Features
JRJ on Gandhi’s methods of winning freedom for India

(Excerpted from Men and Memories by JR Jayewardene)
(Continued from last week)
It was at this time that the British also committed a number of mistakes. The War was over, but the government decided that India should be governed by the same rigorous laws that prevailed during the War. In 1919, they passed an act called the Rowlatt Act and imposed all the Emergency Regulations that they had used during the War. Gandhi resisted this. He said we must start a campaign against this.
We will first burn all the foreign cloth, we will boycott all foreign goods. We have to find some issues. For instance, we will wear clothes which are only woven in India. So he started a tremendous movement throughout India, throughout the 700,000 villages, to boycott all foreign goods and use local things instead. It was so effective that it created a tremendous stir all over India.
During this period, at a place called Jallianwalla Bagh in Amritsar, a British official called Dyer had prohibited meetings being held. People gathered at a small place surrounded all round by buildings with only one door to enter, and had a meeting. Dyer ordered his soldiers to surround the crowd and fire at all the people. Hundreds were killed and hundreds were injured. This happened on April 17, 1919. He (Dyer) was later summoned before a Commission in London, called the Hunter Commission. There he said, “My intention was not to arrest the people but to kill them.” The British Government gave him a large sum of money and commended him. This incident gave Gandhi enough reason to decide to start a civil disobedience ‘Satyagraha’ campaign. The Amritsar incident gave a tremendous momentum to his ‘Satyagraha’ movement.
During that campaign, at a place called Chauri Chaura, in February 1921, hundreds had gathered and were demonstrating peacefully. Some people behind the rally were attacked by the police. They all turned back and attacked the police, set fire to a police station and killed some policemen. The non-violent campaign turned into violence. When Gandhi heard this, he called off his movement. He was asked by his colleagues like Jawaharlal Nehru why he did it when they were on the verge of success.
He said, “I don’t want to achieve freedom by violence. Our people are still not ready for a-non-violent movement and I am calling off my movement.” It shows how sincere he was.
Soon after that he was charged before a Judge in 1922. The Judge himself was a man of repute and he said, “I am proud to see a prisoner of your stature, would you tell me whether you are guilty or not guilty?” He said, “Your Honour, I am guilty and I am not asking for any mercy. You can impose the highest penalty on me.” The Judge himself did not know what to do and said, “Since you are pleading guilty, I sentence you to prison.” That was the type of man Gandhi was.
Now we come to the 1928 period, when the British thought something must be done about India. The talks between Indian leaders and the Governors and Viceroys were not sufficient. The British Government sent Sir John Simon in February 1928. They did not say that the Simon Commission was to discuss freedom, for no such thing had been even mentioned in the terms of reference of the Commission. Gandhi decided to boycott the Simon Commission all over India. The Simon Commission had to go back empty-handed.
The Prince of Wales came on a tour to India. He was met with black flags, `satyagraha’ campaigns and protest rallies. It became quite clear that India was preparing for a long struggle for freedom, violent or non-violent. One of the leaders in this freedom movement, Bal Gangadhar Tilak of Bombay, who was senior to Gandhi, was the first man to say “Swaraj is my birth-right and I will have it.” He was banished to the Andaman Islands for life. One of the young leaders was Jawaharlal Nehru. There were the Patel brothers, Rajagopalachari, Rajendra Prasad, Motilal Nehru, Subhash Chandra Bose, and so many others who were now working with Gandhi. They all said, let us now work for complete Independence and separation from the British Empire.
In January 1930, for the first time, Jawaharlal Nehru raised the Indian flag and said, “We are for Complete Independence, Poorna Swaraj.” That was January 26, 1930, at the Lahore Congress. That day is still remembered as the Independence Day of India (now celebrated as the Republic Day).
The British were then led by a Labour Leader, Ramsay Macdonald, as Prime Minister. He thought being Labour, he should do something and summoned a Round Table Conference in London in 1931. Gandhi was sent as the sole representative. He was invited to Buckingham Palace and was asked what he would wear.
