Columns

When the month of July comes around there are many reflections on the incidents of July 1983 and the pogrom that targeted the Tamil community. The incidents of that month will always evoke a collective sense of shame for all Sri Lankans when a section of its citizens, the Tamil community, was targeted by organised mobs creating mayhem, resulting in the deaths of thousands and widespread destruction of property. What was even more harmful in the long run was the sense of alienation created in the minds of the Tamil community by the failure of the State to nip in the bud the trail of destruction that was set in motion.

Those who were privy to the events surrounding the incidents of July 1983 will recall that it took at least 48 hours before the law enforcement agencies began taking steps to curb the riots. The majority of the people – both Sinhalese and Muslim – reached out to the victims and protected them but the State’s inaction was unforgiveable.

This was a clear example of the failure of Government to carry out its duty of protecting its citizens paving the way for a greater national tragedy in the future.

The tragedy of the war for Sri Lanka is that many lessons that can be learnt are not learnt. A comprehensive study of the armed conflict between the Sri Lankan State and the LTTE will yield many lessons for those who may be entrusted with the task of governance in the country.

If one examines another policy intervention of the Government it will be evident that even well intentioned measures unless well thought out can have a detrimental effect on the relationship between any one community and the State.

While the events of July 1983 and its fallout greatly contributed to the growth and trajectory of the armed conflict between the State and the LTTE, the policy of standardisation for university admissions which was not sufficiently well thought out to foresee the implications, fuelled the sense of grievance of the Tamil community. Although there were enlightened politicians in that Government who had spent a larger part of their lives fighting for justice for the minorities, they failed to foresee that those measures could be perceived as discriminatory by those affected and as a result develop a sense of victimhood in them.

In 1970 the Government of the day introduced what came to be known as a scheme of standardisation of admission to the universities. Over the years the number of students entering the universities from the Sinhalese and Tamil communities had been disproportionate to their demographic proportions. While the Sinhalese were the majority in the country only a small percentage of Sinhalese students entered universities, while admissions from the minority Tamil community accounted for a large majority of admissions. The Muslims lagged far behind.

The reasons for this disparity was not difficult to ascertain. Prior to independence the best schools were built mostly in the coastal belt and in Jaffna. The Tamil community which placed a great emphasis on education made full use of the facilities available resulting in large numbers entering the universities. On the other hand the Sinhalese were slower in taking to education and because most of them lived outside the coastal belt, they had little or no access to the ‘good’ schools. Consequently the numbers entering the universities from the Sinhalese community was totally disproportionate to their population.

The system of standardisation was designed to correct these disparities. However by attempting to do so, the Government introduced a media based scheme of standardisation which meant that Sinhalese medium students (all of whom were Sinhalese) could enter universities with less marks than those who studied in the Tamil medium (almost all of whom were Tamils). This immediately made the Tamils think that they were being discriminated against. Given the high priority that Tamils gave education it was inevitable that this well intentioned but not well thought out policy contributed to the events that followed later on.

This mistake was corrected several years later but not before the damage was done. The Government introduced a district based system of standardisation which took into account the educational disparities in the different districts, without basing it on the medium of instruction.

It took account the fact that districts such as Mullaitivu, Moneragala and Nuwara Eliya to name a few, lacked ‘good’ schools while Colombo, Jaffna, Galle and Kandy had the best schools. Consequently the district based system of standardisation ensured that students from districts such as Mullaitivu, Moneragala and Nuwara Eliya were admitted to the universities with lower results than those from the districts with more education resources such as Colombo, Jaffna, Galle and Kandy. As a result, the sense of being discriminated on ethnic grounds was pre-empted.

The two examples above clearly highlight the critical role the State plays in shaping inter-communal relations by ensuring not only justice but a perception of justice among the communities. The State has to play its part by carrying out its duties assiduously and always think its policies through, however well intentioned they may be.

(javidyusuf@gmail.com)