25 May, 2022


Two Perspectives On Independence

By Uditha Devapriya

Uditha Devapriya

Most discussions about independence centre on two questions: what we were before 1948, and what we became after 1948. Or to put it more clearly, what we are supposed to have been before 1948 and what we are supposed to have become after 1948, not just in political or economic terms, but in social and cultural terms also. Two perspectives stand out here, two camps or schools of thought: those who say we never won independence or never had to fight for it, and those who say that while we got it, we later squandered it. Each of these perspectives dovetails into the other. At the risk of simplification, I identify the first with the Marxist camp, the second with a more left-liberal middle-class camp.

The question of whether Sri Lanka ever gained independence, and won it, has never been resolved. It is best resolved by referring to the legal framework within which independence was granted. Did Dominion status approximate to freedom, or was it, as at least one scholar has observed, a cover for continued imperialist rule? By remaining subordinate to the British monarchy and by retaining the Privy Council has the country’s final court of appeal, it would seem that, on paper at least, we were subjugated, and that the leaders of the time seemed content in “sacrificing” two of the country’s most crucial administrative areas, defence and external relations, to British jurisdiction. But is this the total picture?

Mainstream historians absolve Sri Lanka’s founding fathers – in particular, D. S. Senanayake – on the grounds that these leaders oversaw a gradual transfer of power which smoothened the tensions and contradictions that broke independent India apart in the wake of its more violent struggles against British rule. Thus in his short political biography of the man, K. M. de Silva praises Senanayake for handling “among the most astute of negotiations” involving transfers of power from colonial rule “in South Asia.” One can argue, of course, that as far as “astute negotiations” go, South Asia didn’t exactly teem with successful transfers of power from colonial rule in the first place, but to me this is peripheral to a more important issue: that astute as these negotiations may have been, they underlay crucial questions regarding who the British wanted to take over from them, and who they did not.

Here we come to the Marxist perspective, which is one I generally accord with and which is shared even by certain non-Marxist scholars. At the time of independence Sri Lanka fit the mould of a classic plantation enclave, dependent on the export of primary commodities and lacking an industrial base. This distinguished it not just from more developed colonies, but also its immediate neighbour. Scholars have debated over the exact nature of the plantation economy, with S. B. D. de Silva (1982) taking the position that it was pre-capitalist and Asoka Bandarage (2020) arguing that it was capitalist. One of the most enduring myths about the colonial model from which we supposedly became “free” is that plantations modernised the country in terms of roads, railways, and infrastructure, a point with which both plantations-as-pre-capitalist and plantations-as-capitalist scholars beg to differ.

Dependent in the truest sense of the term, the colonial model produced a dependent elite. The roads, railways, and infrastructure, indeed the education system and judiciary, were all catered to and predicated on the plantations, which in turn entrenched this elite. James Manor has drawn a very important distinction between the colonial elite of most Afro-Asian countries and the colonial elite of Sri Lanka, insinuating, correctly in my opinion, that they were far more dependent and compradorist than their counterparts in India, Indonesia, and much of Africa, and needlessly so. This was largely because the British found them easier to manipulate than the bourgeoisie of neighbouring India, a phenomenon colonial era writers themselves have, not infrequently, commented on.

All this is to say that the dependent colonial model and the dependent elite it produced and entrenched found their way to head the transfer of power from British to indigenous rule. K. M. de Silva’s assertion that exogenous factors, particularly the fear of India, pushed the likes of Senanayake to pragmatically opt for the “home country” conceals just how dependent on colonial patronage the Sri Lankan (mainly Sinhala) bourgeoisie were.

Though historians place emphasis on the fear of India in justifying Senanayake’s decision to retain Britain in defence and external relations, a far more important factor was the Marxist movement. Vernon Mendis exonerates the first three UNP regimes – Senanayake père et fils and Kotelawala – and their attacks on Leftists and Leftist sympathisers on the grounds that Marxist politicians made statements that could be interpreted as invitations to Communist countries to intervene and interfere in the country’s domestic affairs. This is interesting, not just because it shows how even the most astute academics rationalise what were otherwise infringements of civil liberties – for they were just that, as James Manor has clearly shown – but also because it helps perpetuate the narrative that the transfer of power these leaders oversaw was the only transfer possible for Sri Lanka at that point.

