Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-m9kch Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-01T10:38:08.427Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The British Raj and the 1915 Communal Riots in Ceylon

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

P. T. M. Fernando
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In contrast to India, where communal affrays were ordinary incidents of life, there was little inter-communal hostility in Ceylon throughout British rule. The clash between the Sinhalese and the Muslims that occurred in May–June 1915 was the major exception to this general trend of peace and tranquillity2. Not only did the disturbance take the Ceylon government by surprise, it placed the Colonial Office in a quandary. In this paper it is proposed to examine the reactions of the Ceylon government and the Colonial Office to what was an unprecedented disturbance in the ‘senior colony of the new empire’3.

Type
Articles
Information
Modern Asian Studies , Volume 3 , Issue 3 , May 1969 , pp. 245 - 255
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1969

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 In the years 1900–22 there were 16 communal riots in India; from 1923 to 1926 there were 72. These were usually sparked off by irritation caused to the Hindus by slaughter of cows and to Muslims by the playing of music in front of mosques.Google Scholar See Gopal, S., The Viceroyalty of Lord Irwin, 1926–31. Oxford, 1957, p. 8. The Hindu–Muslim massacres which accompanied the partition of India are, of course, well known.Google Scholar

2 There was a minor clash between Buddhists and Catholics in 1883 without loss of life. It was after independence, in 1958, that Ceylon experienced a communal blood-bath.Google Scholar See Vittachi, Tarzie, Emergency'58: The Story of the Ceylon Race Riots. London, 1958.Google Scholar

3 Wight, Martin, The Development of the Legislative Council, 1606–1945. London, 1946, p. 74.Google Scholar

4 For detailed contemporary accounts of the events leading to the riots, see Ramanathan, P., Riots and Martial Law in Ceylon, London, 1915;Google ScholarPerera, E. W., Memorandum upon recent disturbances in Ceylon, London, 1915;CrossRefGoogle ScholarArmand de Souza, , Hundred Days in Ceylon: under Martial Law in 1915, London, 1916.Google Scholar

5 Gampola is a town near Kandy the ‘capital’ of the Central Province.

6 S.P. (Sessional Paper of the Ceylon Legislative Council) XVI (1916), Report of the Police Inquiry Commission, p iii.Google Scholar

7 C.O. (Colonial Office files, Public Record Office, London), 54/785, Chalmers to Bonar Law, Confidential, 14 October 1915. No Europeans were killed during the disturbances.Google Scholar

8 Ibid., Chalmers to Bonar Law, Confidential, 3 November 1915.

9 P. Ramanathan, op. cit., p.52.Google Scholar

10 S.P. XVI (1916), p. iv.Google Scholar

11 Armand de Souza, op. cit., p. 28.Google Scholar

12 C.O. 54/785, Chalmers to Bonar Law, Confidential, 14 October 1915.Google Scholar

13 34 persons were excuted after Court Martial inquiries.

14 Governor of Ceylon from April 1916 until his death in March 1918. He was Permanent Under Secretary at the Colonial Office before coming to Ceylon.Google Scholar

15 S.P. VI (1917), Report of a Commission appointed by His Excellency the Governor to inquire into and report upon the circumstances connected with the shooting of L. Romanis Perera and nine others.Google Scholar

16 S.P. VI (1917), Anderson to Long, 26 May 1917.Google Scholar

17 Chalmers was Permanent Under Secretary at the Treasury prior to the Ceylon post and was re-appointed to the Treasury in March 1916. In 1924 he was elected Master of Peterhouse, Cambridge.Google Scholar

18 C.O. 54/782, Chalmers to Bonar Law, Confidential, 24 June 1915.Google Scholar

19 Ibid., Chalmers to Bonar Law, Confidential, 1 June 1915.

20 Ibid., Chalmers to Bonar Law, Confidential, 7 June 1915.

21 C.O. 54/782, Chalmers to Bonar Law, Confidential, 18 June 1915.Google Scholar

22 C.O. 54/783, Chalmers to Bonar Law, Confidential, 18 August 1915.Google Scholar

23 C.O. 54/782, Chalmers to Bonar Law, Confidential, 24 June 1915.Google Scholar

24 Ibid., Collins' minute, 1 July 1915. Speaking in the debate on the Colonial Office Vote, Bonar Law said: ‘Indeed, the charge which at first was made against the Governor of Ceylon was not that he had shown too great severity, but that he was not severe enough’. House of Commons Debates, 5th series, vol. LXXXV, 3 August 1916.

