{"id":76545,"date":"2018-04-16T21:30:37","date_gmt":"2018-04-17T04:30:37","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/?p=76545"},"modified":"2018-04-21T13:45:11","modified_gmt":"2018-04-21T20:45:11","slug":"history-behind-the-1915-ethnic-riots-that-inflamed-gampola","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/2018\/04\/16\/history-behind-the-1915-ethnic-riots-that-inflamed-gampola\/","title":{"rendered":"History behind the 1915 ethnic riots that inflamed Gampola"},"content":{"rendered":"

This article is being translated & commented from the Sinhala article appearing in the Lankadeepa newspaper by Pushpanath Jayasiri Mallikarachchi. Pushpanath Jayasiri Mallikarachchi brings out some previously unspoken facts which demands comparison of similarities with the present in Sri Lanka as well as similar sentiments presently emerging across UK, Europe, Australia and even throughout US & Canada.<\/p>\n

As in all cases activists & supposed rights-groups purposely ignore the background to animosities. They conveniently avoid mentioning what initially looks innocent & unimportant but when consistently & regularly added creates a larger issue & outcome.<\/p>\n

The scenario brought out by the author is of a date on 28 May 1915 where a group singhing Bhakthi songs (Buddhist songs) accompanied by musicians were making their way down Ambagamuwa Street having obtained approvals from police & relevant authorities. Not mentioned is that pre 1505 and arrival of western Christian colonial invaders such approvals were not necessary. Buddhism was part of life & governance while non-Buddhists practiced their faiths respecting the state religion. There was no Christianity or local Christian followers (Sinhalese or Tamils) before 1505.<\/p>\n

As happens presently even within the police there are questionable characters & it is their actions that often lead to bigger issues. Likewise, a policemen had informed that the procession had no authority to sing along Ambagmuwa Street. The police had also instructed that the procession had to stop their music 100 yards from the mosque. Though the Basnayake nilame objected, the police were influenced by the mosque.<\/p>\n

What also needs mentioning is that in 1911 the Government Agent approved the procession to take its original route. However, in 1912 the Moors obstructed to the procession and it had turned violent. The case was heard by Paul E Pieris in 1914 & he upheld the rights of the Buddhists which were however opposed by the British Attorney General who challenged the verdict and the verdict was reversed in the Supreme Court of Ceylon on 2 February 1915.<\/p>\n

The Buddhists made an appeal to the Privy Council in London arguing that centuries old Buddhist customs were being denied as it was part of the 1815 Kandyan Convention to protect Buddhism. 1915 was the centennial of that 1815 Convention but the failure of the colonial British to uphold the assurances of that Convention disappointed the majority Buddhist populace. The British Privy Council rejected the appeal by the Buddhist leaders in Gampaha and orders were given against the Buddhist procession passing the Muslim mosque.<\/p>\n

British were taking the side of the Muslims while curtailing and obstructing Buddhist rituals & rights. These discrepancies are highlighted by Michael Roberts.<\/p>\n

Why were all these objections emerging after arrival of colonial rulers? Were there such objections by Moors to Buddhist processions before 1505? None that we can historically find. So what was the reason for these objections to come so suddenly & so consistently?<\/p>\n

Heeding orders, the group proceeded along another street and when they were going 120 yards down that street people from inside a mosque (which was opened only in 1907) started hooting at them and when the procession immediately turned, stones were hurled at them from the mosque. Who threw the first stone is guilty of igniting the fire and cannot complain thereafter. Was this not the same allegation that came in Aluthgama before the riots broke out? It was the stones hurled from the mosque that resulted in the attack upon the mosque. As a result of people throwing stones from the mosque, the eventual outcome was damage to property of both sides and loss to lives of both sides too. Innocent people suffered because of the actions of a handful both in 1915 and in 2014 as well as more recently in 2018. As in the case in 1915, 2014 & 2018 the whole narrative is written omitting key facts & the usual culprits engage in planting sentiments for further and future chaos.<\/p>\n

Alleged suspects were arrested but the incident justified the white colonial administrators to bring down the Punjab Army from India, just the way they brought Indian sepoys against the natives that defended their island in 1818 and 1848. We can also recall the damage the Indian Peace Keeping Force caused by killing not only Sinhalese & Muslims but Tamils as well. The colonial British concluded the attacks were against them by the Sinhala Buddhists \u2013 they got an opportunity to justify their main aim to squash the majority populace that were against colonial rule and they informed London that the freedom struggle had taken a religious dimension.<\/p>\n

