Connect with us

Features

AFTERMATH OF THE 1953 HARTAL

Published

on

Dr. NM Perera

Motion of No Confidence in Government (Hansard of 1st September 1, 1953)

(Speech made by Dr. NM Perera published in his birth centenary memorial volume)

Dr. Perera:Before I deal with the subject, I want to say a word about the Hon. Prime Minister and his references to my good friend the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bandaranaike). My friend the Prime Minister is not here. I hope that he has not had a recurrence of his affliction. Today while he was on the first part of his speech, he reminded me of the father; it was the same technique, the same type of personal attack on the Leader of the Opposition. I remember the last motion of No Confidence that we debated. I think it was moved just before the dissolution of Parliament, and it was one of the last debates which was attended by my good friend, the late Rt. Hon. D.S. Senanayake. He spoke in that debate and it was a tirade against my good friend the Leader of the Opposition.

The same technique has been adopted today by the son, my good friend the Prime Minister. It has nothing to do with the motion before us; it is not an answer to the case we have made. What did he say? That my good friend the Leader of the Opposition for the last eighteen and a half years or so, has apparently, not raised his voice sufficiently in protest against the policy followed since the days of the old Legislative Council and the State Council, and in the early years of Parliament. That is not an answer to the case we are making. It is a pity that my good friend the Leader of the Opposition had no opportunity of answering that charge himself. Procedure does not permit him to do so at this stage, But this much must be said. He fought as hard as he could, as long as he could. It is to his credit that at long last he himself realized that the best thing he could do was to walk out of that clique that has been dominating the political life of this country.

The Hon. Mr. Ponnambalam: Lust for power.

Dr .Perera: I am coming to that in a moment.

The second point was about his non-participation in the Hartal. Apparently there was an argument. The Hon. Prime Minister might have properly informed himself about the situation. In point of fact, the whole question of the Hartal was discussed by all sections of the Opposition together, as the only means of protest we had against a Government that refused to hearken to the cry of the people. The Hon Leader of the Opposition had a point or view. He said I think, this is a little too premature. That was his position, frankly stated in front of Members of the Opposition. He said “I want more time; I want at least to prepare, to go round the country and inform the people; it must be properly organized”, that is the point of view he took.

In our case the position was different because we had organized Trade Unions. He has no unions, his work is mainly in the rural areas, and it would take more time in his case. Therefore he wanted more time. We said “Very well; we have no other alternative”, and we had to go ahead in our various organizations. And we went ahead with the Hartal. That was the real explanation. The Hon. Prime Minister may have read out a letter that the Hon. Leader of the Opposition issued to the press, wherein he explained the position. He frankly and honestly stated that he was in full sympathy with the Hartal, with the aims and objects of the Hartal.

Mr. K.Herat (Nikaweratiya): He may have denied that.

Dr. Perera : That is your habit. You crossed over from this side to that side.

Mr. J.C.T. Kotalawala: And got something!

Dr. Perera: It is not fair to the Hon. Leader of the Opposition to say that, he in his case, decided against this Hartal because he thought it was going to be violent, it was against established Government. That is not correct.

I want to go back to the main issue. If this debate has served no other purpose, it has at least provided us with a remarkable speech from the Hon. Prime Minister. For that alone this debate has been worthwhile. I have never known him in a more chastened mood. He ended by referring to the Buddha Jayanthiya, the celebration that was to take place after 2,500 years. Therefore, he said, all of us must pull together, co-operate and work towards the one common ideal of looking after the interests of the people He asked, “Is it not in the interests of the Members of the Opposition as well that we should join hands and work together, pull together to give the people the maximum benefit?”

I was wondering whether he was appealing really to his own colleagues on that side, some of his own people behind him.

Mr. Suntharalingam:On the sides.

Dr. Perera:Who do not always pull together.

The Hon. Major Montague Jayawickreme: Do not be mistaken:

Dr. Perera :My Hon. friend can fool lots of people but let him not try to fool me. I know what is happening and what has been happening.

