Connect with us

Features

When two Richards fought for Kelaniya in the 1956 elction

Published

on

By Avishka Mario Senewiratne

Eight years after independence, Ceylon – relatively new to democracy and independent rule, though looking good on the global canvas – was on the verge of the humiliating defeat of its ruling government led by the United National Party (UNP). The vast masses of Ceylon had been disillusioned by the pro-elite UNP politics and were persuaded to vote for the Mahajana Eksath Peramuna (MEP) led by S. W. R. D. Bandaranaike, the leader of the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP). Though toxic for the future, the majority were inclined to see the implementation of the Sinhala Only Act, canvassed by the MEP in a favourable light.

Since the early 1940s, Junius Richard Jayewardene was known to be a highly accomplished and methodical politician. He served as the Minister of Finance in the Cabinet of D. S. Senanayake (1947-1952) and Dudley Senanayake (1952-53), and as Minister of Agriculture and Land (1953-56) in Sir John Kotelawala’s regime. Undoubtedly, he was second in line to be the leader of the UNP as well as to be Ceylon’s Prime Minister. However, in 1956, despite his excellent track record in politics, there was little he could do to retain his parliamentary seat in Kelaniya when Richard Gotabaya Senanayake challenged him.

Uncle and Nephews of the UNP

The story began with one man who did not live beyond 1901. This was Mudaliyar D. C. G. Attygalle, a father of four; three daughters and a son. The three daughters married John Kotelawala Sr. (father of Sir John), F. R. Senanayake (father of R. G. and brother of D. S.) and Col. T. G. Jayewardene (uncle of J. R.). When Ceylon received independence in 1948, the sons and nephews of all these esteemed gentlemen were prominent members of the United National Party, and in high office or eagerly waiting their entry.

The UNP was chartered in 1946 by D. S. Senanayake, who would be PM a year later. His successors were to be his son and nephew. Some high officials of the party were related to him, as well. For these obvious reasons, critics of the UNP ridiculed the party acronym as “Uncle-Nephew Party” and also pilloried it as “Unge Neyange Paksaya” – ‘their relations’ party’ (Weerawardana, p. 121).

The subjects of this essay, J. R. Jayewardene and R. G. Senanayake were thus related to each other and had a friendship since their childhood. When R. G. Senanayake entered politics in 1944, his friend J. R. was a well-established politician. Despite being a victim of polio and unable to be as active as he would wish, RG strived to serve his people with great charm, enthusiasm and sincerity. According to Prof. K. M. de Silva, RG hardly made an impact in the legislature, and if not for his being the son of F. R. Senanayake, many may have questioned his appointment as Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence and External Affairs in 1947 (de Silva and Wriggins, p. 266). This Ministry was under his uncle DS, the Prime Minister.

The two Richards in San Francisco

In September 1951, all was set for the Japanese Peace Treaty Conference in San Francisco. However, Prime Minister D. S. Senanayake declined to travel for the event despite being Minister of External Affairs as his knowledge of foreign affairs was limited to the sub-continent. He suggested that JR should represent Ceylon. At JR’s request, DS appointed RG to accompany him, along with a private secretary, R. Bodinagoda later Chairman of Lake House. The only other person on the entourage was JR’s wife, Elena Jayawardene.

Not only was this delegation small but it also was poorly equipped, given its lack of informed aides and stenographers unlike delegations of other countries at the San Francisco Conference. Nevertheless, for JR this was a great opportunity and the beginning of a long association with Japan. His 15-minute speech created a major impact on the conference stressing Japan’s right to be a free state. JR became an instant global celebrity and PM Yoshida of Japan shook his hand with tears of joy in his eyes.

This was an unexpected triumph for Ceylon and its future leader, JR. Young R. G. Senanayake received a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to watch how his senior colleague won over leaders of the world in San Francisco. JR and RG along with Sir Claude Corea, the Ambassador of Ceylon to the USA, travelled to various parts of the US visiting the Ceylonese diaspora in that country.

Two Richards, two foes

With the passing of time, RG developed ambitions for high office. However, the presence of his cousins in senior positions deprived him of the opportunity to quickly achieve his political goals. Though concealed by his charm and winning ways, there was little RG could do to prevent displayng his true goals and envy of his cousins. He believed that Prime Minister D. S. Senanayake had taken over his own father’s destiny (F. R. Senanayake died prematurely in 1926) of becoming Ceylon’s first prime minister, and that his cousin Dudley was in the position which would otherwise have been his (see de Silva and Wriggins, pp. 265-266).

