Connect with us

Opinion

Seventy years ago: Great August hartal

Published

on

A scene during 1953 hartal

REAR VISION

By Jayantha Somasundaram

The Lanka Sama Samaja Party (LSSP) founded in 1935 contested the following year’s State Council election and returned two out of the fifty elected members in the legislature. However, the Party’s horizon was extra-parliamentary; its focus being organising workers into unions and leading the unions not merely towards economic and workplace goals, but also towards the political objective of the revolutionary transformation of society.

During the Second World War which commenced in 1939, and which for then-Ceylon reached a climax with the Japanese attack on Colombo and Trincomalee in April 1942, the LSSP was banned, its leaders like N. M. Perera, Philip Gunawardena and Colvin R. De Silva were jailed, and the Party was driven underground by the island’s British rulers.

When the War ended in 1945, the wartime economic boom which had enabled Colombo to accumulate a healthy sterling balance through exports also came to an end. The result was strikes which broke out in October 1946, organised by the no longer proscribed LSSP (Socialist Party), and the newly formed Communist Party (CP). This wave of strikes covered the Public Service, the Mercantile Sector and the Plantations, a successful general strike which secured higher minimum wages, medical leave entitlements and paid-recreation leave among other benefits for wage earners.

In 1947 another round of strikes occurred, again involving workers in different sectors of employment. The leadership was provided once again by the LSSP through its trade unions the Ceylon Federation of Labour and the CP’s Ceylon Trade Union Federation. The Ceylonese Board of Ministers headed by D. S. Senanayake took a hard line and “passed repressive legislation which included the use of the military against the strikers,” wrote US Professor Patrick Peebles in The History of Sri Lanka and “(N. M.) Perera was arrested.” Government forces opened fire in Kolonnawa where they killed Kandaswamy, a protesting government clerk.

General Election 1952

Despite this unrest among urban workers, the General Elections held in May 1952 saw the United National Party (UNP) under Dudley Senanayake win a landslide victory of 54 seats (out of 95 elected members in parliament). The Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) got nine seats, the LSSP nine, the CP four, the Tamil Congress four and the Federal Party two. S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike, leader of the SLFP became Leader of the Opposition in Parliament.

However, not unlike the present, between 1951 and 1953 the island’s economy continued to decline as export earnings fell while living costs spiralled. Consequently, from late 1952 there was once again unrest among wage earners, workplace slowdowns, labour strikes and hunger strikes.

Further, in a response with a familiar ring, an International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (World Bank) mission which visited Ceylon in 1951, in its report the following year noting that welfare expenditure accounted for a third of government spending, recommended that such welfare spending  be pruned. Consequently the Central Bank proposed to the Government an increase in the price of staples like rice, wheat flour and sugar, an end to the free midday meal for school children and a hike in postal rates, bus and train fares. Cutbacks which the Dudley Senanayake Government implemented in 1953.

The attack on living standards prompted many around the country to stage local protests, but the Government refused to back down, and the protests not only snowballed but became more organised. As events unfolded the LSSP took the initiative to convene a meeting of the Island’s major trade unions and together they decided on a single day of mass protest to demonstrate to the Government the depth of peoples’ anger and despair. Three opposition parties, the LSSP, the CP and the Federal Party (FP), closed ranks and called upon the people to stage an Island-wide anti-Government protest on Tuesday 12th August 1952. This decision was proclaimed at a public gathering in Colombo on 23rd July. The Opposition called for the 12th to be a day of mourning, the hoisting of black flags and a boycott of workplaces, shops, offices and schools; a single day of protest.

Northern Province Joins

In the meantime the tempo of protests and agitation continued, its reach extending with each passing day. “For the first time Tamil workers in the Northern Province joined their comrades in other parts of the country in the demonstrations and decided to take part in the proposed one day-protest,” wrote Political Science Professor Ranjith Amarasinghe. There were protests in front of rice stores and the home of a government minister. These were merely a dress rehearsal for the 12th. Amarasinghe went on, “action such as parading the troops in the streets or the refusal to negotiate only helped to antagonise the workers further and the strikes continued in the urban industrial and plantation sectors.”

At midnight 11th August the Hartal began at the Railway’s Ratmalana Workshop where workers downed tools and effectively brought the facility to a standstill. By dawn on the 12th the transport strike showed itself to be totally effective such that even those who did not join the Hartal could not travel to work. From its Colombo epicentre the Hartal fanned out along the western coastal arteries across the populous Western and Southern Provinces, and then into the population centres in the interior of the country. Public anger was manifested in blocked roads which became impassable for traffic, the felling of telephone poles and the torching of buses cutting communication and transport.