Mr. Herat: Wishful thinking!

Dr. Perera:No. I can give you the facts. As soon as the Prime Minister was known to be ill, the “Daily News” was, on a particular day not very long ago, ready with an editorial and the speeches of a certain Minister who was going to be Prime Minister. Everything was ready, photographs of his childhood days.

Mr. Suntharalingam: Some childhood

Dr. Perera: Once again, a colleague of theirs in the Cabinet is slowly but steadily, aided by interested parties, trying to undermine their unity. I warn the Minister concerned once again.

Mr. Suntharalingam: Be careful!

Dr. Perera: He has to be aware to safeguard his own interests. Let him not be caught napping.

Mr. D.P.R.Gunawardena: They are poison gas all over the place

Dr. Perera: So much for the Buddha Jayanthiya.

I come back to the actual vote of No Confidence. A strange theory of democracy was pronounced by my good friend the Member for Chilaw, “What right have you to move a vote of No Confidence? You have no right”. An eminent Q.C. also said “You have no right.” What is their concept of democracy? They say that according to parliamentary democracy we have no right to question the Government. What is the purpose of a vote of No Confidence? Is it merely to defeat the Government?. How often have votes of No Confidence ended in the defeat of the Government? A vote of No Confidence has, in point of fact, a much more important objective. It is a means of educating the electors, the voters.

They have the full case placed before them. There is a fundamental purpose of a vote of No Confidence. And yet these great democrats say, “You have no right to move a Vote of No Confidence. Wonderful democracy! And this coming from a Parliamentary democrat, the son of a worthy father who was one of the greatest democrats in this country sounds strange.

Mr. Keuneman:What a father, what a son!

Dr. Perera:That is by the way. Let me come back to the Motion.

The motion consists of three parts; firstly, it deals with the period prior to August 12. Harking back to the past policy of the Government, the motion states that the policy adopted in Government budgeting has disclosed mismanagement, tolerance of corruption, financial ineptitude. All these have led up to the removal of the subsidy.

The second part of the motion deals with the removal of the subsidy. Our good friend the Q.C. from Colombo North pooh-poohed the idea of these various democratic organizations like elected local bodies expressing their views on this matter. He compared them to bullock-cart drivers and motor car drivers. That is his idea of democracy.

Mr. Ian de Zoysa. (First M.P., Ambalangoda-Balapitiya) He drew an analogy.

Dr. Perera: It was not an analogy. He stated that in so many words. As a matter of fact, I noticed that even the Hon. Prime Minister was thoroughly ashamed of the Hon Member’s remarks. The Hon Members dropped the analogy, and it became a direct attack on these bodies.

The second part of the Motion points out that we tried every democratic method available to us, by way of meetings and other steps, as pointed out by the Hon First Member for Colombo Central, to protest through various organizations, elected bodies, against the withdrawal of the subsidy. We had no reply, no response from the Government. We have demanded that the Government holds another General Election and let the people judge. What did the Hon Minister of Finance say? Even the eminent Q.C. said “We were elected for five years. We have to go on”.

All these are strange doctrines. Is this the kind of democracy we now have? Hon Members know that even the British Government dissolved Parliament at times to go before the country and place their case before it. Did not even the Labour Government, when it completely changed its complexion in 1931, dissolve Parliament and go before the country so that it would endorse their position? In 1931 the McDonald Government was fully entitled to go on, it could have gone for another four years.

The Hon. Mr.Ponnambalam: It was to bring in Baldwin.

Dr. Perera: According to the theories propounded it does not matter what you do. People have no right to question you! They say “We have the right to decide what we want”. The Hon. Minister of Finance stood up there and said ” We have been chosen for five years. You have no right to make this request for the next five years. You have no right to express protest in this House. The people must take our decision.”

That is the kind of democracy against which we have agitated and all Leftists have agitated. This is the worst type of dictatorship today. This is a bourgeoisie dictatorship, if you want to know it. What is this democracy? You elect a person. He comes in here by hook or by crook, and for five years the electors have no right to express their point of view whatever damnable thing this particular member may do, however blatantly he may betray the promises given to the electorate. He is entitled to continue, whatever happens. Is this the kind of democracy which they are advocating? What is democracy?

