GOOD, BAD AND COMPLACENCY

As Sri Lanka celebrated her 71st anniversary of independence, there are two competing schools of thought that take stock of the performance of the foregone period. One is blinded by a heavy dose of patriotism, and the other, by an overdose of bitterness and acrimony.

The former selectively crows about accomplishments, especially in the broader area of social justice at the same time, glossing over the manifest underachievement in a much larger area, primarily of the economy and national unity.

Their opponents consider independence as a sordid farce, a period of majoritarian discrimination against ethnic minorities. The most vocal typed there also bankrolled an armed struggle that fought for the division of this country and, now lament the annihilation of the terrorists.

Leave aside supposed political correctness and put a face on the two opposing types: The majority of those who hold an unquestionably favourable opinion is primarily of Sinhalese (Perhaps Buddhist, often rural) background. The disgruntled lot are overwhelmingly Tamil, most vocal and venomous of whom have already emigrated.

This dichotomy of opinion is manifest in the contrasting reactions: There was a grand independence day parade in Colombo, and celebrations in many other cities and black flags were hosted in Jaffna.

However, a more nuisance assessment of Sri Lanka’s track record over the past 71 years is that it is modest, but not spectacular, troublesome, but not evil. It is one of the middle ground. An average C pass or B-.

In the most account, Sri Lanka’s achievements in social justice remain significant, however, the interesting point is that the foundation for these achievements was laid long before the independence. Equally, an intriguing question is whether post-independent Sri Lanka managed to keep the momentum of these achievements, lately. In contrast to Sri Lanka’s unassertive achievements, countries that lagged behind in social indicators have made tremendous progress.

For instance, in

1945, the literacy rate of Sri Lanka (then Ceylon) was 57 per cent and in 2017 it is 93 per cent. That is modest progress and is in line with the world; world literacy rose from 56 per cent in 1950 to 86 per cent in 2017. Whereas the literacy rate of India at the independence was 18 per cent. In spite of overall wretchedness of the vast majority of its teeming masses, India’s literacy has risen to 74% in 2017. Similarly, only one in five could read and write in China in 1950. Today, China’s literacy rate is per cent. Similarly, Sri Lanka lost out qualitatively. In the 1960s, the then the University of Ceylon, ( now Peradeniya) ranked among the top 100 universities in the world. Now, none of the Sri Lankan universities is anywhere near there. This explains another less-talked about aspect of Sri Lanka’s social progress. i.e. rather than being a well thoughtout an economic plan, Sri Lanka’s social progress was a result of one big populist policy, which allocated scare economic resources to social projects as an election ploy- to win votes. The populist narrative- rather than a long term coherent long term economic vision- of these policies should also be assessed in the context of bloated welfare measures, such as rice rations etc. also in offer at the time. Such dole outs came at the expense of long term economic development.

In the end, the economy grew at a modest 4.2 per cent in a yearly average during the last seven decades, which is less than ideal for a country of a low GDP base of 80 USD at the time of independence. Sri Lanka’s Per Capital GDP of an estimated 4000 USD as of now is a lot less compared to the performance of other states which had a similar economic standard in the 1950s, such as South Korea, Taiwan or Malaysia.

Equally, an intriguing question is whether post-independent Sri Lanka managed to keep the momentum of these achievements, lately. In contrast to Sri Lanka’s unassertive achievements, countries that lagged behind in social indicators have made tremendous progress

This explains another less-talked about aspect of Sri Lanka’s social progress. i.e. rather than being a well thought- out an economic plan, Sri Lanka’s social progress was a result of one big populist policy, which allocated scare economic resources to social projects as an election ploy