries had faced with the political challenge of gaining independence
from British colonial rule. The question of how a nation state could be built can
be reckoned as the most important and complex challenge that the independence
movements and their leaders of the two countries faced, if they were seriously
concerned in fortifying the nation state inherited from the British. Obviously,
the task would have been harder and more formidable for India than for Ceylon.
DecentLanka2015 Forum on Nation Building & Reconciliation / 2016 May 12 ; SLFI

Page 2

In terms of the extent of land there was a vast difference between the two
countries. The land area of Sri Lanka was 65,610 sq.kms while that of India
remained at 3,287,781 sq.kms. The difference in population was huge with India
having 300 mn people while that of then Ceylon was only 06 mn. As far as the
number of castes, languages and tribes were concerned, India had a complex
and multifarious situation. Sri Lanka had only less than 10 social divisions
falling into categories of castes and tribes. India has more than a hundred such
social groups. Sri Lanka had only 03 languages while India has 847 languages
including regional dialects. In comparison with Sri Lanka, the question of nation
building remained a very complex issue in India. Nevertheless, India was able
to resolve the issue quite successfully. We in Sri Lanka were unable to find a
solution despite our issue being relatively simpler compared to the complexity
that India encountered.
It is important to understand why the independent movement of then Ceylon
and its leaders failed to resolve the question of building the nation while Indian
leaders were able to resolve it successfully despite the abounding multifarious
complexities.
As far as class background and level of education were concerned, in both
countries, there was similarity between leaders of the religious renaissance
movement and the independence movement that followed. Yet, their visions
were poles apart.
Usually, religious movements precede agitations launched for political
independence. In almost in every country under Colonial, rule that was that. So
much so, the fundamental intellectual awakening and inspiration necessary for
independence movements were kindled by religious movements. However,
when compared to the Hindu and Muslim religious renaissance movements in
India, the ideology and thinking that were promoted by those in Ceylon can be
described as backward and retrogressive.
Leaders of Hindu and Muslim religious renaissance movements in India
consisted of people who had correctly grasped the essence of the European
renaissance movement. They did not consider the religion they believed as the
only true religion. They did not adopt interpretations in creating divisions in
other religions. Instead; they were more concerned about the need for reforming
out-dated practices and rituals of their own religion which were not compatible
with an emerging modern world. In fact, they appeared for religious
reconciliation and amity. They can be considered as leaders full of humanitarian
values.
DecentLanka2015 Forum on Nation Building & Reconciliation / 2016 May 12 ; SLFI

Page 3

Raja Ram Mohan Roy, the most acknowledged leader of the Hindu Renaissance
Movement in Bengal was recognized as the embodiment of the Vishva Vyaapi
Devavaadya (Universal Atheism). He described the Brahmo Samaj, an
influential Bengali socio-religious reform movement which he founded .as a
universal church. Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, the leader of the Islam Renaissance
Movement in India, held the view that all religious beliefs are the same and it
was the same religious teacher who had appeared in different forms in different
communities. All recognized leaders of the Hindu Renaissance Movement were
against the Hindu caste system. They were against the practice of
"untouchability", the imposition of social disabilities on persons by reason of
birth into a particular caste and the system of child marriages. They favoured
young widows remarrying. The religious renaissance movement in India can be
considered more a movement which had placed a very high weightage on
humanism than traditional religious beliefs. They can be described as a
movement committed to promote the ideas that helped to bring about consensus
among diverse groups and ensure national integration.
The Buddhist and Hindu Religious Renaissance Movement in Ceylon cannot be
described as progressive. They were often critical of other religions and did not
have a criticism of out dated elements in their own religion. Instead of
promoting goodwill among different religions they promoted divisions and rifts
among religions. Instead of creating peace among ethnic groups, they resorted
to creating differences among them. In this respect Anagarika Dharmapala and
Arumugam Navalar can be reckoned as two outstanding thinkers who had made
the highest influence on the psyche of the modern Sinhala and Tamil people
respectively. Both of them can be described as two leaders who fought
resolutely and defiantly against Catholic/Christian domination that prevailed at
that time and to change unpleasant treatments meted out to Buddhism and
Hinduism under colonial rule.
Yet, the praxis of the two leaders and the activities they introduced in achieving
their objectives were not conducive in promoting national unity. Instead, they
led to create divisions among different social groups. During this time, the caste
system enjoyed a considerable recognition. The hierarchical caste system not
only divided the Sinhala and Tamil people into two distinct categories as "high"
and "low", but also acted in a sectarian manner in preventing social amity and
productivity. Arumugam Navalar appeared for the preservation of the caste
system. He opposed educating children of oppressed castes in the same class
room with children of higher castes. Anagarika Dharmapala endured the caste
system that prevailed not only in the Sinhala society but also in the Buddhist
order of the Sangha. Except for Sinhala Buddhist people, there was no place for
Tamils, Muslims, Burgers and even Sinhalese Christians and Catholics in the
society he envisaged to build. He considered only Sinhala Buddhist people as
DecentLanka2015 Forum on Nation Building & Reconciliation / 2016 May 12 ; SLFI