This story was related to me by a Sri Lankan, Bernard Aluvihare, who was there and one of the young Sri Lankans who joined the Indian movement. Gandhi had looked at himself and said, “I can wash these clothes and wear them,” meaning his dhoti. When at the Palace, he was told, “Mr. Gandhi, you don’t seem to have many clothes on your body,” he had replied, “His Majesty, is wearing enough clothes for both of us.” Another official had said, “Mr. Gandhi, you are not wearing enough clothes.” Gandhi had replied, “You British wear Plus-Fours while playing golf. I am wearing Minus-Fours.” He was a man with a sense of humour. He knew what to say and when to say it.
Nothing happened at the Round Table Conference and Gandhi came back to India. In 1930, he planned a 200 mile walk from Sabarmati Ashram to Dandi Beach, to make salt which was a government monopoly. Nobody was allowed to pick or make salt. Gandhi thought this was a most appropriate law to break, as millions were using salt. The whole of India rose as a man. Gandhi’s salt march made it very clear that India was ready for a complete revolution and that they would consider nothing less than freedom. Gandhi’s ‘salt march’ proved that all the political parties and masses were behind him in the struggle for complete freedom.
We, in Ceylon, were much affected by this movement in the 1930s. When Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru came here, I know how our young people felt. I myself was a law student at the Law Faculty. We decided to unveil a photograph of Gandhi in the Law College in the year 1932. We got the famous painter, David Paynter, to do the portrait for us. We law students collected money and the President of the Law Society, a distinguished lawyer, gave us a big sum of money, but when he found that Gandhi was not very popular with he British businessmen here, he withdrew his contribution. So we told him, “You go to hell”, collected the money, and unveiled the portrait which is still hanging in the Law College premises.
Sri Lanka was very much affected by this movement, especially the youth of our period, myself, Dudley Senanayake, the Gunawardena brothers, S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike, the ce Zoysas and many others. The older people like D.S. Senanayake looked a bit differently at Gandhi and the events of the period, but that did not matter to us and we carried on.
Gandhi had not yet come to the stage where he said, “I am bringing a movement for the freedom of India.” He took the Bihar indigo incident; the Rowlett Act and the laws of that time; the salt march, to break the salt law of the British; to begin his campaign. He thought he must make the final decision to tell the British to “Quit India”. He took that step at the Indian National Congress Committee Meeting in 1942.
In 1942, 1 had the privilege of attending that meeting with the help of Jawaharlal Nehru. We were seated behind Gandhi in a huge hall on the sea beach at Bombay. There were more than 100,000 people listening to him. He came in and made a long speech. He said, ‘”This is a movement we have started with one objective and we will not stop till that objective is realized that is “Quit India.” He ended up his speech by saying: “Karenge Ya Marenge”, that is, “Do or Die”. The leaders were arrested and locked up in prison the next day.
The British found that the freedom movement was gathering strength all over India, in all the villages despite their attempts to stop it. They said, “India is already free, we cannot keep her down anymore.” They finally thought that they would give freedom and sent Sir Stafford Cripps to discuss with the Indian people how India should be given freedom. At that time, they also decided that the division of India should be considered. I do not know whether Gandhi completely approved of that, but he would never have resisted a movement for the Muslims to safeguard their own interests.
I think that is why he was murdered in 1948. He was sympathetic to the Muslims; he was sympathetic to the Hindus; he was sympathetic to all lovers of freedom. It did not matter to him whether a person was a Hindu, Buddhist or a Muslim, what mattered was the principles of Freedom, Truth, Righteousness and all these principles are essentials of all religions. That was Mahatma Gandhi.
He was a politician who never deviated from these principles. As a religious man he followed the principles which were enunciated by the Hindu avatars, by the Buddha, by Christ and Mohammed.
This combination made him in the words of Rabindranath Tagore the “Maha Atma” the `Great-Soul’.