Soon, however, a major rift between JR and RG began to appear and their lifelong friendship was over by early 1952. Apart from his political ambitions, the tension between JR and RG was aggravated by a family dispute over RG’s association with his future wife, Erin. The bitterness in their personal lives spilled over into the political field and soon they were enemies.

Yankee Dicky Vs China Dicky

Despite the obvious signs of the careerist in RG, when Dudley was made Premier upon the untimely death of his father, he appointed his cousin RG as Minister of Trade and Commerce, while Jayewardene was re-appointed as Minister of Finance. In this capacity, RG built a formidable name for himself when he convinced the Government of Ceylon to sign the Rubber-Rice Pact with China in 1952. This was the crowning achievement of RG’s political career and it won him the name “China Dicky”.

Realising the demand for rubber in China and his country’s need for rice at the cheapest possible price, RG urged his government to forget their political differences with China and reach a Rubber – Rice Agreement. Though PM Dudley and his Cabinet strongly backed RG’s strategy, the Minister of Finance, now labelled “Yankee Dicky”, was not in favour of the Pact and vehemently opposed it. This was well reported in the Times of Ceylon. Dudley Senanayake believed that the Pact would solve Ceylon’s food shortage and boost the economy to a great extent as well as help find opportunities to seek new markets (see Amarasingam, where ??? p. 3).

JR was critical of the Pact for two reasons. One was that the USA would be (they later were) concerned and critical of Ceylon’s association with China. At a time when Ceylon was seeking entry to the UN, how would other nations perceive such a stance? The other was how China might influence the economy of Ceylon as they were to have a monopoly on the purchase of Ceylon’s rubber.

Nevertheless, the Pact was a great success and, after being renewed every five years, remained in effect till 1982. The supply of rice to Ceylon by China at prices below the world market resulted in a net benefit of about Rs. 92 million in 1953 alone. RG’s popularity was secured in comparison to that of the Minister of Finance. Consequently, the bitterness and envy between the two Richards further deepened.

RG leaves the Cabinet

A year later in 1953, with the infamous Hartal, the sensitive Dudley Senanayake resigned from his office as Prime Minister and thus Sir John Kotelawala – who had been expected to succeed DS in 1952 – was made Ceylon’s third PM. While R. G. Senanayake was re-appointed as Minister of Trade, J. R. Jayewardene was given a new portfolio; that of Minister of Agriculture and Land. JR was Sir John’s most trusted lieutenant and the new PM held him in high esteem and confidence.

On the other hand, Sir John’s relationship with his cousin RG deteriorated by 1954 when the latter opposed the Premier’s contemplated visit to the USA. RG had feared that Sir John would reach a deal with the Americans and break away from Ceylon’s policy of remaining neutral in foreign affairs. Furthermore, RG was critical of the appointment of Sir Oliver Goonetilleke as Governor-General, as well as Sir John’s attempts to seek a solution to the problems of the Indians in Ceylon’s polity.

Partly for these reasons, RG resigned from the Cabinet. However, it was well known that the real reason for his resignation was his opposition to JR whom he severely disliked. Deeply embarrassed by RG’s actions, Sir John later wrote the following in his memoirs: “The good God gave me friends, but the devil gave me my relations. It is an irony of fate that at critical stages of my public career some of my relations, instead of rallying around me, have caused me the most embarrassment and trouble.” (An Asian Prime Minister’s Story, p. 130)

An early election in 1956

1956 was a key year in the annals of Ceylon’s history as the majority of Buddhists were preparing to celebrate the 2500th Buddha Jayanthi. The Buddhist clergy had asked the government to keep the year free of political agitation. On the other hand, the movement to do away with English as the State language and implement Sinhala Only was making strong headway. The leader of the SLFP, S. W. R. D. Bandaranaike was clamouring for it along with his large coalition of parties (the MEP).

The feudal-style UNP regime had lost much of its credibility with the public as the government failed to cater to their demands despite being a stable regime with much promise. Influenced by the advice of Sir Oliver Goonetilleke, Sir John was keen to hold the elections as early as April 1956. Being neutral on the language policy, on the insistence of many of his aides including JR, Sir John decided to give into Sinhala Only in early 1956.

By doing this last-minute volte-face, Sir John expected the UNP to score a comfortable win. However, he had gravely misread the trends of the day. The majority of Sinhalese had reposed much faith in the MEP while most of the Tamils were angered by Sir John’s last-minute policy shift on the language issue and refused to join forces with him at the election.