25 Ibid., Stubbs to Collins, 2 June 1915.

26 Ibid., Stubbs to Collins, 8 June 1915.

27 C.O. 54/785, Chalmers to Bonar Law, Confidential, 14 October 1915.Google Scholar

28 C.O. 54/782, Stubbs to Collins, 2 June 1915.Google Scholar

29 Ibid., Stubbs to Collins, 8 June 1915.Google Scholar

30 Ibid., Stubbs to Collins, 2 June 1915.

31 Ibid., Stubbs to Collins, 8 June 1915.

32 House of Commons Debates, 5th series, Vol. LXXIII, speech of Steel-Maitland, 21 July 1915.Google Scholar

33 Ibid., Bonar Law's reply to question by A. MacCallum Scott, 27 July 1915.

34 C.O. 54/782, Chalmers to Bonar Law, Telegram, 23 July 1915.Google Scholar

35 For example, Hulugalle, H. A. J., British Governors of Ceylon, Colombo, 1963, p. 1696.Google ScholarA. Ratnayake, ‘Sir Baron Jayatilaka’, Ceylon Daily News, 25 April 1966.Google Scholar

36 C.O. 54/786, Stubbs to Bonar Law, No. 786, 1 December 1915.Google Scholar

37 Ibid., Cowell to Chalmers, 21 February 1916.

38 See letter from A. Thorp, a Magistrate in Ceylon, to F. A. Govett, 15 December 1915. C.O. 54/801, enclosure in F. A. Govett to Bonar Law, 7 January 1916.Google Scholar

39 C.O. 54/786, Stubbs to Bonar Law, Confidential, 22 December 1915.Google Scholar

40 C.O. 54/785, Cowell to Fiddes, 29 December 1915.Google Scholar

41 C.O. 54/801, Chalmers to Bonar Law, 24 January 1916.Google Scholar

42 C.O. 54/786, Stubbs to Bonar Law, Confidential, 22 December 1915. Memorial enclosed.Google Scholar

43 Ibid., Stubbs to Bonar Law, Confidential, 22 December 1915.

44 C.O. 54/795, Anderson to Fiddes, 27 June 1916.Google Scholar

45 Ginnell asked a number of questions in May, June and July 1916, on specific allegations of illegal shooting. See House of Commons Debates, 5th series, Vol. LXXXII, LXXXIII, and LXXXIV (1916).Google Scholar

46 C.O. 54/795, Cowell to Grindle, 11 June 1916.Google Scholar

47 C.O. 54/795, Steel-Maitland to Bonar Law, 12 June 1916.Google Scholar

48 C.O. 54/805, Anderson to Long, Confidential, 5 September 1917, enclosure.Google Scholar

49 C.O. 54/799, Anderson to Fiddes, 24 August 1916.Google Scholar

50 C.O. 54/805, Collins' minute, 18 October 1917.Google Scholar

51 Ibid., Fiddes' minute, 19 October, 1917.

52 Ibid., W. H. Long's minute, 20 October 1917.

53 C.O. 54/806, Thompson to Anderson, 31 October 1917, enclosure in Anderson to Long, Confidential, 10 November 1917.Google Scholar

54 Ibid., The Memorial of the European residents in Ceylon to the Secretary of State, enclosure in Anderson to Long, Confidential, 21 December 1917.

55 C.O. 54/806, Cowell's minute, 31 January 1918.Google Scholar

56 Ibid., Long to Anderson, 20 February 1918.Google Scholar

57 S.P. VI (1917).Google Scholar

58 C.O. 54/805, Wood Renton to Long, 17 September 1917, enclosure in Anderson to Long, 19 September 1917.Google Scholar

59 C.O.54/805, Long to Anderson, No. 571, 7 November 1917.Google Scholar

60 C.O. 54/806, Cowell's minute, 28 December 1917 and G. Grindle's minute, 8 January 1918.Google Scholar

61 For a detailed account of this agitation in Britain, see Fernando, P. T. M., ‘The Development of a New Elite in Ceylon, with special reference to educational and occupational background’, Oxford D.Phil. Thesis, 1968, pp. 201–218.Google Scholar

62 C.O. 54/813, Fiddes' minute, 21 November 1918.Google Scholar