The Marxist interpretation of independence is important because it hasn’t been highlighted quite as much it should. It lays emphasis on the economic as opposed to the purely political dimension of the transfer of power, on how the character of the colonial bourgeoisie had a profound say in that transfer. K. M. de Silva and Vernon Mendis – among several scholars –allege that the Marxist catcall of “fake independence” was doctrinaire, if not unfair, yet they don’t quite substantiate how, and why, it was unfair. De Silva tends to point at Senanayake’s multiracial conception of the State as one reason why he preferred the British to stay, yet he fails to exonerate – if not to discuss – Senanayake’s controversial decision to disenfranchise Indian plantation workers, a community that openly supported the Marxists, who were, for all intents and purposes, far more multiracial, multiethnic, and multiclass in their conception of the Sri Lankan State than the bourgeoisie ever were in theirs.

Insofar as their belief in the failure of independence is concerned, the Marxists don’t differ from the left-liberal camp that espouses the second perspective I outlined at the beginning. The latter argue, however, that independence was granted, if not won; it just so happened that later leaders squandered it. This interpretation is crass and, in its own way, classist. It has gained traction in popular culture because of who propounds it: a mostly lower middle-class that dominates the bilingual cultural sphere.

If Marxist scholars quote statistics in support of their view that Sri Lanka never achieved independence, the (lower) middle-class quote remarks by British governors and officials, out of context, about Sri Lanka not being ready for independence. This is another way of saying we would have been better under the British, a point which runs counter to common sense, but also the interests of those who make and repeatedly harp on it.

In 1948 we laid claim to a colonial plantation economy built on the alienation of peasant land and the hegemony of estate owners. Less than five percent of the country’s population spoke in English. The professions – medicine, law, and the Civil Service – were dominated by those who had attended elite schools and were distanced by virtue of their upbringing from the public. Hospitals were limited to the cities or the immediate periphery; infant mortality was worse than India’s. Central Colleges did exist, but few and far between relative to elite schools. The cultural sphere, meanwhile, had little non-elite representation.

In short there was very little opportunity for the Sinhala, Tamil, and bilingual lower middle-class to find its way up. If returning to the way things were back then is what lower middle-class critics of independence want, this is what they would have got, in all probability for a long time. Fortunately for us, it did not happen. The inevitable conclusion then is that it is the Marxists, not the left-liberals, who have got it right about independence, though both conclude it was a failure. The Marxists have scored it better when it comes to the question of whether independence was real or not. For them, it was not.

Just what does it mean to be independent? Is independence about celebration, merriment, and the unbridled happiness of being free? Is it about being who we are? If so, who should we be, and more importantly, who should we have become? These questions are valid, but to me they are secondary to a bigger question: are we free, and if not, why?

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Latest comments

  • 9

    Free from a white king !

    Free from a Black King ?

    Free to think !

    Free from nonsense, irrational faiths and superstition ?

    Free to be human!

    Free from race, religion and caste based instincts ?

    Free to develop yourself!

    Free from small minds , obvious mediocrity and meaningless conceit ?

    • 2

      Dear DS,
      Wonderful feelings to hope for but……….
      In the Real World we live in, is this Utopia only a dream. That is about the macrcosm but even in the microcosm that is CT, do you find :
      Free from nonsense, irrational faiths and superstition?
      Free from race, religion and caste based instincts?
      Free from small minds, obvious mediocrity and meaningless conceit?

      • 1

        “These questions are valid, but to me they are secondary to a bigger question: are we free, and if not, why?”, asks Uditha. Certainly we are free to borrow beyond our ability to repay. If the British stayed, they wouldn’t have. We are free to use racism to divide communities from each other. The Brits did too, but they didn’t start a civil war. Would the British have built empty airports and harbours all named after one person?
        There is no question that we enjoy a higher quality of life than in 1948.
        The question is really, would we have been even better off today if the British had stayed till, say, 1968? We might have been more like the Seychelles or Mauritius, or even Singapore.