JR realised that his party was about to face an inevitable defeat. Furthermore, Sir John Kotelawala’s comments in the press on various social issues made him and his regime even more unpopular. It was in such a milieu that Parliament was dissolved in February 1956 although it could go on until January 1958. Accordingly, nominations were to be handed in by March 8 and the election was to be held on three days – April 5, 7 and 10.

The Kelaniya Electorate

J. R. Jayewardene first entered the State Council through a by-election held in the Kelaniya constituency in 1943. The previous holder of that seat was the most revered Sir Don Baron Jayatilaka who retired from politics and asked JR to succeed him. JR, however, had an opponent in the person of E. W. Perera, the famous freedom fighter. However, the poll favoured of JR as he amassed 21,765 votes against Perera’s 11,570 (Ceylon Daily News, 19.11.1943). Winning this historic election by over 10,000 votes was a great boon in the political life of JR. Through his grandmother (Helena Wijewardene’s) benevolent services to the famous temple of Kelaniya, this constituency was by all means related to JR. Kelaniya was a rural but growing electorate and consisted predominantly of Sinhala Buddhists.

In the subsequent election of 1947, JR once again ran at Kelaniya, under the banner of the newly formed UNP. This time he had a comfortable victory against Bodhipala Waidyasekera of the LSSP by over 7,000 votes (The Parliament of Ceylon 1947, p. 31). At the 1952 General Election, JR’s opponents were his aunt Wimala Wijewardene contesting from the SLFP and Vivienne Goonawardene of the LSSP. Based on this election result, JR reckoned that Kelaniya was not a safe seat for him any more as his majority against these two female candidates was less than 2,000. This was not a good record for JR as 1952 was a year the UNP was at its zenith. Therefore, he calculated that contesting again in Kelaniya was a risk, quite apart from the other troubles the UNP faced in 1956.

RG declares war on JR

R. G. Senanayake who was a Parliamentarian since 1947, had run at Dambadeniya successfully. He won both the 1947 and 1952 elections under the UNP banner with overwhelming majorities. He was expected to contest in the same seat again as he had won great respect and acceptance in this electorate. RG, unlike JR, was more of a people’s man, who rallied around the village folk and listened to their grievances. Wimala Wijewardene, a formidable opponent in the last election, had changed her seat to Mirigama and was expecting a comfortable win. However, until late 1955 there was no idea of whom to nominate for Kelaniya under the SLFP banner or that of any other party.

It was then that R. G. Senanayake declared that he would contest the Kelaniya electorate as an Independent candidate. He would also contest Dambadeniya as an Independent. This came as a great surprise to both JR and the MEP. Everyone knew that this move was to settle a personal vendetta against JR, and the MEP was initially reluctant to support RG, knowing his intentions and temperament. Senior journalist K. K. S. Perera once related to the writer that RG had at once said that he was coming to Kelaniya to remove a bad tooth from the next parliament!

It was clear that there was no other opponent in the calibre of RG who would defeat the all-powerful JR, the second in command in the UNP. For this reason, the MEP backed RG in Kelaniya. They would have good reason to remove JR from Parliament for they knew what a capable, methodical and shrewd politician he was. RG’s popularity under his father’s legacy, as well as the success he gained through the Rubber-Rice Pact, were well noted by the common men and women throughout the country. Another opponent JR had to face in Kelaniya was Ven. Mapitigama Buddharakkita Thera, who was not only the head of the Kelani Temple but also a leader of the Eksath Bikku Peramuna. He too supported RG to force JR’s exit from Kelaniya.

Times of Ceylon, January 28, 1956

JR’s unenthusiastic campaign and fate

After parliament was dissolved, JR holidayed for three days in Wilpattu and returned to Colombo with a much-relaxed mind but well aware of the apprehensions of the UNP. He had few doubts that he would lose his seat. However, he realised he did not have the time to campaign for the UNP in other parts of the country, even though his party needed his support now more than ever. Within a week or two into the campaign, JR fathomed that the UNP and his seat were doomed. Sir John’s blunders and controversial remarks made him unwittingly the MEP’s best campaigner (see de Silva and Wriggins, pp. 307-308). Visiting his own constituency, JR realised that his support had eroded.

He did attract crowds at his meetings in Kelaniya, but nothing similar to RG’s. Soon there were many jeers at these meetings, and stones were being thrown at JR’s car. What was more disappointing to him was to see Mrs. Robert Senanayake, Dudley’s sister-in-law (who was RG’s sister) campaigning against JR. This gave the notion that the Senanayakes were disillusioned with the UNP (see Dissanayaka, p. 40). Though Sir John visited Kelaniya on February 28, few were convinced that JR was winning. Day by day, attendance at JR’s meetings seemed to be diminishing in number.

