an ‘indian model’ for sri lanka? - pdfs.island.lkpdfs.island.lk/2006/01/18/m1.pdf · sidering...

Wednesday 18th January, 2006

For the Eksesath RajyaA service of faith and promotion of Justice

by Citizen D

Modern India did not existas a nation prior to 1935.In 1757, the British East

India Co. (BEIC) captured most ofthe sub-continent after the battleof Plassey. Thereafter, the BEICexpanded its activities into mod-ern Nepal, Burma (Myanmar),Afghanistan, Punjab and Kashmir.By 1844, it had taken over theMaharajah state of Gwalior (inmodern Madhya Pradesh). In 1857the people rebelled against theharsh rule of the BEIC and there-after, the British government tookdirect control of the subcontinentand appointed Governors toadminister the various states.

Upto that time, the subconti-nent had been a region consistingof independent Princedoms,Maharajah states and tribalregions. It had never been onecountry as we know it today. In1935, through the Government ofIndia Act, the British federated allthese independent regions andstates under one colonial regime.Later in 1947, independence wasgranted and India broke up into aHindu India and a MuslimPakistan preceded by much bloodyrioting where millions were killed.Subsequently, East Pakistan sepa-rated out as Bangladesh and thus,three independent countriesemerged.

In normal federation, separatestates get together in a voluntaryprocess for mutual advantage. Inthe case of India, federation wasenforced by the British. It was nota voluntary process. And this nat-urally, caused many separatistmovements. However, a verystrong central government with amassive centralized armed forcetoday, controls the whole of mod-ern India and keeps any separatisttendencies in check. Separatisttendencies are not uncommon con-sidering the war in Jammu-Kashmir and the recent crisis inPunjab and recent rumblings inTamilnadu and other areas.

Given this crisis ridden back-ground, it is quite obvious thatIndia cannot in anyway be consid-ered a rolemodel for any envisageddevolution process in Sri Lanka.Sri Lanka had always been a uni-tary state from time immemorialwhere some small sections of thenorth and east are now under ter-rorist armed control. This does notmean in any way that such terror-ist held areas should be considereda separate “Tamil State”’. There isno “historical Tamil homeland” inthe north and east which are twoprovinces demarcated by theBritish in 1889. The British neverdemarcated these two provinceson an ethnic basis as Tamil domi-nated areas. In fact, during Dutchand British rule, most of the placenames in the north and east werein Sinhala (e g., Hunugama —Chunnakam- Javaka-kotte —

Chavakachcheri; Weligama —Vallikamam; Kandurugoda —Kantharodai; Gantalawa —Kantalai; Akkarapatuwa —Akkaraipattu etc.) and a largeSinhala population existed there.Many of them got graduallyTamilized (e g., Jayaratne —Jeyaratnam; Wijayaratne —Wijeratnam etc.) and the rest weregradually chased out: The finalethnic cleansing occurred in 1990under LTTE barbarism and over30,000 Sinhalese and about 100,000Muslims were either killed orchased out of Jaffna alone.

The Eastern Province (estab-lished in 1889) was a completelySinhala region under the Kandyankingdom. King Senarath of Kandy,settled some Muslims with landgrants in the Batticaloa region(today’s Muslims are mainly their

descendants) in 1626, when theseMuslims were persecuted by thePortuguese in the south westerncoastal areas. The East, which hadno Tamils then was graduallyTamilized during British rule,with South Indian Tamil labourbeing brought in for Tobacco culti-vation and for road building.

The gradual displacement ofthe Sinhalese from the east tookplace during the 19th centurywhen these south Indian Tamilswere given lands around some ofthe restored irrigation tanks inthe east such as Kantale,Unnichchi, Rugam etc. The origi-nal Sinhalese inhabitants weredriven to the interior. This processof ethnic cleansing of theSinhalese from the east is well doc-umented in British SessionalPapers of the period in question.

Tamil historians such as S. O.Canagaratnam, Rev. S.Gnanaprakasar and Prof.Karthigesu Indrapala (TamilProfessor of History in JaffnaUniversity) are of the categoricalview that Sinhalese had occupiedthe north and east prior to Tamilsettlement. Thus, Sri Lanka neverwas a federation of an ancient

‘Tamil state’ with a ‘Sinhala state’.It was a unitary state even duringcolonial rule and referred to as“Sinhale” or “Sinhaladeepa,”which was gradually anglicized as“Ceylon’? by the British. It there-fore follows that the Indian modelof an enforced federation cannotbe transplanted here.

There is an erroneous beliefwhich is being widely touted thesedays that “state-aided coloniza-tion” increased the Sinhala popu-lation in the east in recent times.As explained in proceeding para-graphs, actual “state-aided colo-nization” took place during colo-nial times when foreign southIndians were brought to the Eastand the hill country in large num-bers, displacing the Sinhalesefrom their traditional homelandsin the north, the east and in the

Kandyan hill. The resettlement ofthese displaced Sinhalese in theirtraditional lands under renovatedand newly constructed irrigationschemes in the Wanni and in theeast was totally justifiable exer-cise.