The Hartal now took on a life of its own, no longer being led or limited by party or union leaders and no longer adhering to the planned one day protest. The opposition leadership issued a statement reminding people that it was a one-day protest; this call for restraint would be repeated in the days to come. The people had taken control and the reins of the movement were no longer in the hands of either the political or union leadership. In fact what was envisaged as an urban workers protest broke these bounds and quickly became as much, if not more, the Hartal of Rural Sri Lanka.

Colvin R. de Silva described the Hartal as “the first occasion in the whole history of Ceylon (where) the masses revolted against the domination of the Ceylonese capitalist. This was also the first mass revolt that marked the worker-peasant alliance, the social instrument of the national liberation of Ceylon.”

State of Emergency

The Hartal was the most widespread, popular, militant, peoples’ protest in a century. In fact, it took on a momentum of its own, and an intensity that the leadership of the LSSP, CP and FP had not envisaged. Up until last year’s Aragalaya, it was the most potent act of protest, defiance and direct action on the part of people for radical economic and political change.

 “The Hartal started as a strike but grew into something more, perhaps not a revolutionary upsurge as described by the Sama Samajists, but the first post-Independent movement of mass power in action,” wrote historian Nira Wickramasinghe in Sri Lanka in the Modern Age.

Initially in certain areas, the Police confidently coped on their own. In Maradana for example, Deputy Inspector General Gabriel Rockwood even declined the offer of military assistance. But as the Hartal persisted, and in the face of island-wide strikes, agitation and sabotage, a State of Emergency was declared and the Army was called out to support the Police.

The Ceylon Light Infantry’s B Company under Major Maurice Jayaweera, was deployed in Moratuwa while C Company, under Major Roy Jayatillake, was deployed in Colombo. An artillery detachment, under Colonel Derek de Saram, cleared the High Level Road which passed through the Kelani Valley, a Left stronghold. Colonel Anton Muttukumaru Acting Commander of the Ceylon Army had to resort to the use of recruits in order to provide personnel to quell the Hartal.

The Hartal was most effective and mobilised its largest protesters in the Western, Southern and Northern Provinces. Completely unprepared for the Hartal’s wildfire spread and impact, the Government panicked; opposition party offices were raided and the presses where their bulletins and other publications were printed were sealed. A minimum of ten people, perhaps twelve, were killed, hundreds injured and thousands arrested.

The Government declared a State of Emergency for the first time since the violence of 1915, and ordered a curfew. It then went on to craft a conspiracy theory to explain the inexplicable events that had occurred. The Senanayake Administration produced a document claiming to have been found in the Communist Party’s Kandy Branch office which referred to an ‘army of liberation for the Central Province.’

Only Parliament

Parliament remained the only arena where the Opposition could respond publicly to the developing situation in the country. On 17 August Parliamentarian Pieter Keuneman who was also General Secretary of the Communist Party accused the Government of having “no justification whatsoever for the terrorism it has unleashed against the people of Ceylon who demand food at a price which they can afford…I accuse the Government of declaring a State of Emergency…to cover up their bankruptcy and panic by giving the armed forces legal power to join the police in shooting down people.”

“The Hartal broke the myth of the omnipotence of the UNP and gave the masses a new confidence in their own strength,” wrote Leslie Goonawardene, General Secretary of the LSSP.

When the Aragalaya reached its climax last year the ruling family had to take refuge in Navy bases and on a Naval vessel to escape the peoples’ wrath; at the height of the Hartal recalls LSSP General Secretary Tissa Vitarana in Groundviews two years ago, the Dudley Senanayake Cabinet were forced “to have an emergency meeting of the Cabinet in a British warship in the Colombo Harbour.”

Like the Aragalaya seven decades later, the Hartal shook the ruling party and its leadership to its very core. It resulted in the resignation of Prime Minister Dudley Senanayake in October 1953 and his stepping out of politics; just as its progeny, the Aragalaya of 2022 resulted in the fall from power of President Gotabaya Rajapaksa and Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa.



Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Opinion

Tribute to a distinguished BOI leader

Published

on

Mr. Tuli Cooray, former Deputy Director General of the Board of Investment of Sri Lanka (BOI) and former Secretary General of the Joint Apparel Association Forum (JAAF), passed away three months ago, leaving a distinguished legacy of public service and dedication to national economic development.

An alumnus of the University of Colombo, Mr. Cooray graduated with a Special Degree in Economics. He began his career as a Planning Officer at the Ministry of Plan Implementation and later served as an Assistant Director in the Ministry of Finance (Planning Division).