When I was invited to deliver the Inaugural Lecture of the Commonwealth Series, there seemed no better place to do so on “Ahimsa” other than in London, the Chief City of the Greatest Empire the World had seen, and now of the Commonwealth of Nations which had taken its place. What better forum could there be for me to express my views than this, and to an audience which was attentive, democratic and intelligent; and possessing other qualities the people of the United Kingdom, through three and a half centuries of Parliamentary Democracy, had inherited and developed.
(To be continued)
Features
A plural society requires plural governance

The local government elections that took place last week saw a consolidation of the democratic system in the country. The government followed the rules of elections to a greater extent than its recent predecessors some of whom continue to be active on the political stage. Particularly noteworthy was the absence of the large-scale abuse of state resources, both media and financial, which had become normalised under successive governments in the past four decades. Reports by independent election monitoring organisations made mention of this improvement in the country’s democratic culture.
In a world where democracy is under siege even in long-established democracies, Sri Lanka’s improvement in electoral integrity is cause for optimism. It also offers a reminder that democracy is always a work in progress, ever vulnerable to erosion and needs to be constantly fought for. The strengthening of faith in democracy as a result of these elections is encouraging. The satisfaction expressed by the political parties that contested the elections is a sign that democracy in Sri Lanka is strong. Most of them saw some improvement in their positions from which they took reassurance about their respective futures.
The local government elections also confirmed that the NPP and its core comprising the JVP are no longer at the fringes of the polity. The NPP has established itself as a mainstream party with an all-island presence, and remarkably so to a greater extent than any other political party. This was seen at the general elections, where the NPP won a majority of seats in 21 of the country’s 22 electoral districts. This was a feat no other political party has ever done. This is also a success that is challenging to replicate. At the present local government elections, the NPP was successful in retaining its all-island presence although not to the same degree.
Consolidating Support
Much attention has been given to the relative decline in the ruling party’s vote share from the 61 percent it secured in December’s general election to 43 percent in the local elections. This slippage has been interpreted by some as a sign of waning popularity. However, such a reading overlooks the broader trajectory of political change. Just three years ago, the NPP and its allied parties polled less than five percent nationally. That they now command over 40 percent of the vote represents a profound transformation in voter preferences and political culture. What is even more significant is the stability of this support base, which now surpasses that of any rival. The votes obtained by the NPP at these elections were double those of its nearest rival.
The electoral outcomes in the north and east, which were largely won by parties representing the Tamil and Muslim communities, is a warning signal that ethnic conflict lurks beneath the surface. The success of the minority parties signals the different needs and aspirations of the ethnic and religious minority electorates, and the need for the government to engage more fully with them. Apart from the problems of poverty, lack of development, inadequate access to economic resources and antipathy to excessive corruption that people of the north and east share in common with those in other parts of the country, they also have special problems that other sections of the population do not have. These would include problems of military takeover of their lands, missing persons and persons incarcerated for long periods either without trial or convictions under the draconian Prevention of Terrorism Act (which permits confessions made to security forces to be made admissible for purposes of conviction) and the long time quest for self-rule in the areas of their predominance
The government’s failure to address these longstanding issues with urgency appears to have caused disaffection in electorate in the north and east. While structural change is necessarily complex and slow, delays can be misinterpreted as disinterest or disregard, especially by minorities already accustomed to marginalisation. The lack of visible progress on issues central to minority communities fosters a sense of exclusion and deepens political divides. Even so, it is worth noting that the NPP’s vote in the north and east was not insignificant. It came despite the NPP not tailoring its message to ethnic grievances. The NPP has presented a vision of national reform grounded in shared values of justice, accountability, development, and equality.
Translating electoral gains into meaningful governance will require more than slogans. The failure to swiftly address matters deemed to be important by the people of those areas appears to have cost the NPP votes amongst the ethnic and religious minorities, but even here it is necessary to keep matters in perspective. The NPP came first in terms of seats won in two of the seven electoral districts of the north and east. They came second in five others. The fact that the NPP continued to win significant support indicates that its approach of equity in development and equal rights for all has resonance. This was despite the Tamil and Muslim parties making appeals to the electorate on nationalist or ethnic grounds.
