Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="50KG" data-source="post: 23205534" data-attributes="member: 558780"> Background to the attack  One reason  why the   University had remained insulated from the communal violence  outside   until 1983 was that the Left was strong in the universities.  Even   though there had inevitably been a certain amount of communal    polarisation, it had been possible to discuss the ethnic issue quite    openly without rancour, and many lifelong friendships were made across    communal divisions. During the December 1982 Referendum there had been    major clashes in the University along UNP and anti-UNP lines. It was a    turning point. The UNP Government had secured itself by this  stratagem   of the Referendum a further six years in office with no  effective   opposition. In reinforcing its brand of absolutism, the  right wing   sections in the University received a shot-in-the-arm where  they could   act with impunity with the forces of the State backing  them. This was   happening throughout the country. This was the context  behind the   attacks. The Report gives strong indications of planning  behind the   attacks:  “We  have therefore to   conclude, that there is no substance in the  accusations made by the   chief actors in this drama when they confronted  the Tamils on the   campus, and that the slogans and defacing of the  plaque were part of   the strategy to implicate the Tamils, and so to  precipitate unrest in   the University”. (p. 25)  Apart from the nature of the simultaneous attacks on the 11th night, another feature is pointed out in the Report. It says, “We    have noted with some misgivings the role of the President of the    Peradeniya Students’Union before and after the night of terror (the    11th), his assignment in the halls of residence, (at meetings, which we    understood, were unauthorised,) his solicitude for the victims of the    campaign [i.e. the suspended perpetrators], and his ubiquitous  presence   at focal points of the campus during the disturbances.”  Tell-tale signs of UNP involvement  Although the  Inquiry   Report did not comment on this, its own evidence points to UNP    involvement. What took place on the 11th, 12th and 13th on the campus    was organised criminal assault with intimidation and danger to life,    with the authorities unable or unwilling to make any impact on the    situation. Yet no attempt appears to have been made to summon the Police    (p.7). We may take it that the Vice Chancellor did not call the   Police.  When the Police were called to intervene by a medical   professor, they  avoided the issue by bringing in the fictitious need   for the DIG’s  clearance.  This is  extra-ordinary   because the Police were involved by the University only  to take into   custody and interrogate for terrorist links an innocent  Tamil victim.   On the other hand Thulsie Wickremasinghe was brazenly open  in his belt-   wielding assaults on three successive days. No attempt was  made to   check him. The Tamil students who fled were given a deadline to  return   leaving the belt-swinging-hero free to start the mischief all  over   again. Wickremasinghe appears to have been extremely confident of  the   impunity he enjoyed.  Those who  have been   through Peradeniya over the decades would know one thing for  sure.   Whenever there was a disturbance within the Campus that the  Government   considered a challenge to itself, the Police were promptly  dispatched   with riot gear, virtually to camp inside. The Vice Chancellor  had   little say in the matter. Why the indifference on the part of the    Government and the Police this time? Why the silence of the Vice    Chancellor on what action he took regarding summoning the Police to    protect the Tamils? Did he try and did someone dissuade him?  The  Jayewardene Government   was extremely sensitive to what was going on in  the universities. In   Chapter 11 we will see the alacrity and violence  with which the   Government interfered in Kelaniya University in 1978 when  student   elections showed poor support for the Government. Minister  Ranil   Wickremasinghe intervened personally with a view to influencing  the   elected representatives. The Government was undoubtedly far more    concerned about Peradeniya. The experience at Kelaniya does indicate    something about the prominent students going about with impunity causing    havoc, while ‘what authority existed within the campus was in eclipse’.    The latter was something Jayewardene would hardly have tolerated for    three days, leave alone four weeks, unless it was sanctioned by  persons   having his confidence.  A particular  feature of   the violence shows through in the 18 students identified by  the   Committee of Inquiry against whom punishment ranging from 1 year’s    suspension to dismissal was recommended. 13 of them were from    medicine-related courses (medical – 9, dental – 3, veterinary – 1), 4    from science and an engineering first year. Nearly all of them are from    courses to which competition is high with the students tending to have    an elitist outlook and being significantly more receptive to ideas of    the Right. There was none found guilty from the Humanities. Also in    earlier years the Engineering Faculty had far healthier traditions such    as welcoming freshers instead of ragging them. We may also note that   the  Press, which leans towards the UNP, did not touch in any depth the    horror of what happened at the University.  It is  also of  interest to  note that there were very senior persons at the  University,  who were  also highly influential in the UNP hierarchy. The   vice-chancellor’s  brother was N.G.P. Panditharatne, the powerful UNP   Secretary General.  Also influential with the UNP were Professors K.M. de   Silva and G.H.  Peiris. K.M. de Silva co-authored a biography of   Jayewardene. We have  no doubt that Prof. B.L. Panditharatne did not want   to go down in  history as the vice-chancellor who presided over the   ethnic cleansing  of the University. Neither would have any of the others   relished the  distinction of being professors in such an institution.  It  was perhaps  this inhibition that prompted some kind of action.  Although  there was  no public note of indignation against the attackers  who were  well  known to the authorities, restorative measures were put  into  motion,  although they were long delayed and inadequate. We also   understand  that the Report of the Committee of Inquiry was suppressed,   apparently  on the grounds that one person in the three-member committee   did not  sign. Mrs. T.K. Ekanayake, who was then the principal of Girls’   High  School, Kandy, resigned from the Committee of Inquiry at the  latter   stages on 14th November 1983. There is an indication in the  Report that   her place was taken by Mrs. Chandra Ranaraja at the Vice  Chancellor’s   request. However, the final report of 6th December 1983  was signed by   only two of the three members. They were Kenneth M. de  Lanerolle   (Chairman) and Dorai Calnaido (Member). As to Jayewardene’s  personal   interest in universities, we may note that during his  presidency, he  was  also minister of higher education!</blockquote>

Verification: Nawa warak dahaya keeyada? (Namaya wadi kireema dahaya)

Top Bottom