My good friend the Hon Second Member for Ambalangoda-Balapitiya (Mr. P.H.W. de Silva) answered that question. It means a continuing responsibility of those who govern to the governed. You must be responsive to the needs of the people. The people are entitled to say that they do not approve of a certain policy and at a certain stage when it becomes unbearable they are entitled to say ” We protest against your actions. We want a general election.”

That is the right of democracy. What does that UNESCO right to rebel provide? Can anybody seriously maintain that this is influenced by the Kremlin? On page 271 of the report of an International Committee you find this right: “In the event that Government of his nation operates contrary to the fundamental principles of justice and the basic human rights in such fashion that no redress is permitted by peaceful means, man has the right to set up a Government more nearly in conformity with justice and humanity”.

That is the right to rebellion or revolution. Then have you forgotten the definition of Professor Laski – “What is liberty but the right to rebel, the right to revolt?” Have you forgotten that liberty and democracy go hand in hand? These are people who are now talking about the people of the country having no right to have a Hartal. I almost thought that the Hon. Minister of Industries and Fisheries was Mahatma Gandhi incarnate.

Hon Mr. Keuneman:Devil incarnate.

Dr .Perera:He was expounding this theory of the Hartal, this peaceful demonstration. The “Hartal” I understand was of Russian origin. It came from Leo Tolstoy. He was the first man who originated the concept. It is true it was put into practice in a practical way and demonstrated with success by Gandhi himself.

The Hon. Mr. Ponnambalam:The concept.

Dr. Perera: Quite right; but the manner in which the Minister of Industries and Fisheries went about the attack made us think it had nothing to do with Russia, that Russia was anathema to him.

The Hon. Mr. Ponnambalam: No, I spoke of nonviolence.

Dr. Perera:I shall come to the Minister in a moment. Let him not worry. This is only a passing reference. That was the second part of the motion to which I referred.

The third part refers to matters immediately before Aug. 12, even of the 12th and after August 12. Those are the three parts on which we are arraigning the Government. Nobody has seriously attempted to answer these charges. The Minister of Finance who spoke has not answered them at all. He merely tabulated a good deal of statistics. That is not an answer. If you start from zero and go up to 10 that is of course an advance to ten; but that is not the criterion to be adopted in determining whether a country has been properly served. It is much more important to find out whether in keeping with other progressive countries you have come up to their level.

When you put down your infant mortality rate to something like 178 did you think that was a credit to a civilized country? That you were able to bring it down to 178 is still not a credit to a civilized country. That is not an important criterion. The criterion is whether this Government has fulfilled the expectations of the people of this country. That surely is the deciding criterion in this matter.

That is not the answer to the case we are making. Once again the Prime Minister took up the position. “What can we do? We have no alternative. If we provided Rs.160 million as a subsidy then we would have been on the verge of bankruptcy, if not actually bankrupt. If we provided the subsidy what would have happened? We would have to cut down other votes, while yet the Opposition in this House is clamouring for more money for village wells, for village roads, for slum clearance, for maternity welfare, for milk feeding centres and so on”. He asked how they could have all that if they had provided Rs.160 million to continue the subsidy.

I cannot make again the speech I made in the course of the Second Reading Debate on the Appropriation Bill, but on that occasion I pointed out to Hon. Members how it was possible to find that money. In point of fact, taking the Minister’s own figures in column 806 of Hansard, Volume 10, if you leave out extraordinary expenditure, except for the year 1951-52, you will find that every year, after paying a subsidy, we have had a balance to the good, a surplus on the normal expenditure. It is only when you come to the Loan Fund Expenditure that you have an overall deficit, and that was only in respect of expenditure financed from National Development Reserve – food subsidy, advance to stores and material advance accounts, other advances and miscellaneous items. All that brought for you, your net cash operating surplus or deficit.

