My article was to address the issues in relation to colonisation in a systematic way. Contrary to Mr Sirimal’s allegations, I have made no judgment, but submitted facts to the best of my knowledge, from relatively independent sources. I make no apologies for giving facts that highlight issues that illustrated the negative impact of colonisation on the country. This is because I think these facts are less well known when compared to the pompous glorification of colonisation by the likes of Sir Clifford. Of course, judgment has to be postponed until we inquire into these areas in further detail.

I do not agree with Mr Sirimal that the British were benevolent to the Indian Tamil labour (and to the rural Sinhalese). My views are based on information furnished by historians and I had quoted a few of them in the article at issue. There is much more information and data in books and medical journals. The conditions of the plantations were appalling. One in four of the newborn babies died within the first year of their life because of diarrhoea, infections and malnutrition. The planters went to the extent of opposing simple measures to improve the living conditions of the workers. Even the anti-hookworm programme of the Rockefeller Foundation was resisted by them initially (Reference: History of Medicine in Sri Lanka by Dr C.G. Uragoda, Sri Lanka Medical Association). Therefore, readers have to decide whether to believe several historians or the words of Sir Clifford, a former Governor, who represented the colonial government.

I agree with Mr Sirimal’s point that there were benefits of colonisation. But we have to weigh pros and cons. We should admire those who individually attempted to save the ancient ruins of Sri Lanka, but not forget that cart-loads of documents were stolen from temples. Roads were built and beneficial to us even today, but many poor rural folk were forced to work under appalling conditions and die for the sake of building them. There were and are benefits of tea plantations, but with an adverse ecological impact.

We also should not ignore the fact that vast strides in social development (e. g. health, education and village development) often attributed to the benevolent colonisers, actually happened during the latter part of colonisation, especially after universal adult franchise of 1931, when local politicians began to gain state power within a colonial structure. It was not a situation where the colonising powers suddenly became aware of the plight of the natives. On the contrary those concessions had much to do with the struggles and agitation by those who demanded more political freedom.

My suggestion therefore is to begin a rational and systematic discussion in order to get an accurate view as to whether the overall impact of colonisation was ultimately beneficial or not. For this purposes one has to do among other things, a cost-benefit analysis.

Unfortunately, Mr Sirimal bases his (pro-colonisation) arguments, mainly on a single lecture delivered by Sir Hugh Charles Clifford, Governor who represented the British crown from 1925 to 1927.

I doubt Sir Clifford would have spoken against the very government he represented!