Now we take up Mathews’s ‘mosquito af- fair’, which he brought up after standardisation was abandoned in principle in 1978. On 7th No- vember 1978, Cyril Mathew, Minister for Indus- tries and Scientific Affairs, produced six Tamil medium answer scripts of the 1977 G. C. E., A/ L Zoology paper. Pointing to the awarding of marks to a question on metamorphosis in the life cycle of a mosquito, he contended that the Tamil examiner, contrary to instructions given by the controlling chief examiner, had given marks to an incomplete answer, where one stage was not drawn but mentioned. He contended that no marks should have been given whereas two marks had been given. He went on to call Tamil examiners cheats. He produced affidavits from some controlling chief examiners etc. to support this argument. He then tabled his own memorandum wherein he emphasised the ne- cessity for standardisation. The Tamil members in the Opposition called for a full-scale inquiry into the marking of answer scripts and wanted the wrongdoers suitably punished. They also asked if the Minister’s speech represented an inclination on the part of the Government to re- introduce standardisation.

It was argued that the examiners must be given a chance to explain themselves and that opportunity should be provided to examine whether there were similar instances of ‘aberrations’ in marking in Sinhalese medium answer scripts. Mr. M. Sivasithamparam on 11th Decem- ber 1978 countered Mathew by producing affi- davits to show that there were definite instruc- tions to award marks where the name of the stage is given but is not shown in the diagram. While urging a full-scale inquiry, he complained that in spite of his having written to the Com- missioner of Examinations for permission to examine the answer scripts, not even an acknowledgement was received. An appeal signed by university teachers, both Tamil and Sinhalese, too called for a full inquiry and pro- tested at the unbridled attack on university ex- aminers.

When pressure built up for an open inquiry, it was claimed, contrary to the rule that required answer scripts to be preserved for three years, that the scripts had been sent to Valaichchenai Paper Mills for destruction. Thus the possibility of any full inquiry was precluded. Instead of getting to the bottom of the matter, the Govern- ment allowed the deliberately cultivated stink to remain. It involved the connivance of leading officials and persons having no connection with Mathew’s ministry. Even an education minister would not be allowed to carry away answer scripts in this manner. Mathew’s speeches on university admissions appeared as a book in Sin- halese titled The Diabolical Danger, printed and distributed at state expense.

Mr. V.P. Vittachi has many Tamil friends whom he could have consulted rather than re- lying on hearsay.

Rather than the unfairness, what was more alienating and hurtful to the Tamils, was the manner in which the admissions issue was handled. Both, the State as well as civil society in the South, had acted with casual arrogance. On the one hand, there was vilification of Tamils from the highest reaches of political power and officialdom, backed by the whole state appara- tus. On the other, here was unilateral and dis- criminatory decision making without consulta- tion with the Tamil leadership. This in short has been the main element in the Tamil problem. The following patronising dismissal of the Tamil complaint on admissions policy occurs in Sam Wijesingha’s foreword referred to earlier: “These measures however well-intentioned can be misrepre- sented in Jaffna and Jaffna was waiting to misunderstand.”

This was written in 1988. It would also be well to remember, that the same elements which launched their campaign of vilification in 1978, launched in May 1983, a campaign of violence and intimidation to drive the Tamils out of Peradeniya University. That was hard to ‘mis- understand’.

Where university admissions were con- cerned, the problem was that in all the differ- ent communities the number of students who qualified for university admissions far ex- ceeded the number actually admitted to the universities. This was a common problem solv- able through discussion. It has been solved to some extent by expanding Open University courses and by the release of foreign exchange for foreign degree courses to be conducted here and for study in India. What was more dis- turbing about Vittachi’s book was that the Tamils were silent about these misrepresenta- tions as were the Sinhalese for whom these im- pressions have attained the status of historical truth. Cyril Mathew’s vituperations fell on fer- tile ground.

An interesting sequel to this episode more than six years later was reported in the Ceylon Daily News of 26.6.85 (Saturday Review 29.6.85). Examination Department officials stated at a Marga Institute seminar in Colombo, that they had established that there was no communally based cheating in A. Level marking. They said that they had done a cross-check on the mark- ing of Tamil examiners, and that similarly it was untrue that Sinhalese examiners favoured Sin- halese candidates. They also stated that the De- partment had sent Sinhalese officers to keep tabs on Tamil examination centres, and this was resented as discriminatory. Professor Stanley Kalpage, Chairman of the University Grants Commission, asked the officials why they had not made these findings public, as there are mis- understandings between the communities on account of this vexed subject. The Examination Department officials replied that they were “bound by an oath of secrecy”. As to the belated official interest in the subject, it may be noted that Cyril Mathew was removed from the Cabinet six months earlier.

To be continued..

*From Rajan Hoole‘s “Sri Lanka: Arrogance of Power  – Myth, Decadence and Murder”. Thanks to Rajan for giving us permission to republish. To read earlier parts click here