The Senanayake Legacy: Pioneers of Sri Lanka’s Independence

Commemorating the 140th Birth Anniversary of D. S. Senanayake

Young Senanayake brothers, FR, DC, and DS and their contemporaries laid the groundwork during the 1915 struggles for independence, culminating in Sri Lanka’s sovereignty 33 years later.

The year 1915 was a turning point in Sri Lanka’s political history. British authorities unjustly targeted several young leaders, creating widespread anxiety, even among those who had no prior political involvement.

Don Stephen Senanayake, the first Prime Minister of independent Ceylon, was born on October 20th 1884. His family was in the forefront of the struggle for independence that began following the 1915 riots.

When the Legislative Council convened for the first time after the religious clashes, on August 6, 1915, Governor Chalmers addressed the assembly, stating:

“...Ceylon has suffered a great calamity... One section of His Majesty’s subjects has attacked another. The assailants were Sinhalese Buddhists; the victims were peaceful Muslims. The attack began in Kandy on the night of May 28, the nativity of Gautama the Buddha; it spread like wildfire... to Rambukkana, and then through Colombo down the coast to Matara... What has befallen the Muslims at the hands of Sinhalese in the five provinces is that their property has been looted, their houses and shops wrecked, their mosques desecrated and destroyed, and they themselves have been wounded, outraged, and murdered...”

— Hansard: 6/8/1915: fol. 330.

Young Senanayake brothers, FR, DC, and DS and their contemporaries laid the groundwork during the 1915 struggles for independence, culminating in Sri Lanka’s sovereignty 33 years later. This tumultuous period gave rise to a powerful national movement that transformed the island’s political landscape and reshaped the aspirations of its people for self-determination. At the forefront in the struggle was D.S. They played a crucial role in guiding the movement, using their influence to rally support and advocate for social justice and national identity.

The year 1915 was a turning point in Sri Lanka’s political history. British authorities unjustly targeted several young leaders, creating widespread anxiety, even among those who had no prior political involvement. The Temperance Movement, which began in response to government efforts to increase revenue by opening more arrack and toddy taverns, became central to the unrest. Governor Sir Robert Chalmers’ authoritarian actions acted as a catalyst for this emerging freedom movement, marking a significant turning point in the island’s politics. His repressive measures galvanised various segments of society to demand change and assert their rights. When communal riots erupted, the colonial government declared martial law, claiming it was necessary to restore peace. In reality, they committed brutal atrocities against anti-liquor activists, seeking to crush the growing national independence movement. 

Unrest 

The unrest began on May 28, 1915, Vesak Poya Day, when a Buddhist procession in Gampola defied orders to stop drumming as it passed a mosque. A. Ratnayake, a Minister and former Chairman of the Senate, shared an eyewitness account: “I was a 14-year-old schoolboy. As I stood by the carol cart, someone threw a bottle, and the people from the mosque started hooting and attacked us with stones, clubs, and whatever they could find. In retaliation, our people entered the mosque and destroyed it. Muslim shops were attacked, and houses were set on fire.” The island-wide clashes that ensued resulted in 63 deaths.

Governor Sir Robert Chalmers responded by declaring martial law, authorising the military to shoot on sight. D.S. Senanayake, along with his brothers F.R. and D.C. and other leaders from the Temperance Movement, were unjustly arrested and harshly mistreated.

In May 1915, following his arrest, the 30-year-old D.S. Senanayake recounted his ordeal in a statement to the authorities:

“... A town guard came to my residence around 5:30 a.m. with two armed Punjabi soldiers, woke me up, and, without allowing me to use the toilet, took me to Welikade prison. They put me in a convict’s cell with no place to sit. Many prominent gentlemen were locked up in solitary confinement. We were cut off from speaking to anyone. A servant pushed some dirty food on a filthy tin plate, which I found disgusting, and I couldn’t eat. I remained hungry for two days... I was accused of inciting riots, but no evidence supported the charge...”

On June 8, Punjabi soldiers from the Town Guard searched F.R. Senanayake’s house and arrested him without providing any explanation. At the same time, D.C. Senanayake’s home was raided, and he was also taken to Welikade prison. 

F.R. Senanayake wrote to Sir P. Ramanathan on June 14, 1915, the representative of the Educated Ceylonese in the Legislative Council, recounting a disturbing incident:

 “... At about 8:00 p.m. on June 1st, a terrified Muslim man living near my brother D.S.’s house came running to us, seeking protection from a group of thugs. My brother and I rushed to assist him, chased away the crowd, and my brother brought the Muslim family to our home for safety...”

—Deshamanya F.R. Senanayake; Dahanayake, p. 68.

All three Senanayake brothers became actively engaged in the Temperance Movement, despite the fact that their father, Don Spater Senanayake, had built his fortune through profits from graphite mining as well as the arrack and toll renting trade.

“The three brothers were detained alongside other national leaders, including D.B. Jayatillake, H. Amarasuriya, A.E. Gunasinhe, John de Silva, F.R. Dias Bandaranaike, and Edwin Wijeratne. Tragically, Edmund Hewawitarne, brother of Anagarika Dharmapala, lost his life in a prison in Jaffna. The colonial government was apprehensive about the rise of a freedom movement disguised as the Temperance Movement, in which the young Senanayakes played a vital role. Several national leaders were subjected to court-martial and executed by firing squad under martial law.”

— 100 Days in Ceylon under Martial Law by Armand de Souza, 1916.

R.A. Mirando, President of the Buddhist Theosophical Society (BTS), was another casualty of the colonial government’s actions; the Colonial Secretary stated that he was “shot by accident.” Others imprisoned without trial included W.A. de Silva, Arthur V. Dias, and numerous active supporters of the Buddhist cause. The British closely monitored young D.S. Senanayake’s involvement in the anti-arrack campaign alongside his brothers, fearing that this radical movement could evolve into a national freedom movement. Additionally, they were concerned about the declining revenue from arrack rentals.

At the request of Sir Ponnambalam Ramanathan, C.P. Dias, a senior member of the Colombo Municipality and Principal of Wesley College, Colombo, prepared a report on the riots. In 1915, the village population in Ceylon was composed of 85 percent illiterate lower-class Sinhala and Muslim communities, contrasting sharply with today’s higher literacy rates and improved social standards. Dias observed that “…the disturbances appear to have been a sudden outburst of resentment from the lower classes of Sinhalese, including artisans and the unemployed, against the Muslims…” — C.P. Dias.

Sir Ponnambalam Ramanathan, a prominent national leader, and E.W. Perera, a lawyer from Kotte, visited the imprisoned Sinhalese leaders to collect affidavits for submission in England, accusing government officials of wrongdoing. E.W. Perera secretly carried a document addressed to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, hidden in the sole of his shoe. As a result, martial law was lifted, an investigation into the charges was launched, and Governor Chalmers was dismissed, being succeeded by Sir John Anderson.

The riots were primarily viewed as a religious skirmish, common in the region. However, the authorities panicked and overreacted, largely due to the ongoing war in Europe between Britain and Germany. A well-organised campaign demanding an inquiry into the atrocities committed by British officials compelled them to respond; yet the final report stated that “…ten of the executions were illegal, but they were conducted in good faith.”

[email protected]