    • 1

      Dear DS,
      Wonderful feelings to hope for but……….
      In the Real World we live in, is this Utopia only a dream. That is about the macrcosm but even in the microcosm that is CT, do you find :
      Free from nonsense, irrational faiths and superstition?
      Free from race, religion and caste based instincts?
      Free from small minds, obvious mediocrity and meaningless conceit?
      “Ah Love! could thou and I with Fate conspire
      To grasp this sorry Scheme of Things entire,
      Would not we shatter it to bits — and then
      Re-mould it nearer to the Heart’s Desire!”
      ― Omar Khayyam

  • 3

    Still happens. The Colonial elites still rule the roost….yes, yes,…..found in all walks of Lankan culture, and seen especially from the elite school settings to the sports arenas.
    Civil liberties? No such thing in Lankan society, still. The Elites still snarl their intellectually uninspiring ideas in Rottweiler-style and actually get applauded for it, based on the old Colonial wealth that is still worshiped. As per Lankan nouveau riche,…..nothing but to rub shoulders and ape the old elite. The rest of the Lankans are into the mode of, “So if they did it, we must show that we can also do it.” (gosh, the money stolen from the country to set up in the West to prove the point is horrendous….Sinhala Nationalists mind you!). Hands up, those who have been to a party where they party like in the old Colonial parlor with all kind of naughty innuendoes allowed because they are privileged.
    But the pure-minded Marxist ideas are looked down on because they are from the poor and disadvantaged background, albeit cognizant and highly intellegent… How unprogressive, boring, and silly we still are as a society.

    • 0

      Dear RTF

      With the geopolitics is hard to keep anything going in the world.

      Even a mere mention of the word Socialism can make people like Berni and Corbyn to evaporate from leaderships and social changes for which popular support exist then what are the chances we retain Marxismin a third world country?? What happened to Yugoslavia an exceptional Socialist Nation under Tito and Non aligned movement man.

      Our Socialist Governments were toppled and replaced with Capitalist GOSL and a “National question” lot with overseas expansionism capitalist in 1977. Marxism in SL is like asking for trouble…see what happened to Cuba and lately Venunzela couldn’t stop the foreign regime change brigade.

  • 0


    Thank you for such an eloquent and very rational discussion to get to the point.

    “are we free, and if not, why?”

    I think is the way we evolved from the 1930’s to 1948 “representations” that was facilitated by the British were all based on racial and Language grounds ie Tamils/Sinhala/Burgers/Colonial etc be it elected by whoever then. This is as best as it can be done by any Colonial powers then with required administrative check and balance etc by the rulers to the ruled.

    You have eloquently captured the journey thereon based on certain premises to understand what went wrong therafter in your analysis.

    Yes there were intellectuals/visionaries in our quarters thinking for the future of our Nation and how that to be applied in “self ruled” so her full potential are realised on a long run..visionary …post Independence yes. However then our “limitations” came to be the governing factor once the masters have left….is self explained in the Ceylon Congress disintegrating into UNP/SLFP/FP/TC facing real “ground realities” you have also incorporated in your analysys. They all decided to (not so democratically elected then but buy the virtues of their colonial inheritance status the “Elite’) go back to their ghettoes to retain whatever that was felt then as their interest/responsibility etc.

    • 0

      Through lack experience and the Colonial power not their to assist us until we get the grip on running the Country..we all went about “learning on the job” that went badly wrong….to date as we have compounded it with our “ignorance/cockiness” (all things others avoided) and trapped in the ever so changing world around us/geopolitics….we did have a great offerings in 1970-1977 a salvation we did not continue….then came the TULF/UNP duo in 1977 capitalising on every good policy we had for social change and undoing all our historical achievements in one go…there were some glimse of hope in 1981 with Late Hon Premadasa..then again we squandered it.

      Now we are back on track be it with many compromises due to the global politics. I hope our GSOL can deliver what we deserve as a Nation to us.

      The other huge factor you have not mentioned is India…when you have neighbours like that we do not need enemies…what is the point of Independence anyway….does not matter what you do/achieve all will go to waste anyway. We need to revisit Colonialism in the right context now we know what expansionism means? and the destructive power withholds….after all may be Whitman should have stayed with us and had a Hong-honk set up may have been more appropriate that some our leaders argued then?

Leave A Comment

Comments should not exceed 200 words. Embedding external links and writing in capital letters are discouraged. Commenting is automatically disabled after 5 days and approval may take up to 24 hours. Please read our Comments Policy for further details. Your email address will not be published.