It was possible for this Government, according to the attitude adopted by the Prime Minister, to see that these loan funds were spread out and used purely as capital expenditure. That could have been done without seriously impinging on your normal day-to-day expenditure from normal revenue.As regards the Rs.160 million there were other ways, as had been pointed out, of meeting that expenditure. It is not necessary to go over that ground again.

There were two ways: you could either cut down expenditure or increase revenue. Surely both ways could have been used for the purpose? Does this Government, for instance, seriously maintain that it was necessary to spend Rs.30 million on the armed forces, to spend Rs.3 million on the shifting of the Supreme Court, to spend Rs.2 million on Police garages, and to spend money for an independence memorial and a new secretariat at this stage? Those are all dead weight expenses and could well have been held over until this particular crisis was over, instead of asking the poor people to tighten their belts. That was one way of looking at the problem. The other was to increase revenue by other means.

(To be continued)



Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Features

Revolt in the Temple: Poverty as Structural Control

Published

on

The underlying issue in Anuradhapura is a struggle between a few families who, for years, have waged a quiet cold war over control of the Udamaluwa. Similar situations exist in Mihintale as well. These places, among others, are treated as treasures of Buddhism but, in practice, function as tightly controlled economic centres. The same pattern repeats in Kandy around the Temple of the Sacred Tooth Relic and in Kataragama at the shrine of God Kataragama. Variations of it exist across religious spaces of Islam, Catholicism, and Hinduism too, where institutional authority becomes indistinguishable from localised power networks. What is presented as sacred order often operates as inherited control.

It is indeed devastating to see situations where parents have no alternative but to expose their children to predators in robes for survival. This has nothing to do with religion itself, but with human pathology in the context of survival. These are the questions that demand answers, not superficial responses that treat symptoms while ignoring the conditions that produce them. What is more shocking and disturbing is not the tragedy itself, but the reactions to it. Social media has overwhelmed us, not towards understanding, but towards a fragmented cognitive state with no exit route.

A friend of mine in Nairobi used to keep all his electronic devices at home and go into the forest once a month, spending days there before returning. He called it “detoxification”, but in reality it was an escape from a system that no longer allows uninterrupted thought. Daily life is now saturated with unnecessary content, and attention itself has become a commodity extracted, processed, and sold back to us. This is where we have become unable to understand what really drives certain tragedies we endlessly react to, while remaining blind to the systems that quietly manufacture them.

Multi-dimensional poverty

Poverty is structural, poverty is political, and poverty is functional; it is a tool and a manoeuvring force of power. The question is no longer whether poverty exists, but who benefits from its persistence, and who is forced to survive within it. From education to medicine to basic food supply chains, countries like Sri Lanka are not simply mismanaged; they are structurally captured by a small number of actors who remain stable regardless of who is formally in power. Small-scale enterprises and NGO circuits that circulate foreign funding to “solve structural issues” often operate as hollow administrative performances, producing reports rather than transformation.

Poverty is not merely the absence of money. It is the absence of bandwidth, absence of protection, absence of time, and absence of cognitive stability. As Sendhil Mullainathan and Eldar Shafir state, “Scarcity captures the mind. Just as the starving subjects had food on their mind, when we experience scarcity of any kind, we become absorbed by it.” This is a description of how human cognition is structurally reorganized under constraint. Scarcity does not sit outside the person; it occupies them.

They also state, “Scarcity leads us to borrow and pushes us deeper into scarcity.” That is the mechanism that must be confronted without euphemism. Poverty is not only deprivation; it is a self-reinforcing trap in which survival decisions generate the next layer of crisis. Once a society crosses a certain threshold of scarcity, it stops producing long-term reasoning as a default condition. It produces short-term survival logic, often mistaken by outsiders for irrationality.

It is precisely here that public discourse becomes intellectually dishonest. Everything is translated into moral language because moral language is easier than structural analysis. But morality without structure becomes theatre. It produces outrage, not understanding, and repetition, not reform.