The election was held on three separate days. The UNP selected those electorates where they were strongest to be held on the first two days. If they had done well on those two dates, it was possible that this would help change the electoral mood in constituenceis they were weak in. JR’s election was scheduled for the third day. However, the rout was clear when the UNP won only eight seats on the first day. The next two days brought the UNP no wins. The MEP, at this election, secured 51 seats with 40.7% of the vote.

The LSSP and the Federal Party won 14 and 10 seats each with vote percentages of 10.2% and 5.4%, respectively. The UNP, though holding 27.3% of the total vote, won just eight seats. Almost all its powerful Ministers, including JR, were defeated. Sir John comfortably won Dodangaslanda and M.D. Banda were among the eight UNPers to win their seats. Eight Independents and three members of the Communist Party were also elected. It was the worst defeat the UNP faced in the 20th century.

The results in Kelaniya were equally humiliating. As expected, RG topped Kelaniya with 37,023 votes (76%) whereas JR received only 14,187 (24%) votes (The Parliament of 1956, p. 21). JR was badly defeated and RG had accomplished his goal also winning Dambadeniya as an Independent with 94% of the votes against the hapless UNP candidate. This was the first time a single MP was represented two seats in Parliament. JR, knowing his fate, arrived at the Colombo Kachcheri where the votes were counted leaving the place after the results were declared amidst insults and jeers.

His car was hit with stones and rotten fruits as it left the premises. Escorted by the police, JR arrived at Braemar, his home in Ward Place. His driver was in tears and so was his younger brother, H. W. Jayewardene. However, JR remained calm and collected retaining his normal composure despite the humiliating defeat. He retired to his room in silence. A few days later, the man was seen back to normal with his spirits up, interacting with his family and, of course, planning his next election!

Aftermath

JR spoke very little of this episode, but nearly 40 years later in the preface to his memoir, Men and Memories, referred to the 1956 election as an “Electoral Holocaust”. He went on to say, “I had done much for the electorate but was defeated by an intruder in April 1956” (p. ix). With the defeat, one depressing outcome that emerged was that many of his close friends and relatives stayed away from him.

However, with much free time at his disposal, he went into serious reading, especially the six volumes of Winston Churchill’s History of the Second World War. It was through this book that he derived the motto, “In Defeat, Defiance”. JR used his defeat to focus on himself and opted to partner his old friend Dudley Senanayake to rebuild the UNP. Fortunes were such that the defiant JR would go on to become Sri Lanka’s first Executive President in 1978.

RG, on the other hand, was reappointed to the portfolio which he had previously relinquished. He worked closely with the new PM, S. W. R. D. Bandaranaike. Though being asked to resign from one of his two parliamentary seats by the new PM, and also by the press, RG refused to do so (Manor, p. 264). It was once said that during parliamentary votes RG used to raise both hands as he represented both Kelaniya and Dambadeniya!

However, after Bandaranaike’s untimely assassination, RG never came to prominence as a Cabinet Minister in any of the future regimes of 1960 or 1965. Despite being ill, he once again contested in two electorates in 1970 (Dambadeniya and Trincomalee) losing both badly. He passed away prematurely aged 59 in December 1970. He was widely respected for his integrity and sincere care for the common people he represented.

“Defeat is never fatal. Victory is never final. It’s courage that counts.” – Sir Winston Churchill

References

Amarasingam, S. P., (1953), Rice and Rubber: The Story of China-Ceylon Trade, Ceylon Economic Research Association

De Silva, K. M. and Wriggins, H., (1988), J.R. Jayewardene of Sri Lanka, Volume 1, Anthony Blonde/Quartet

Dissanayake, T. D. S. A., (1975), Dudley Senanayake of Sri Lanka, Swasthika

Fernando, J. L., (1963), Three Prime Ministers of Ceylon: An Inside Story, M. D. Gunasena

Jayewardene, J. R., (1992), Men and Memories: Autobiographical Recollections and Reflections, Vikas

Kotelawala, Sir J., (1956), An Asian Prime Minister’s Story, George Harrop & Co.