Slow Change
Whether in the north and east or outside it, the government is perceived to be slow in delivering on its promises. In the context of the promise of system change, it can be appreciated that such a change will be resisted tooth and nail by those with vested interests in the continuation of the old system. System change will invariably be resisted at multiple levels. The problem is that the slow pace of change may be seen by ethnic and religious minorities as being due to the disregard of their interests. However, the system change is coming slow not only in the north and east, but also in the entire country.
At the general election in December last year, the NPP won an unprecedented number of parliamentary seats in both the country as well as in the north and east. But it has still to make use of its 2/3 majority to make the changes that its super majority permits it to do. With control of 267 out of 339 local councils, but without outright majorities in most, it must now engage in coalition-building and consensus-seeking if it wishes to govern at the local level. This will be a challenge for a party whose identity has long been built on principled opposition to elite patronage, corruption and abuse of power rather than to governance. General Secretary of the JVP, Tilvin Silva, has signaled a reluctance to form alliances with discredited parties but has expressed openness to working with independent candidates who share the party’s values. This position can and should be extended, especially in the north and east, to include political formations that represent minority communities and have remained outside the tainted mainstream.
In a plural and multi-ethnic society like Sri Lanka, democratic legitimacy and effective governance requires coalition-building. By engaging with locally legitimate minority parties, especially in the north and east, the NPP can engage in principled governance without compromising its core values. This needs to be extended to the local government authorities in the rest of the country as well. As the 19th century English political philosopher John Stuart Mill observed, “The worth of a state in the long run is the worth of the individuals composing it,” and in plural societies, that worth can only be realised through inclusive decision-making.
by Jehan Perera
Features
Commercialising research in Sri Lanka – not really the healthiest thing for research

In the early 2000s, a colleague, returning to Sri Lanka after a decade in a research-heavy first world university, complained to me that ‘there is no research culture in Sri Lanka’. But what exactly does having a ‘research culture’ mean? Is a lot of funding enough? What else has stopped us from working towards a productive and meaningful research culture? A concerted effort has been made to improve the research culture of state universities, though there are debates about how healthy such practices are (there is not much consideration of the same in private ‘universities’ in Sri Lanka but that is a discussion for another time). So, in the 25 years since my colleague bemoaned our situation, what has been happening?
What is a ‘research culture’?
A good research culture would be one where we – academics and students – have the resources to engage productively in research. This would mean infrastructure, training, wholesome mentoring, and that abstract thing called headspace. In a previous Kuppi column, I explained at length some of the issues we face as researchers in Sri Lankan universities, including outdated administrative regulations, poor financial resources, and such aspects. My perspective is from the social sciences, and might be different to other disciplines. Still, I feel that there are at least a few major problems that we all face.
Number one: Money is important.
Take the example American universities. Harvard University, according to Harvard Magazine, “received $686.5 million in federally sponsored research grants” for the fiscal year of 2024 but suddenly find themselves in a bind because of such funds being held back. Research funds in these universities typically goes towards building and maintenance of research labs and institutions, costs of equipment, material and other resources and stipends for graduate and other research assistants, conferences, etc. Without such an infusion of money towards research, the USA would not have been able to attracts (and keeps) the talent and brains of other countries. Without a large amount of money dedicated for research, Sri Lankan state universities, too, will not have the research culture it yearns for. Given the country’s austere economic situation, in the last several years, research funds have come mainly from self-generated funds and treasury funds. Yet, even when research funds are available (they are usually inadequate), we still have some additional problems.
Number two: Unending spools of red tape
In Sri Lankan universities red tape is endless. An MoU with a foreign research institution takes at least a year. Financial regulations surrounding the award and spending of research grants is frustrating.