It is indeed brutal when an individual wearing religious insignia—whether robe, symbol, or institutional identity—is accused of acts that fundamentally contradict the moral authority attached to that position. It is equally brutal when institutions that depend entirely on trust begin to function as shields rather than safeguards. But the deeper question is not shock. The deeper question is what kind of social condition produces families who see placement within such institutions not only as devotion, but as a survival strategy under constraint.

Ethical decision-making

That is where the argument collapses into its most uncomfortable form. Poverty does not produce ethical decision-making environments. It produces constrained optimization under pressure. When food insecurity, debt, and social instability converge, institutional spaces that appear stable become transactional destinations for survival rather than moral choices. To interpret this as purely cultural failure is to deliberately ignore the structural compression of options.

Mullainathan and Shafir describe this clearly: “Instead of saying that scarcity ‘focuses,’ we could just as easily say that scarcity causes us to tunnel: to focus single-mindedly on managing the scarcity at hand.” That tunnelling effect is not abstract. It is visible wherever long-term planning collapses under immediate pressure. Systems then misread this as irresponsibility, when it is in fact cognitive overload produced by structure.

What is rarely acknowledged is how deeply this extends into governance itself. Institutions increasingly operate as if they are managing rational, unconstrained individuals. In reality, they are interacting with populations whose cognitive bandwidth is already structurally taxed. The result is policy failure interpreted as public non-compliance, enforcement interpreted as moral correction, and reform interpreted as communication failure rather than design failure.

Social media has intensified this distortion. It does not merely spread information; it destroys sequencing. Structural problems require temporal depth. Social media removes that depth and replaces it with instantaneous judgment. Every event becomes a surface object, detached from causality. The outcome is a society permanently reacting and never diagnosing.

Poverty, in this environment, becomes invisible in its real form. It is not seen as a continuous structural condition but as episodic failure. A scandal appears, is consumed, and disappears. Another replaces it. Nothing accumulates into understanding because attention itself is exhausted before synthesis can occur.

Modern Condition

The modern condition reflects a reversal of earlier social organization, where human relationships are embedded within abstract systems of finance, law, and administration that often fail to recognize the lived constraints of those they govern. In this disembedded state, institutions increasingly misinterpret human behaviour as their capacity for structural understanding weakens. At the same time, attempts to resolve systemic failures through expanding administrative complexity produce diminishing returns: more regulation, oversight, and reporting generate less coherence. Over time, institutions shift from functional effectiveness to symbolic performance, maintaining the appearance of control rather than achieving it.

This is why public outrage repeatedly fails to translate into structural change. Outrage is not a tool of reconstruction. It is a signal of system fatigue. It circulates, intensifies, and dissipates without altering the underlying architecture. Meanwhile, the conditions that produce repetition remain intact.

The most persistent illusion is that these are separate problems: poverty here, institutional misuse there, media distortion elsewhere. They are not separate. They are expressions of a single condition in which scarcity, complexity, symbolic authority, and fragmented enforcement interact without coordination. The system does not fail in one place; it fails in the gaps between these layers.

Symbolic systems

What makes this condition more severe is that symbolic systems continue to operate at full strength even when structural systems degrade. Religious identity remains powerful. Political rhetoric remains strong. Cultural symbolism remains intact. But enforcement capacity, institutional coherence, and social trust degrade beneath them. That gap is where instability grows. Until that gap is addressed at the level of structure rather than sentiment, repetition remains inevitable. New scandals will emerge, new interpretations will circulate, and new cycles of outrage will follow. Nothing resolves because nothing is being reconstructed beneath the surface of reaction.

This is no longer repairable through adjustment or rhetoric. It is a form of decay that persists until it exhausts itself, because the mechanisms meant to correct it are now part of the same failure. It continues until rupture, not reform. At that point, instability ceases to be episodic and becomes structural. Pressure will accumulate into breakdown, and what follows will not be managed transition but forced reversal. The responsibility lies with those who govern these institutions to prevent that trajectory, not through language, but through change. The drama is ending; farce is over; what we are witnessing is tragedy unfolding with unprecedented consequences.

by Nilantha Ilangamuwa

Continue Reading

Features

Are threats to Buddha Sasana external or from within?