Manor, J., (1989), The Expedient Utopian: Bandaranaike and Ceylon, Cambridge

The Parliament of 1947,

The Ceylon Daily News

The Parliament of 1956,

The Ceylon Daily News

Times of Ceylon,

January 28, 1956

Weerawardana, I. D. S., (1960), Ceylon General Election



Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Features

Leadership, Ethics & Non-compromise – I

Published

on

Navigating the Winds of Change:

(Keynote address delivered at the first Award Ceremony of the ‘The Bandaranaike Academy for Leadership & Public Policy on 15 February 2025 at Mihilama Medura, BMICH, Colombo)

I have been made to understand, today marks the awards ceremony of the first cohort of students at the ‘The Bandaranaike Academy for Leadership & Public Policy.’ So, it is a happy day for all those graduating in a world where immediate work and life circumstances are not generally marked by happiness.

I apologize for starting on a seemingly morose note, but we are in more dire straits – as a nation and as citizens – than we have ever been since Independence. And much of this unhappiness stems directly from decisions taken by people we have considered leaders. In many cases, we have also elected them – repeatedly. But I am not talking only of public leaders who are often visible, but also of people away from the public eye, in leadership positions, such as in public and business organizations, kin networks, schools and formal and informal groups, who also take decisions that affect others – and often in life-changing ways.

The founders of this academy must certainly have had a sense that local and global structures of leadership are in relative disarray when they decided that the vision of the academy is to ‘create the next generation of ethical, effective and socially responsible leaders.’ From my vantage point, I would summarize these expectations in three words: Leadership, Ethics & Non-compromise’. These are the ideas I want to talk about today against the backdrop of our country’s vastly transformed political landscape and societal mood.

Let me lay it out there: leadership and its congruent qualities, such as ethics and non-compromise, do not simply emanate from a course or a syllabus. Certainly, conceptual and theoretical aspects of leadership, what ethics mean, when and when not to compromise in an abstract sense can be ‘taught’ through forms of formal instruction. I see that your postgraduate diploma courses such as ‘Strategic Leadership’ and ‘Politics & Governance’ emphasize some of these aspects. Similarly, the course, ‘Executive Credential on Leadership & Public Policy’ appears to emphasize some core concepts that would have to feature in any discussion on leadership, such as ‘Ethical Leadership and Social Responsibility’, ‘Leadership Strategies for a Changing World’, ‘Visionary Leadership’ and ‘Moral Leadership’ which have all been flagged either as course outcomes or focus areas.

But beyond this kind of abstraction in a classroom, leadership and its affiliated characteristics must necessarily come from life and how we deal with its multiple layers in society. A classroom, or a course, is essentially a controlled environment while society is not. The latter, by virtue of its composition, is messy and unpredictable. Leadership, in such situations, is one thing that theory and bookish knowledge alone cannot inculcate in a person beyond a certain point.

It is this, I want to elaborate in my talk today. It has become extremely clear to me that in our immediate living environment, and particularly in politics, across the board, leadership along with qualities like ethics and non-compromise, is woefully lacking. This absence stems from the relentless abuse of the key attributes of leadership which have been buried in the corrupt political system and compromised societal mores we have inherited.

So, let me take you beyond the classroom today and give you a glimpse of situations I have had to encounter. I suggest, you juxtapose these experiences and perspectives against what you have learned in the academy, your schools, your universities, from your parents and elders and your lives in general, and then proceed to fine-tune these or even unlearn your instructions, if needed. I have always found common ground in what American essayist Ralph Waldo Emerson once noted about leadership. He said, “do not follow where the path may lead. Go instead where there is no path and leave a trail.” What he is essentially talking about is the necessity of a vision to be able to lead.

But, more importantly, we must have the commonsense and the political will to distinguish between vision and hallucination, however popular and rhetorically similar both can be. Adolf Hitler had a hallucination of globally disastrous proportions while Nelson Mandela and Mohandas Gandhi had emancipatory visions whose long-term influence far exceeded the geographic and political boundaries of their countries. All three had a large number of followers, with very different consequences. And all of them were leaders, too.

What I want to say at the outset is that mere popularity of a person at a given moment is not an indication of leadership unless it is enhanced and enriched by ethics and the non-compromise of those standards. That is, leadership with morals as opposed to being devoid of them.

In my last professional incarnation, the core idea was to establish a university where none existed, an entity called South Asian University that belonged to the eight nation states of South Asia. It was intended to be a place where no one nation, political or ideological position would dominate; a university where existing conflicts between nation states would not percolate into the classroom. This was a grand vision spawned by a group of people who could lead when it came to ideas of equality in an unequal world.

Interestingly, in the initial years of its existence, it was possible to adhere to these principles and visions as long as there was leadership at important levels of the administration and academic decision-making where these principles were upheld and put into practice. For instance, Indian and Pakistani Independence Days were celebrated within minutes of each other, albeit amidst some tension, but essentially without violence or confrontation. The university did not get involved in any of these, but provided a safe environment. Today, only 14 years later, one cannot see a single Pakistani student on campus.