He subsequently joined the Greater Colombo Economic Commission (GCEC), where he rose from Manager to Senior Manager and later Director. During this period, he also served at the Treasury as an Assistant Director. With the transformation of the GCEC into the BOI, he was appointed Executive Director of the Investment Department and later elevated to the position of Deputy Director General.

In recognition of his vast experience and expertise, he was appointed Director General of the Budget Implementation and Policy Coordination Division at the Ministry of Finance and Planning. Following his retirement from government service, he continued to contribute to the national economy through his work with JAAF.

Mr. Cooray was widely respected as a seasoned professional with exceptional expertise in attracting foreign direct investment (FDI) and facilitating investor relations. His commitment, leadership, and humane qualities earned him the admiration and affection of colleagues across institutions.

He was also one of the pioneers of the BOI Past Officers’ Association, and his passing is deeply felt by its members. His demise has created a void that is difficult to fill, particularly within the BOI, where his contributions remain invaluable.

Mr. Cooray will be remembered not only for his professional excellence but also for his integrity, humility, and the lasting impact he made on those who had the privilege of working with him.

The BOI Past Officers’ Association

jagathcds@gmail.com

Continue Reading

Opinion

When elephants fight, it is the grass that suffers

Published

on

As a small and open country, Singapore will always be vulnerable to what happens around us. As Lee Kuan Yew used to say: “when elephants fight, the grass suffers, but when elephants make love, the grass also suffers“. Therefore, we must be aware of what is happening around us, and prepare ourselves for changes and surprises.” – Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, during the debate on the President’s Address in Singapore Parliament on 16 May, 2018, commenting on the uncertain external environment during the first Trump Administration.

“When elephants fight, it is the grass that suffers”

is a well-known African proverb commonly used in geopolitics to describe smaller nations caught in the crossfire of conflicts between major powers. At the 1981 Commonwealth conference, when Tanzanian President Julius Nyerere quoted this Swahili proverb, the Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew famously retorted, “When elephants make love, the grass suffers, too”. In other words, not only when big powers (such as the US, Russia, EU, China or India) clash, the surrounding “grass” (smaller nations) get “trampled” or suffer collateral damage but even when big powers collaborate or enter into friendly agreements, small nations can still be disadvantaged through unintended consequences of those deals. Since then, Singaporean leaders have often quoted this proverb to highlight the broader reality for smaller states, during great power rivalry and from their alliances. They did this to underline the need to prepare Singapore for challenges stemming from the uncertain external environment and to maintain high resilience against global crises.

Like Singapore, as a small and open country, Sri Lanka too is always vulnerable to what happens around us. Hence, we must be alert to what is happening around us, and be ready not only to face challenges but to explore opportunities.

When Elephants Fight

To begin with, President Trump’s “Operation Epic Fury”.

Did we prepare adequately for changes and surprises that could arise from the deteriorating situation in the Gulf region? For example, the impact the conflict has on the safety and welfare of Sri Lankans living in West Asia or on our petroleum and LNG imports. The situation in the Gulf remains fluid with potential for further escalation, with the possibility of a long-term conflict.

The region, which is the GCC, Iraq, Iran, Israel, Jordan, Syria and Azerbaijan (I believe exports to Azerbaijan are through Iran), accounts for slightly over $1 billion of our exports. The region is one of the most important markets for tea (US$546 million out of US$1,408 million in 2024. According to some estimates, this could even be higher). As we export mostly low-grown teas to these countries, the impact of the conflict on low-grown tea producers, who are mainly smallholders, would be extremely strong. Then there are other sectors like fruits and vegetables where the impact would be immediate, unless of course exporters manage to divert these perishable products to other markets. If the conflict continues for a few more weeks or months, managing these challenges will be a difficult task for the nation, not simply for the government. It is also necessary to remember the Russia – Ukraine war, now on to its fifth year, and its impact on Sri Lanka’s economy.

Mother of all bad timing

What is more unfortunate is that the Gulf conflict is occurring on top of an already intensifying global trade war. One observer called it the “mother of all bad timing”. The combination is deadly.

Early last year, when President Trump announced his intention to weaponise tariffs and use them as bargaining tools for his geopolitical goals, most observers anticipated that he would mainly use tariffs to limit imports from the countries with which the United States had large trade deficits: China, Mexico, Vietnam, the European Union, Japan and Canada. The main elephants, who export to the United States. But when reciprocal tariffs were declared on 2nd April, some of the highest reciprocal tariffs were on Saint Pierre and Miquelon (50%), a French territory off Canada with a population of 6000 people, and Lesotho (50%), one of the poorest countries in Southern Africa. Sri Lanka was hit with a 44% reciprocal tariff. In dollar terms, Sri Lanka’s goods trade deficit with the United States was very small (US$ 2.9 billion in 2025) when compared to those of China (US$ 295 billion in 2024) or Vietnam (US$ 123 billion in 2024).