Published

on

As Sri Lanka celebrates the birth, Enlightenment and the Parinibbana of the Buddha, almost a month after the rest of the Buddhist-world did so, there is widespread discussion about threats to Buddha Sasana provoked by some recent incidents. Regarding the views expressed about postponing Vesak celebrations in my article ‘May Day and postponement Vesak 2026’ (The Island, 25 May), my very good friend Dr Upali Abeysiri has sent me the following comments: “The Mahanayakas have a good reason to postpone Vesak. The dawning of the full moon has to be on the same constellation (nekatha) as when the Buddha was born and attained enlightenment. Although Adhi Poya is reckoned as the second full moon arising in the same calendar month, this is supposed to be an odd exception.” Though it would have been ideal if a consensus could have been reached prior to the split of celebrations, perhaps, it does not matter very much as celebrations occur on a symbolic rather than an actual date, there being no historical or archaeological evidence confirming exact dates.

Whilst there are no direct threats to Buddha Dhamma, as the expanding horizons of science continue to confirm the fundamentals of Buddha Dhamma, there is no doubt whatsoever that there are threats to Buddha Sasana. However, these threats become important as the Buddha Sasana performs the pivotal role in protecting and propagating the Dhamma and, hence, become an indirect threat to Dhamma itself. Therefore, it should be the concern of all Buddhists and it is in this spirit I am making some comments which some may interpret as disrespectful to the Maha Sangha. I can reassure that my intentions are entirely directed towards the preservation of the Buddha Dhamma and Sasana. Though the Buddha proclaimed that the Sasana consists of Bhikkhu, Bhikkhuni, Upasaka and Upasika, for all practical purposes Sasana had been led by Bhikkhus, often at the expense of others.

There is hardly any doubt that there are external forces at play in Sri Lanka and even some Buddhists seem to object to Sri Lanka being called a Buddhist country. Interestingly, no one seems to object to countries like the UK and the USA being called Christian counties. I

There is no registration or baptism in Buddhism and there are no rewards for Buddhists for conversions. As I pointed out in a previous article, ‘How does the Buddha differ’ (The Island, 1 May) unlike most other religions, Buddhism is not a ‘high-demand’ religion, nor ‘law-based’ religion and is not exclusivist. Perhaps, it is this liberalism, pacifism and gentleness, which are the real strengths, that are being exploited as weaknesses by others.

There will always be external threats and the Buddha too faced many during his lifetime. Before addressing those, is it not more important to address the threats within? One of the most important problems seems to be the breakdown of discipline. Bhikkhus are bound by Vinaya rules, laid down by the Buddha and some recent incidents highlight total deviations. Though there were many previous incidents like unsubstantiated claims of Arahanthood, Bhikkhus attacking each other on YouTube and Bhikkhus conducting YouTube channels, not for the propagation of the Dhamma but for the accumulation of rupees, attention was focused after the detection of 22 young monks carrying narcotic drugs.

Though many commentators were quick to condemn the Sangha on this account, we need to go deeper. Narcotic menace has become a huge problem in Sri Lanka and it looks as if the drug lords would resort to anything to achieve their objectives. Though it looks as if some gullible young monks had been duped by drug lords, we need to question why it was possible. Is it due to the lack of supervision of these novices by their seniors that allowed them to accept a request in a WhatsApp group? Should there be checks and balances on foreign travel by Bhikkhus?

What shocked Buddhists was what followed next; the arrest of the Nayaka of Atamasthana for allegedly having sex with a minor. Anuradhapura was our first capital and Sri Maha Bodhi is the longest surviving authenticated tree in the world. Ruwanweliseya and Jetawanaramaya were among the ten tallest man-made structures in the ancient world, Jetawanaramaya still holding the Guiness record for the largest stupa in the world. Cyberspace is full of theories. Whilst some have condemned the Nayaka Thero even before the conclusion of inquiries whilst others claim that this was a coup by another Nayaka Thera in an attempt of succession.