Here’s a personal anecdote. In 2018, I applied for a small research grant from my university. Several months later, I was told I had been awarded it. It comes to me in installments of not more than Rs 100,000. To receive this installment, I must submit a voucher and wait a few weeks until it passes through various offices and gains various approvals. For mysterious financial reasons, asking for reimbursements is discouraged. Obviously then, if I were working on a time-sensitive study or if I needed a larger amount of money for equipment or research material, I would not be able to use this grant. MY research assistants, transcribers, etc., must be willing to wait for their payments until I receive this advance. In 2022, when I received a second advance, the red tape was even tighter. I was asked to spend the funds and settle accounts – within three weeks. ‘Should I ask my research assistants to do the work and wait a few weeks or months for payment? Or should I ask them not to do work until I get the advance and then finish it within three weeks so I can settle this advance?’ I asked in frustration.
Colleagues, who regularly use university grants, frustratedly go along with it; others may opt to work with organisations outside the university. At a university meeting, a few years ago, set up specifically to discuss how young researchers could be encouraged to do research, a group of senior researchers ended the meeting with a list of administrative and financial problems that need to be resolved if we want to foster ‘a research culture’. These are still unresolved. Here is where academic unions can intervene, though they seem to be more focused on salaries, permits and school quotas. If research is part of an academic’s role and responsibility, a research-friendly academic environment is not a privilege, but a labour issue and also impinges on academic freedom to generate new knowledge.
Number three: Instrumentalist research – a global epidemic
The quality of research is a growing concern, in Sri Lanka and globally. The competitiveness of the global research environment has produced seriously problematic phenomena, such as siphoning funding to ‘trendy’ topics, the predatory publications, predatory conferences, journal paper mills, publications with fake data, etc. Plagiarism, ghost writing and the unethical use of AI products are additional contemporary problems. In Sri Lanka, too, we can observe researchers publishing very fast – doing short studies, trying to publish quickly by sending articles to predatory journals, sending the same article to multiple journals at the same time, etc. Universities want more conferences rather than better conferences. Many universities in Sri Lanka have mandated that their doctoral candidates must publish journal articles before their thesis submission. As a consequence, novice researchers frequently fall prey to predatory journals. Universities have also encouraged faculties or departments to establish journals, which frequently have sub-par peer review.
Alongside this are short-sighted institutional changes. University Business Liankage cells, for instance, were established as part of the last World Bank loan cycle to universities. They are expected to help ‘commercialise’ research and focuses on research that can produce patents, and things that can be sold. Such narrow vision means that the broad swathe of research that is undertaken in universities are unseen and ignored, especially in the humanities and social sciences. A much larger vision could have undertaken the promotion of research rather than commercialisation of it, which can then extend to other types of research.
This brings us to the issue of what types of research is seen as ‘relevant’ or ‘useful’. This is a question that has significant repercussions. In one sense, research is an elitist endeavour. We assume that the public should trust us that public funds assigned for research will be spent on worth-while projects. Yet, not all research has an outcome that shows its worth or timeliness in the short term. Some research may not be understood other than by specialists. Therefore, funds, or time spent on some research projects, are not valued, and might seem a waste, or a privilege, until and unless a need for that knowledge suddenly arises.
A short example suffices. Since the 1970s, research on the structures of Sinhala and Sri Lankan Tamil languages (sound patterns, sentence structures of the spoken versions, etc.) have been nearly at a standstill. The interest in these topics are less, and expertise in these areas were not prioritised in the last 30 years. After all, it is not an area that can produce lucrative patents or obvious contributions to the nation’s development. But with digital technology and AI upon us, the need for systematic knowledge of these languages is sorely evident – digital technologies must be able to work in local languages to become useful to whole populations. Without a knowledge of the structures and sounds of local languages – especially the spoken varieties – people who cannot use English cannot use those devices and platforms. While providing impetus to research such structures, this need also validates utilitarian research.