The iconic lecture series that I helped initiate, ‘Contributions to Contemporary Knowledge,’ which has now been discontinued, was kicked off by a highly successful and well-attended lecture by Gananath Obeyesekere. The Sri Lankan scholar was not invited because of our common nationality, but solely for his reputation reaching across national boundaries and hence was demanded by my Indian colleagues. My job, as a leader, was to make it happen. That is, all these events in the first 10 years of the university’s life established its identity as a South Asian socio-political as well as cultural-knowledge space and not an Indian socio-cultural enclave, though physically located in New Delhi. This was possible because of leadership and clarity of vision at different levels.

Even when crude nationalistic ventures were initiated at the apex of the administration or among students, some of us had the sense and authority to not let them proceed. Similarly, when events were organized which were considered anti-Indian by some misguided people, we had the moral and ethical wherewithal and strength to continue nevertheless, on the conviction of our ideas and the correctness of our decisions.

One such instance was the celebration of the work of the Pakistani poet Faiz Ahmad Faiz in 2015, when some Indian students complained we were turning the university into a Pakistani enclave. Yet the event was not cancelled, was again well attended and was very positively reported, including even in the Indian mass media. This is also where the notion of non-compromise played a pivotal role. That is, there was never any expectation of compromise in my mind and those others who helped organize it when we knew quite well this kind of rhetoric might emerge.

Continuing further, the point I want to stress is, leadership cannot and should not be merely based on individual popularity or on narrow personal interests. We see both tendencies when it comes to political leadership in Sri Lanka, our immediate geographic neighborhood, and elsewhere in the world. This is how political dynasties have emerged where families seem to believe that to be in leadership positions is a birthright passed down through divine authority. This misplaced thinking is to the detriment of the rest of us as a direct result of dubious forms of leadership that dynastic politics usually generate.

How can we expect a person to lead a nation or even an electorate in any degree of seriousness, when they fabricate their educational qualifications, when their professional backgrounds are works of fiction, when they have never worked a single day in the real world or when their achievements are in the realms of criminality. We have such leaders right here on our own soil whose political survival we have ensured through our vote and our very pronounced lack of reflective criticality. Our collective tolerance of such ‘leadership’ is shameful and says much about our own intelligence, ethics and apathy.

(To be continued)

Continue Reading

Features

USAID and NGOS under siege

Published

on

A file photo of the USAID signage being removed in Washington

by Jehan Perera

The virtually overnight  suspension of the U.S. government’s multibillion dollar foreign aid programme channeled through USAID has been headline news in the U.S. and in other parts of the world where this aid has been very important.  In the U.S. itself the suspension of USAID programmes has been accompanied by large scale loss of jobs in the aid sector without due notice.  In areas of the world where U.S. aid was playing an important role, such as in mitigating conditions of famine or war, the impact is life threatening to large numbers of hapless people.  In Sri Lanka, however, the suspension of U.S. aid has made the headlines for an entirely different reason.

U.S. government authorities have been asserting that the reason for the suspension of the foreign aid programme is due to various reasons, including inefficiency and misuse that goes against the present government’s policy and is not in the U.S. national interest.  This has enabled politicians in Sri Lanka who played leading roles in previous governments, but are now under investigation for misdeeds associated with their periods of governance, to divert attention from themselves.  These former leaders of government are alleging that they were forced out of office prematurely due to the machination of NGOs that had been funded by USAID and not because of the misgovernance and corruption they were accused of.

 In the early months of 2022, hundreds of thousands of people poured out onto the streets of Sri Lanka in  all parts of the country demanding the exit of the then government.  The Aragalaya protests became an unstoppable movement due the unprecedented economic hardships that the general population was being subjected to at that time.  The protestors believed that those in the government had stolen the country’s wealth.  The onset of economic bankruptcy meant that the government did not have foreign exchange (dollars) to pay for essential imports, including fuel, food and medicine.  People died of exhaustion after waiting hours and even days in queues for petrol and in hospitals due to lack of medicine.

PROBING NGOS 

There have been demands by some of the former government leaders who are currently under investigation that USAID funding to Sri Lanka should be probed.  The new NPP government has responded to this demand by delegating the task to the government’s National NGO Secretariat.  This is the state institution that is tasked with collecting information from the NGOs registered with it about their quantum and sources of funding and what they do with it for the betterment of the people.  Public Security Minister Ananda Wijepala has said he would deal with allegations over USAID funding in Sri Lanka, and for that he had sought a report from the NGO Secretariat which is operating under his Ministry.