I was intrigued, reading in a Sri Lankan newspaper about the 80th birthday celebrations of a Nayaka priest, who was convicted in London in 2012 of historical child sex abuse and sentenced to seven years in prison. I remember the case very well as he was the head of the Vihara, we had our first contact on relocating to the UK. I also remember his devotees, who believed that he was wrongly accused, collecting over £50,000 for an appeal. In spite of being represented by one of the top Barristers in the UK, the conviction was upheld but the jail-term was reduced by a year. His name is still on the sex-offenders register in the UK and he is permanently prevented from association with children. One can argue that as he has served the sentence and not reoffended, this should not be held against him but what baffled me is that he is still being referred to as the Chief Sangha Nayaka. Should a person on the sex-offenders register be the Chief Sangha Nayaka?

It is high time we put our own house in order before fighting the external enemies. It is reported that the former president CBK has written to the Mahanayakas requesting urgent reform and we should be obliged to her for taking the lead.

There are many aspects that need urgent reform, the first being removal of caste barriers practiced by some Nikayas, which is the greatest insult to the Buddha who promoted equality. The second is the active encouragement of Bhikkhuni Sasana which has not happened in spite of the landmark ruling by the supreme court. The third is the establishment of proper disciplinary processes under a single Adhikarana Sangha Nayaka with powers and support than allowing the government to take over the control of even non-criminal Vinaya matters.

There are many other issues that need settlement like the controversy of the land of Buddha’s birth which seems to linger on. An expert committee should hear all evidence and settle this issue once and for all.

As I have pointed out on many occasions in these columns, it is high time a Dhamma Sangayana was held, as the last one was 70 years ago. Ideally, it should be different with active participation of lay experts as well. It is the duty of us Buddhists to ensure that the words of wisdom of the Buddha continue to enlighten generations to come.

By Dr Upul Wijayawardhana

Continue Reading

Features

Vijaya Kumar: Academic, Activist & Genial Fellow-Traveller

Published

on

Professor Vijaya Kumar

The University of Ceylon, Peradeniya, was in our time, a less-crowded residential university, where everybody knew everybody else or at least knew of everybody else.

I knew of Emeritus Professor Vijaya Kumar of the Department of Chemistry at Peradeniya, or Kumar, as we referred to him fondly, before I got to know him. His dear wife Savitri, also a member of the academic staff of the Department of Chemistry, was nicknamed Kumee, by some of their students (of which vintage is unknown to me) and the duo were thereafter referred to affectionately as Kumar and Kumee.

The Faculty of Science became a regular haunt of mine as I would go there in the company of my batchmates to attend lectures on Basic Mathematics given by Professor Maheswaran, as it was a requirement for our General Arts Qualifying Examinations. I would also go there to listen to some excellent talks under a programme that was held in the auditorium of the Science Faculty referred to as “Popular Science Gossip”. The “gossip” at these talks were not confined solely to science but were broad enough to include Literature, History and other branches of knowledge as well. I would often spot Kumar in the audience at these talks or bump into him in the corridors of the Science Faculty. But I got to know him personally only after he became the Warden of Arunachalam, my hall of residence, during my undergraduate years initially, and later, as a member of the academic staff of the Department of English.

Our Science Faculty undergraduate contemporaries, especially those at Arunachalam Hall and its immediate neighbour, Jayatilaka Hall, both within a stone’s throw away from the Science Faculty, shared many an anecdote about Kumar and their other lecturers. One of these anecdotes, had to do with a spectacular (motor car) driving feat of Kumar’s. Legend has it that he drove from his university bungalow-home to the Faculty of Science deploying only the reverse gear of his car! Kumar, on hearing of this, had told certain of his student friends, including some who became his colleagues later on, that this story is one of the biggest yarns he had heard in his life!