Thus the 1915 riots became categorized as an ethno-religious riot between Sinhala Buddhists & Muslims\/Islam<\/p>\n

The similarities in actions are also noteworthy after the 1915 riots the damage to Muslim (Moors) lives and property were exaggerated (25 dead, 189 injured, 4 raped, 86 destruction of properties, 4075 thefts, 350 shops guttered) In 2014 and recent 2018 the damage to the Sinhala Buddhists & temples hardly got any attention by supposed unbiased press!<\/p>\n

The British saw the Sinhala Buddhists as a threat for it was only they who were defending the nation and so the British took inhuman measures against them. Notice the similarities in the usage of the term \u2018extremists\u2019 the colonial British were quick to brand the Sinhala Buddhists as \u2018extremists\u2019 no different to how they are presently being labeled even by so-called smart \u2018patriots\u2019 acting as sepoys. This was how D S Senanayake, DB Jayatilake, W A Silva, A E Gunasinghe, Anagarika Dharmapala were all arrested and put into prison.<\/p>\n

The role of Britain in fanning these communal flames cannot be overlooked. Their divide & policy meant dividing people and keeping them at each other\u2019s throats. As a result of this policy the British brought Malayalees, South Indians & Indian Muslims to work on their plantations as labor in 1800.<\/p>\n

What often gets omitted from mention is that since 1833 Colebrook Commission, the Muslims were represented through Tamil representation and were categorized as Coastal Yonis, Lanka Malay Yonis. Moor traders who arrived from South Indian Malabar coast & migrated to Sri Lanka were known as Indian Malabars.<\/p>\n

Malays thereafter forged their own identity. Only after 1889 that the identity of Muslims was treated separate to that of the Tamils.<\/p>\n

The first moor mosque was opened in Ambagamuwa in 1907 and immediately afterwards began opposing the annual procession that started near the Wallabhagoda Devale and passed the mosque. It is also one of the valid reasons why non-Muslims object to new mosques being built close to other religious sites as Muslims have a tendency to use power of money as influencers to curb religious events of others who have been holding theirs far before their mosques became erected. These are good food for thought for fair-minded Muslims to ponder.<\/p>\n

There was a background story to the riots that resulted which many chose not to connect with and that continues to occur even presently.<\/p>\n

Another key element that added to the animosity built up between Muslims & Sinhalese was the monopoly of foods & commodities by the Muslims. Taking advantage of the food shortage accrued following World War 1 the Muslims were manipulating the prices of food & goods to their advantage and profit. Muslims were excellent tradesmen. They were masters at charging unfair high interest against loans which gave rise to calls to resentment among non-Muslims to stop frequenting Muslim owned shops & eateries.<\/p>\n

That the Sinhala-Muslim conflict was not ethno-religious and was associated & as a result of trade-competition is revealed by K. M. de Silva.<\/p>\n

The rise in price of coconut & rubber & unemployment together with the shortage of food & essential commodities led to social unrest among Sinhala Buddhists & that automatically directed attention towards the Muslims who were unfairly profiting in manipulating the system. This was highlighted by Kumari Jayawardena in her writings on the Sinhala-Muslim conflict too.<\/p>\n

According to Michael Roberts to address the threat of Buddhist cultural heritage the British used & manipulated the Muslim minority against Buddhist cultural events thus artificially creating an ethno-religious conflict.<\/p>\n

Shenali D Waduge<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Sinhala version of the Article that appeared in the Lankadeepa newspaper<\/strong> http:\/\/www.lankadeepa.lk\/diyatha_news\/\u0d85\u0dad\u0dd3\u0dad\u0dba\u0dda-\u0d9c\u0db8\u0dca\u0db4\u0ddc\u0dc5-\u0d87\u0dc0\u0dd2\u0dc5\u0dd4\u0dab-\u0da2\u0dcf\u0dad\u0dd2\u0dc0\u0dcf\u0daf\u0dd3–\u0d9c\u0dd2\u0db1\u0dd2\u0db8\u0dd0\u0dbd\u0dba\/48-525587<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Also read<\/p>\n