Though the adverse impact of US additional ad valorem duty has substantially reduced due to the recent US Supreme Court decision on reciprocal tariffs, the turbulence in the US market would continue for the foreseeable future. The United States of America is the largest market for Sri Lanka and accounts for nearly 25% of our exports. Yet, Sri Lanka’s exports to the United States had remained almost stagnant (around the US $ 3 billion range) during the last ten years, due to the dilution of the competitive advantage of some of our main export products in that market. The continued instability in our largest market, where Sri Lanka is not very competitive, doesn’t bode well for Sri Lanka’s economy.

When Elephants Make Love

In rapidly shifting geopolitical environments, countries use proactive anticipatory diplomacy to minimise the adverse implications from possible disruptions and conflicts. Recently concluded Free Trade Agreement (FTA) negotiations between India and the EU (January 2026) and India and the UK (May 2025) are very good examples for such proactive diplomacy. These negotiations were formally launched in June 2007 and were on the back burner for many years. These were expedited as strategic responses to growing U.S. protectionism. Implementation of these agreements would commence during this year.

When negotiations for a free trade agreement between India and the European Union (which included the United Kingdom) were formally launched, anticipating far-reaching consequences of such an agreement on other developing countries, the Commonwealth Secretariat requested the University of Sussex to undertake a study on a possible implication of such an agreement on other low-income developing countries. The authors of that study had considered the impact of an EU–India Free Trade Agreement on the trade of excluded countries and had underlined, “The SAARC countries are, by a long way, the most vulnerable to negative impacts from the FTA. Their exports are more similar to India’s…. Bangladesh is most exposed in the EU market, followed by Pakistan and Sri Lanka.”

So, now these agreements are finalised; what will be the implications of these FTAs between India and the UK and the EU on Sri Lanka? According to available information, the FTA will be a game-changer for the Indian apparel exporters, as it would provide a nearly ten per cent tariff advantage to them. That would level the playing field for India, vis-à-vis their regional competitors. As a result, apparel exports from India to the UK and the EU are projected to increase significantly by 2030. As the sizes of the EU’s and the UK’s apparel markets are not going to expand proportionately, these growths need to come from the market shares of other main exporters like Sri Lanka.

So, “also, when elephants make love, the grass suffers.”

Impact on Sri Lanka

As a small, export dependent country with limited product and market diversification, Sri Lanka will always be vulnerable to what happens in our main markets. Therefore, we must be aware of what is happening in those markets, and prepare ourselves to face the challenges proactively. Today, amid intense geopolitical conflicts, tensions and tariff shifts, countries adopt high agility and strategic planning. If we look at what our neighbours have been doing in London, Brussels and Tokyo, we can learn some lessons on how to navigate through these turbulences.

(The writer is a retired public servant and can be reached at senadhiragomi@gmail.com)

by Gomi Senadhira

Continue Reading

Opinion

QR-based fuel quota

Published

on

The introduction of the QR code–based fuel quota system can be seen as a timely and necessary measure, implemented as part of broader austerity efforts to manage limited fuel resources. In the face of ongoing global fuel instability and economic challenges, such a system is aimed at ensuring equitable distribution and preventing excessive consumption. While it is undeniable that this policy may disrupt the daily routines of certain segments of the population, it is important for citizens to recognize the larger national interest at stake and cooperate with these temporary measures until stability returns to the global fuel market.

At the same time, this initiative presents an important opportunity for the Government to address long-standing gaps in regulatory enforcement. In particular, the implementation of the QR code system could have been strategically linked to the issuance of valid revenue licenses for vehicles. Restricting QR code access only to vehicles that are properly registered and have paid their revenue dues would have helped strengthen compliance and improve state revenue collection.

Available data from the relevant authorities indicate that a significant number of vehicles—especially three-wheelers and motorcycles—continue to operate without valid revenue licences. This represents a substantial loss of income to the State and highlights a weakness in enforcement mechanisms. By integrating the fuel quota system with revenue license verification, the government could have effectively encouraged vehicle owners to regularise their documentation while simultaneously improving fiscal discipline.

In summary, while the QR code fuel system is a commendable step toward managing scarce resources, aligning it with existing regulatory requirements would have amplified its benefits. Such an approach would not only support fuel conservation but also enhance government revenue and promote greater accountability among vehicle owners.

Sariputhra
Colombo 05

Continue Reading

Trending