Some of his one-time younger colleagues, now in retirement like Kumar, tell me that Kumar exuded warmth and friendliness in all of his professional and administrative interactions with others in the wider university community. But there was no warmth or mercy for those who indulged in the unsavoury pastime of student ‘ragging’. He was a very strong proponent of the need to ensure to all freshers an environment free of the menace of ‘ragging’. He remained ever-vigilant during the ‘ragging’ season. There are stories of his chasing ‘raggers’ and catching them. Professor Maheswaran, who later became an intimate friend and remains so after more than half a century, was another who was fiercely opposed to ‘ragging’. I was a personal witness to Mahes chasing a ‘ragger’ up and down the stairs of the main library to nab him. Yet another of his students has noted that Kumar’s office room in the Faculty was a total mess at all times. It had tables, piled so high with books and documents that one could not easily spot Kumar at his desk. He, however, had the knack of pulling out from amidst the clutter, any document that he needed at any given time. If anybody were to volunteer to help tidy his desk, Kumar would respond firmly with “Don’t you touch my desk!”.

Kumar, like several of his colleagues in the other faculties as well, had his own eccentricities. According to information received from reliable sources, Kumar who taught Organic Chemistry used to carry his lecture notes in his shirt or trouser pocket with ‘the entire lecture condensed in point form on a half-sheet or half of a half-sheet of paper’. The way he rummaged through his sling bag filled to the brim with stuff to find an item that he needed was another ritual that amused onlookers.

Kumar, interestingly enough is a Royal-cum-Thomian product, in that he had his primary education at S.Thomas’ Prep School, Kollupitiya and the entirety of his secondary education at Royal College, which he entered in 1953. In a note written by Kumar himself, he notes that despite having had excellent teachers at Royal, his was not a notable school career. He goes on to say that “the only achievement I could boast of was my being the joint-winner of the school General Knowledge Prize”. However, he had been active in a Scout Group outside of school (1st Port of Colombo, Sea Scouts) where he “was Queen’s Scout, Patrol leader, and later, Assistant Scout Master”.

Kumar entered the Faculty of Science of the University of Ceylon in 1961 and secured from it an honours degree in Chemistry in 1965. He joined the academic staff of the Department of Chemistry in the Faculty of Science, University of Ceylon, Peradeniya in 1965 and left the following year for Magdalen College at Oxford University, from which institution he obtained his doctorate in Chemistry. His entire teaching career was at Peradeniya, where in the period 2003-2006 he served as the Dean of the Faculty of Science, a position that his late father-in-law had held a few decades earlier.

Among the other highlights of his career are: Chairman of the Industrial Technology Institute (formerly the Ceylon Institute of Scientific and Industrial Research, CISIR); Member (representing Sri Lanka) of the Geneva-based UN Commission on Science and Technology from 1999 to 2007 and its President from 2001-2003; President of the Sri Lanka Estate Workers Union from 1989 onwards; Member of the Politburo of the Lanka Sama Samaja Party from 1988 to 2014 and currently, a member of the Executive Committee of the National People’s Power (NPP).

Vijaya and Savitri Kumar are parents of daughters Shamala and Ramya, who are following in the footsteps of their parents: with the former teaching in the Department of Agricultural Economics in the Faculty of Agriculture, University of Peradeniya and the latter, in the Department of Community Medicine at the University of Jaffna.

(I wish to thank the following who assisted me in the writing of this brief essay: Mr. Bandula Warnakulasuriya, Emeritus Professor Ratnayake Bandara, Professor Mahinda Wickramaratne, Professor Swarna Wimalasiri and Mr. Manik de Silva).

*Editor’s note: Prof. Vijaya Kumar, a member of the NPP’s National Executive Committee and is still active in politics turns 84 today. This article by Tissa Jayatilaka, former Executive Director of the United States – Sri Lanka Fulbright Commission for Mutual Academic Exchange, was written for an upcoming collection of essays on Kumar’s life by his friends.

(Colombo Telegraph)

By Tissa Jayatilaka

Continue Reading

Trending