Not a single Tamil was dis-placed in the process. In fact,Tamils were benefited under suchschemes. Therefore, areas such asPadawiya, Seruwawila,Wahalkada, Kantale, Morawewa,Gomarankadawela, Gal Oya etc.,which were vast forested areasabandoned by the Sinhalese dur-ing colonial settlement of IndianTamils, were cleared and resettledby Sinhalese after their ejectmentfrom such areas about 75 yearspreviously.

Therefore, the whole concept ofa Tamil homeland where an“exclusive Tamil nation” resides,historically, socially, demographi-cally and politically unacceptable.The demand for an exclusiveTamil state (where it is said, thatTamils can live in peace) is com-pletely based on a false concept ofthe three Thimpu principles (i. e.Tamils have a historical home-land in the north and east; Tamils

are a distinct nation; they are enti-tled to self-determination withinthis homeland).

There is no space in this com-mentary to go into details of“nationhood” and Itself-determi-nation” as defined in the UNCharter. Suffice to say that none ofthe Thimpu principles are accept-able under the UN Charter andinternational law.

Coming back to India and the“Indian model” there appears tobe absolutely no similaritybetween the fact that India con-sisted of a large number of histor-ically separate states (countries)upto colonial times whereas SriLanka had been a unitary stateright through, There appears to bethe general feeling that we shouldnot only follow the “Indianmodel”., but also be subservient to

India. We little realise that India isacting solely in her own interests.As far as India is considered, theisland of Sri Lanka should be its“client state”, submissive to itswhims and fancies. Events provethis very clearly.

A major strategy adopted byIndian Prime Minister JawarhalalNehru, to make Ceylon a “clientstate” through destabilizing usaround independence (1948), wasto see that a large number ofIndian citizens remained inCeylon. Thus, the move to repatri-ate Indian (estate) Tamils underthe several Indo-Ceylon pactsfailed due to this subversiveIndian government policy.

Prior to independence, it wasagreed through Indo-Ceylon dis-cussions (held from 1940 onwards)that Indians who had been herecontinuously for over two genera-tions would be entitled to Ceyloncitizenship through descent. Onlyabout 5000 qualified (out of about800,000 Indian workers here).Thereafter, for purposes of retain-ing some more Indians here (towork in the estates) the Indian andPakistani Residents (Citizenship)Act was enacted in. 1949. Based on

this Act, a further 134,000 obtainedcitizenship. These were the peoplewho had had continuous resi-dence here for 7 years (in the caseof married persons) or for 10years (in the case of unmarriedpersons) from 1.1.1940. UnderArticle 8 of the Indian constitu-tion, the rest of the Indian work-ers here (who, like all Ceylonesehad been British citizens uptoindependence) were deemedIndian citizens. Accordingly, thoseIndians who did not qualify forCeylon citizenship under thedescent law or the 1949 Acts auto-matically remained Indian citi-zens. They did not become “state-less” nor were they “disenfran-chised”, but remained Indian citi-zens under the Indian law. Thismyth of “statelessness” and “dis-enfranchisement” was deliberate-

ly spread by India sponsored tradeunions and anti-UNP Marxistswho (ie. the LSSP) were a branchof the Indian Bolshevik-LeninistParty, Thus, the local LSSP had totoe a pro-Indian line on orders oftheir mentors in India.

Indians who did not qualify forCeylon citizenship under theabove two criteria were officiallyIndian citizens, but had to registerthemselves at the Indian HighCommission in Colombo within aspecific time period to obtaintheir travel passes to India. Nehruand the Indian government alongwith collusion of Indian labourunions here, successfully prevent-ed this exercise in spite of theCeylon government’s repeatedattempts to solve the issue. Indiathus succeeded in its subversivestrategy and in spite of severalIndo- Ceylon pacts thereafter, overa million Indians managed tofinally obtain citizenship here. Itis surprising that even the JVPand some SLFP Ministers do notknow the facts and keep blamingD. S. Senanayake’s UNP govern-ment.

Another case of Indian sub-version was the training and

arming of LTTE and other ter-rorist groups in various campsin India. In spite of documentaryevidence submitted by PresidentJ. R. Jayewardene to the Indiangovernment, India denied this.Thereafter, when theVadamarachchi operation wasgetting successful and the LTTEwas on the run, Rajiv Gandhi didhis disgraceful drop and coercedus into signing the infamousIndo-Lanka accord. This was oneof the most obscene moves thatIndia could have made against atiny, friendly neighbour that wasbattling for survival.

Many people today blamePresident Premadasa for sendingaway the IPKF. It was the bestthing for Sri Lanka thatPremadasa did because thereserious doubts as to whether theywould ever go back. India wantedto keep a permanent militarypresence here and this isrevealed by Indian GeneralKalkat and High CommissionerDixit. India never expectedPresident Premadasa to takesuch a tough stand (in spite ofthe fact that many IPKF soldiersdied here) but, Premadasa sawthe danger in allowing the IPKFto stay on. Today, thankfully weremain an independent nation.