 Most donor agencies operating in Sri Lanka, including USAID, have rigorous processes which they follow in disbursing funds to NGOs.   Usually, the donor agency will issue a call for proposals which specify their areas of interest.  NGOs have to compete to obtain these funds, stating what they will do with it in considerable detail, and the impact it will have.  Once the grant is awarded, the NGOs are required to submit regular reports of work they have done.  The donor agencies generally insist that reputed audit firms, preferably with international reputations, perform regular annual or even six-monthly audits of funds provided.  They may even send independent external monitors to evaluate the impact of the projects they have supported.

 The value of work done by NGOs is that they often take on unpopular and difficult tasks that do not have mass appeal but are essential for a more just and inclusive society.  Mahatma Gandhi who started the Sarvodaya (meaning, the wellbeing of all) Movement in India was inspired by the English philosopher John Ruskin who wrote in 1860 that a good society was one that would care for the very last member in it.   The ideal that many NGOs strive for, whether in child care, sanitation, economic  development or peacebuilding is that everyone is included and no one is excluded from society’s protection, in which the government necessarily plays a lead role.

 SELF-INTEREST

 Ironically, those who now demand that USAID funds and those organisations that obtained such funds be investigated were themselves in government when USAID was providing such funds.  The National NGO Secretariat was in existence doing its work  of monitoring the activities of NGOs then.  Donor agencies, such as USAID, have stringent policies that prevent funds they provide being used for partisan political purposes.  This accounts for the fact that when NGOs invite politicians to attend their events, they make it a point to invite those from both the government and opposition, so that their work is not seen as being narrowly politically partisan.

 The present situation is a very difficult one for NGOs in Sri Lanka and worldwide.  USAID was the biggest donor agency by far, and the sudden suspension of its funds has meant that many NGOs have had to retrench staff, stop much of their work and some have even closed down.  It appears that the international world order is becoming more openly based on self-interest, where national interests take precedence over global interests, and the interests of the wealthy segments of society take precedence over the interests of the people in general.  This is not a healthy situation for human beings or for civilisation as the founders of the world religions knew with their consistent message that the interests of others, of the neighbour, of all living beings be prioritised.

 In 1968, when the liberal ideas of universal rights were more dominant in the international system, Garrett Hardin, an evolutionary biologist, wrote a paper called “The Tragedy of the Commons”.  Hardin used an example of sheep grazing land when describing the adverse effects of overpopulation. He referred to a situation where individuals, acting in their own self-interest, overexploit a shared resource, like a pasture or fishery, leading to its depletion and eventual destruction, even though it is detrimental to everyone in the long run; essentially, the freedom to use a common resource without regulation can lead to its ruin for all users.   The world appears to be heading in that direction.  In these circumstances, the work of  those, who seek the wellbeing of all, needs to be strengthened and not undermined.

Continue Reading

Features

Dealing with sexual-and gender-based violence in universities

Published

on

Out of the Shadows:

By Nicola Perera

Despite policy interventions at the University Grants Commission (UGC), university, and faculty levels, sexual- and gender-based violence (SGBV) is so entrenched in the system that victim-survivors seeking justice are more likely to experience concerted pushback than the empathetic solidarity of their peers. Colleagues and friends will often close ranks, rallying to protect the accused under misguided notions of safeguarding the reputation of, not merely the assumed perpetrator, but the institution. While gender and sexual inequalities, inflected by class, ethnicity, religion, region, and other characteristics, shape the identities of the perpetrator and victim and the situation of abuse, the hyper-hierarchised nature of the university space itself enables and conceals such violence. It’s also important to note that women are not the exclusive victims of violence; boys and men are caught in violent dynamics, too.

Similar to intimate partner violence in the private confines of home and family, violence attributed to the sex and gender of abusers and victims in our universities goes heavily underreported. The numerous power imbalances structuring the university – between staff and students; academic staff versus non-academic staff; senior academic professionals as opposed to junior academics; or, senior students in contrast to younger students – also prevent survivors from seeking redress for fear of professional and personal repercussions. Research by the UGC in 2015 in collaboration with the Federation of University Teachers’ Associations (FUTA) and CARE International Sri Lanka, and more recently with UNICEF in 2021, revealed discomfiting truths about the university as places of work and education. In naming oneself as a survivor-victim, even within whatever degree of confidentiality that current grievance mechanisms offer, the individual may also represent (to some members of the university community, if not to the establishment itself) a threat to the system.