This then is the problem with espousing instrumental ideologies of research. World Bank policies encourage a tying up between research and the country’s development goals. However, in a country like ours, where state policies are tied to election manifestos, the result is a set of research outputs that are tied to election cycles. If in 2019, the priority was national security, in 2025, it can be ‘Clean Sri Lanka’. Prioritising research linked to short-sighted visions of national development gains us little in the longer-term. At the same time, applying for competitive research grants internationally, which may have research agendas that are not nationally relevant, is problematic. These are issues of research ethics as well.
Concluding thoughts
In moving towards a ‘good research culture’, Sri Lankan state universities have fallen into the trap of adopting some of the problematic trends that have swept through the first world. Yet, since we are behind the times anyway, it is possible for us to see the damaging consequences of those issues, and to adopt the more fruitful processes. A slower, considerate approach to research priorities would be useful for Sri Lanka at this point. It is also a time for collective action to build a better research environment, looking at new relationships and collaborations, and mentoring in caring ways.
(Dr. Kaushalya Perera teaches at the Department of English, University of Colombo)
Kuppi is a politics and pedagogy happening on the margins of the lecture hall that parodies, subverts, and simultaneously reaffirms social hierarchies.
By Kaushalya Perera
Features
Melantha …in the spotlight

Melantha Perera, who has been associated with many top bands in the past, due to his versatility as a musician, is now enjoying his solo career, as well … as a singer.
He was invited to perform at the first ever ‘Noon2Moon’ event, held in Dubai, at The Huddle, CityMax Hotel, on Saturday, 3rd May.
It was 15 hours of non-stop music, featuring several artistes, with Melantha (the only Sri Lankan on the show), doing two sets.
According to reports coming my way, ‘Noon2Moon’ turned out to be the party of the year, with guests staying back till well past 3.00 am, although it was a 12.00 noon to 3.00 am event.

Having Arabic food
Melantha says he enjoyed every minute he spent on stage as the crowd, made up mostly of Indians, loved the setup.
“I included a few Sinhala songs as there were some Sri Lankans, as well, in the scene.”
Allwyn H. Stephen, who is based in the UAE, was overjoyed with the success of ‘Noon2Moon’.
Says Allwyn: “The 1st ever Noon2Moon event in Dubai … yes, we delivered as promised. Thank you to the artistes for the fab entertainment, the staff of The Huddle UAE , the sound engineers, our sponsors, my supporters for sharing and supporting and, most importantly, all those who attended and stayed back till way past 3.00 am.”

Melantha:
Dubai and
then Oman
Allwyn, by the way, came into the showbiz scene, in a big way, when he featured artistes, live on social media, in a programme called TNGlive, during the Covid-19 pandemic.
After his performance in Dubai, Melantha went over to Oman and was involved in a workshop – ‘Workshop with Melantha Perera’, organised by Clifford De Silva, CEO of Music Connection.
The Workshop included guitar, keyboard and singing/vocal training, with hands-on guidance from the legendary Melantha Perera, as stated by the sponsors, Music Connection.
Back in Colombo, Melantha will team up with his band Black Jackets for their regular dates at the Hilton, on Fridays and Sundays, and on Tuesdays and Thursdays at Warehouse, Vauxhall Street.
Melantha also mentioned that Bright Light, Sri Lanka’s first musical band formed entirely by visually impaired youngsters, will give their maiden public performance on 7th June at the MJF Centre Auditorium in Katubadda, Moratuwa.
-
Latest News6 days ago
NPP win Maharagama Urban Council
-
Features2 days ago
SAITM Graduates Overcome Adversity, Excel Despite Challenges
-
Business5 days ago
John Keells Properties and MullenLowe unveil “Minutes Away”
-
Sports2 days ago
ASBC Asian U22 and Youth Boxing Championships from Monday
-
News2 days ago
Destined to be pope:Brother says Leo XIV always wanted to be a priest
-
Foreign News3 days ago
Mexico sues Google over ‘Gulf of America’ name change
-
Opinion5 days ago
Ratmalana: An international airport without modern navigational and landing aids
-
Opinion2 days ago
Drs. Navaratnam’s consultation fee three rupees NOT Rs. 300