Today, India interferes almostdirectly with our affairs. Ourtrade and economy is being con-trolled by India to a great extent.We have become a willing marketto much of their substandardgoods and the Indo-Sri Lankatrade agreement appears to beheavily stewed towards India.Take for example theSethusamuduram canal project.India did not bother one bit aboutSri Lanka’s concerns and wentahead with the project.

In spite of all our appeals,India has rejected any help inthis regard. It is obvious thatIndia does not want us to crushthe Tiger. As long as the LTTE isalive and kicking, we remaindestabilized and subservient toIndia.

Over the past several decades,India has clearly demonstratedby word and deed that they wantus to remain destabilized so as toeventually transform us into its“client state”.

They have had the same atti-tude towards their small neigh-bours (Nepal, Bhutan etc.) andSikkim was annexed by IndiraGandhi. Pakistan is powerfulenough to meet the threat. As anation, we should not be naive,but remain alert and keep oureyes open. Remain very friendlybut don’t not depend too much onIndian generosity. We shouldsolve our own problems withoutdepending too much on anybodyelse. Above all, we should neverbe servile to India, however big itis.

by Dr. Palitha WeerakkodyUniversity of Peradeniya

In the first part of this article, Idiscussed problems of formaleducation systems in Sri

Lanka. This part deals with a pro-posal for a complete reformationof the national education systemto over come those problems. Iwill also try to point out some ofthe major changes needed in theemployment and other related sec-tors to safeguard the long-termsustainability of the newly intro-duced educational reforms.

Under the primary plan, thisnewly proposed package of edu-cation might be implemented forat least 10 - 15 years preferably asa pilot project in several selectededucational divisions. The materi-al, the personnel and the output ofthis programme should be clearlyisolated from the existing system.The human resources and the tar-get group should be given the nec-

essary recognition and apprecia-tion within the society. In thisendeavour, cooperation among allthe main political parties, religiousgroups, bureaucrats and the aca-demic and professional bodies isessential. The main objectives andrevisions proposed are given indetail below.

The aims and objectives The main aims of school educa-

tion should be;* Development of personality

with respect to proper attitudestowards their work, family andsociety.

* Development of humanresources to cater to the actualneeds of the national development

In order to attain the aboveaims, a gradual approach toachieving the following specificobjectives is needed along with theeducational system, beginningfrom the primary education.

* Inclination of young mindstowards their nation, language,religion and culture.

* Training of the younger gener-ation to respect and tolerate theothers’ views etc., and strictly fol-low the traditions in the society,directions and guidance of theiradults and adhere to the generallaw and order.

* Improving their knowledge ofthe historical development andpresent position of Sri Lanka withrespect to rest of the world andfinally emphasising on the chal-lenges ahead of them.

* Development of personalityon an individual basis to suit theiralready identified talents anddesires and potential vocations.

* Development of basic knowl-edge based on languages, modernsciences, technological applica-tions, quantitative ability and theglobal context.

* Channelling of their talentsand desires through the mostappropriate major or minorstreams of education/ training inkeeping with the future needs forhuman resources by the nation.

Major structural and functional changes

Let us examine the major struc-tural and functional changes thatare needed in the formal educa-tion system and the peripheralinstitutional structure to achievethe above objectives through awell-defined plan of action.

1. The school admissions andfacilities:

During primary education, thestudents should be admitted tothe schools closest to their homes.There should be a complete learn-ing environment, includingimproved facilities in classrooms,toilets, food and water resources,the extra learning (library) andthe play and recreational environ-ment (sports), without a signifi-cant variability among theschools.

2. Selection and trainingprocess of teachers:

It will be a very difficult chal-lenge to select good teachers fromthe existing teaching community

and train them to acquire quality.Therefore, after a stringent screen-ing process new generation ofteachers should be selected fromthe pool of teachers, privateschools etc. They should be prop-erly trained using local or foreigntrainers. Their personal and socialresponsibilities are to be lookedafter with incentives and specialinsurance and credit schemes.

The importance of their mis-sion should be recognized andupheld within the society usingappropriate methods. Selectedpriests should also be included inthe teacher category either withinschool or Sunday schools in tem-ples/ churches.

The full responsibility for reli-gious studies and partial respon-sibility of cultural studies of thecurriculum should be assigned tothem.

3. Revision of the role of par-ents and other adults in childeducation:

Parents are also teachers of the

growing child. Therefore, all theindividual families must identifyand correct their weaknesses.

This can be promoted by giv-ing them informal educationafter school or through nighttime television/ radio as animmediate measure. Introductionof a regular counselling service isalso a must in handling individ-ual cases.

4. Proper evaluation of theyounger generation:

Every single citizen of thecommunity must recognize thevalue of the younger generationas the future of the nation.

This may be established in theschool, at home, at the road sideor anywhere.

5. Fashion or mania for tuitionclasses

Since education is not gearedfor getting through competitiveexams, the need of private tuitionwill not arise.

Education and Training: The way out

Page IIIPage II

An ‘Indian model’ for Sri Lanka?