Conversely, an accused is liable to not just disciplinary action by their university-employer, but to criminal prosecution by the state. Via the Penal Code, the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act (2005), etc., the law recognises SGBV as an offence that can take place across many contexts in the private and public spheres. (The criminalisation of SGBV is in line with state commitments to ensuring the existence, safety, and dignity of women and girls under a host of international agreements, such as the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, Vienna Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women, the Sustainable Development Goals, International Labour Organisation conventions regarding non-discrimination in employment, etc.). Specific to the university, the so-called anti-ragging act (the Prohibition of Ragging and Other Forms of Violence in Education Institutes Act of 1998, in addition to UGC circular no. 919 of 2010, etc.) deems SGBV as a punishable offence. The rag is one site where SGBV often finds fluent articulation, but it is hardly the only one: this is not a problem with just our students.

As the apex body governing higher education in the country, the UGC has not remained insensible to the fact that SGBV harms the lives, rights, and work of students, staff, (and other parties) in university spaces. The Centre for Gender Equity/Equality sits at the UGC level, along with gender cells/committees in individual universities. Universities and faculties have elaborated their own policies and bylaws to address sexual- or gender-based harassment and sexual violence. Although variously articulated, these policies touch on issues of consent; discrimination against a person, or creation of a hostile environment, on the basis of their gender or sexuality; the spectrum of actions that may constitute harassment/violence (including through the use of technology); coerced or voluntary sexual favours as a quid-pro-quo for academic or professional benefits; procedures for making and investigating SGBV complaints; protection of witnesses to an investigation; the irrelevance of the complainant’s sexual history to the complaint at hand. And here begins the inevitable tale of distance between policy, practice, and effect.

Different faculties of the same university may or may not include SGBV awareness/ training in the annual orientation for new students. The faculty’s SGBV policy may or may not appear in all three languages and Braille in student handbooks. Staff Development Centres training new recruits in outcome-based education and intended learning outcomes may or may not look at (or even realise) the politics of education, nor include an SGBV component in its Human Resources modules. Universities may or may not dedicate increasingly stretched resources to training workshops on SGBV for staff, or cover everyone from academics, to administrative staff, to the marshals, to maintenance staff, to hostel wardens.

Workshops may in any case only draw a core of participants, mostly young, mostly women. Instead, groups of male academics (aided sometimes by women colleagues) will actively organise against any gender policy which they construe as a personal affront to their professional stature. Instead, the outspoken women academic is painted as a troublemaker. Existing policy fails to address such discourse, and other normalised microaggressions and subtle harassment which create a difficult environment for gender and sexual minorities. In fact, the implementation of gender policy at all may rest on the critical presence of an individual (inevitably a woman) in a position of power. Gender equality in the university at any point appears to rest on the convictions and labour of a handful of (mostly women) staff or officials.

The effect is the tediously heteropatriarchal spaces that staff and students inhabit, spaces which whether we acknowledge them as such or not, are imbued with the potential, the threat of violence for those on the margins. The effect, as Ramya Kumar writing earlier in this column states, is the inability of our LGBTQI students and staff to be their authentic selves, except to a few confidantes. Since the absence/rarity of SGBV complaints is no evidence that the phenomenon does not exist, perhaps a truer indication of how gender-sensitised our institutions and personnel are, comes back again to the reception of such complaints. Thus, a woman accuser is frequently portrayed as the archetypal scorned woman: abuse is rewritten not just as consent, but a premeditated transaction of sexual relations in exchange for better grades, a secured promotion, and so on. A situation of abuse becomes inscribed as one of seduction, where the accuser basically changes their tune and cries harassment or rape when the expected gains fail to materialise. Especially with the global backlash to MeToo, society is preoccupied with the ‘false accusation,’ even though there is plenty of evidence that few incidents of SGBV are reported, and fewer still are successfully prosecuted. These misogynist tropes of women and women’s sexuality matter in relation to SGBV in university, because Faculty Boards, investigative committees, Senates, and Councils will be as equally susceptible to them as any citizen or juror in a court of law. They matter in placing the burden of documenting abuse/harassment as it takes place on the victim-survivor, to accumulate evidence that will pass muster before a ‘neutral,’ ‘objective’ observer.

At the end of the day, when appointments to gender committees may be handpicked to not rock the boat, or any university Council may dismiss a proven case of SGBV on a technicality, the strongest policies, the most robust mechanisms and procedures are rendered ineffective, unless those who hold power in everyday dealings with students and persons in subordinate positions at the university also change.

(Nicola Perera teaches English as a second language at the 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.

Continue Reading

Trending