Page 4

important. The Sinhala Muslim riots in 1915 can be reckoned as an instance in

which the religious and racial discriminatory passions had exploded in frenzied
violence.
There was a vast difference between the praxis in gaining independence by the
two independence movements of our two countries. More after entering the
phase of political reforms, post religious renaissance.
It is interesting to note that leaders of the Indian independence movement,
throughout their struggle, had a very clear understanding and vision in how they
would liberate India from British domination and also how to build the Indian
nation to ensure a Nation State. But leaders in Ceylon who led the independence
struggle lacked this understanding and vision. Their expectations were limited
to a simple transfer of power. They did not have any knowledge whatsoever,
about the problem of building the Sri Lankan Nation for the benefit of
strengthening the nation state.
The Indian independence movement had clearly understood that building of the
Indian nation necessitated the caste system and the division between the Hindus
and Muslims must be abolished and equal rights and respect be granted to all
Indians. They carried out well planned and massive ideological campaigns to
raise public awareness on these issues; organized massive nonviolent resistance
campaigns all over the country in front of Hindu temples protesting against
preventing people of oppressed classes entering them. The ideological struggle
carried through to promote tolerance between Hindus and Muslims made a
strong influence on public life. Even the assassination of Mahathma Gandhi was
an outcome of this movement.
Despite all these efforts, though they couldnt prevent the bifurcation of India,
they were able to retain a substantial share of the Muslim population in India
which was very much more than the number that crossed over to the newly
created Pakistan. The riots against Muslims had put the country in flames when
Gandhi was assassinated. Since Gandhis death all communal flames have been
doused. The only flame left was that which rose from his funeral pyre. With
this, the process of nation building in India was accomplished to a great extent.
The new constitution adopted thereafter ensured equal rights and recognition to
all citizens alike.
Nevertheless, the Sinhala, Tamil and Muslim leaders in Sri Lanka, who
appeared for independence, did not have a clear understanding about the nation
state and the need for nation building. Some of them occasionally talked about a
Ceylonese nation. Yet, none had any knowledge on how it was to be realized.
Their knowledge was so scant that they did not have a proper awareness of even
DecentLanka2015 Forum on Nation Building & Reconciliation / 2016 May 12 ; SLFI

Page 5

human rights. The dialog on Human Rights in Sri Lanka comes to the forefront
only during the decade of 1970s. But, the Indian independence movement was
sensitive to this issue very much earlier and had even adopted a Human Rights
Convention of its own as far back as 1936. This too reflects the paucity of
knowledge of our leaders compared to those of India.
The lack of knowledge of political movements and their leaders of the problem
itself was an important factor that caused to complicate and confound the
question of nation building in Sri Lanka. At the initial stage, leaders of all ethnic
groups were united under the banner of the Ceylon National Congress. This
unity however soon disappeared, as leaders of the majority Sinhalese and those
of minority Tamils and Muslims lacked an understanding of liberal provisions
that could be adopted to safeguard minority rights in the face of majority power.
In 1833, under Colebrook reforms, a system of Executive and Legislative
Council was introduced and the Legislative Council comprised of 9 official
members and 6 non official members. Three native officers were nominated
based on ethnicity. The size of the population of each ethnic group was not
taken into consideration in this regard. What was considered was the
representation of each ethnic group in the Council which was expected to serve
as an advisory body. If the establishment of this Council is treated as the
primary phase of a process which was to evolve into a Parliamentary System of
government in the future, then it would not be possible to prevent it evolving
into a system that allocates seats in proportion to the population ratio of each
ethnic group.
But Tamil leaders did not welcome that change. Their position was to have seats
allocated on the ratio of 2 : 1. The Sinhala leaders were of the view that a
system of Territorial/ Regional Representation would give more weight to
minority groups. The approach of both groups was not in conformity with
democracy.
The Tamil and Muslim leaders did not have an adequate understanding about
democratic measures needed to safeguard minority rights in the face of the
majority Sinhalese obtaining a large representation in proportion to the size of
their population. On the other hand, even Sinhala leaders lacked the knowledge
of the democratic solutions that can be adopted to dispel the distrust and fear
that had been developing among minority groups. The 50-50 demand put
forward by Snr. G.G. Ponnambalam is a good example that illustrates the
complexity and anti democratic character of the approach that he adopted in this
respect.

DecentLanka2015 Forum on Nation Building & Reconciliation / 2016 May 12 ; SLFI

Page 6

The rift that began in 1925 persisted as a permanent division until the gain of
independence. Just as much as there existed confusion in the way the leaders of
the minorities perceived this problem there existed a similar confusion in the
way the Sinhalese leaders too viewed it. There was no support even from the
"Left" movement in Sri Lanka to resolve this problem. They were more
concerned about the Class factor than the Nation. In this backdrop, it is the
Jaffna Youth Association that can be considered as the only organisation
which was aware of the need for nation building. They appeared against the
caste system and for the unity among all races. Yet, they disappeared as soon as
they chose to act as a carbon copy of the Indian Congress.
Eventually, two social trends had emerged against the granting of independence
to Ceylon. One consisted of the minority groups while the other was from the
people of oppressed castes. The leaders of minority groups were afraid
independence might create a situation of Sinhala domination in which they
would be compelled to suffer. The leaders of the oppressed castes were afraid
that it might create a domination of "Govigama" and "Vellala" castes thereby
subjecting all others to pressures of these two hierarchical castes. Leaders of
minority groups and those of oppressed castes made separate submissions of
their grievances, first to the Donoughmore Commission and later to the
Soulbury Commission. This reflects that apart from the problem of minority
ethnic groups, there existed a problem of oppressed castes as well.
It is clear that Ceylon gained independence without having a solution for these
two problems. Even after independence, no attempt was made to address these
two problems, positively. Also the question of building the nation, i.e
developing a Sri Lankan vision for a common nation state, with pervading cooperation of all ethnic and religious groups which was an essential prerequisite
in establishing a nation state, was not addressed prior to gaining Independence.
Nor attempt has been made to address the issue even during the post
independent era.
Thereafter, minority groups and the people of oppressed castes had to live as
second class citizens being deprived of equal rights and respect. This unpleasant
situation invariably led the youth who had become victims of it to revolt against
the system violently.
In the end, Ceyon gained independence without shedding a single drop of blood.
Paradoxically, the country that gained independence without shedding blood,
after 30 years of independence, turned into a country of incessant bloodshed
which persisted for another 30 years consecutively. Failure to build a Sri
Lankan nation can be considered the major factor that caused this blood bath.
DecentLanka2015 Forum on Nation Building & Reconciliation / 2016 May 12 ; SLFI

Page 7

Not only ethnicity, even the social stratification based on the caste system had a
share in it.
Wijeweera belonged to the Karava caste while Gamanayaka came from Oli
caste. Prabhakaran hailed from Kareyar caste and Thamil Chelvam belonged
to the Barber caste. These two examples symbolize the impact of two major
factors outlined above, on the whole crisis. In this crisis while ethnic revolts
were open and explicit, the caste factor waged a "terrorist" war implicitly.
Now, even after a disastrous loss of a large number of lives, would it be possible
for us to accomplish the task of nation building which we have desperately
failed to achieve since independence? Do leaders of Sinhalese, Tamil and
Muslim communities have courage, wisdom and discipline required for it? Will
they be able to genuinely repent over the great destruction that they caused and
will they commit themselves to educate their people enhancing knowledge and
understanding of social integration and harmony which they badly need?
I leave the questions to you, for answers.
Thank you.

DecentLanka2015 Forum on Nation Building & Reconciliation / 2016 May 12 ; SLFI

Page 8