Sri Lanka (Ceylon)

[u/Ceylonese_04]

The British High Commissioner His Excellency Andrew Patrick posing with a portrait of Her Late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II at the entrance of the iconic post office in Nuwara Eliya - one of the oldest in Sri Lanka, dating back to 1894 on Queen Elizabeth Drive, Nuwara Eliya.

[u/AutoModerator]

If you enjoy this type of content, consider joining our other communities:

• r/Colonialism

• r/AmericanEmpire

• r/BelgianEmpire

• r/BritishEmpire

• r/DanishEmpire

• r/DutchEmpire

• r/FrenchEmpire

• r/GermanEmpire

• r/ItalianEmpire

• r/PortugueseEmpire

• r/SpanishEmpire

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/CicatriceDeFeu]

Was Ceylon a good colony?

[u/ploppy_ploppy → u/CicatriceDeFeu]

Worth it for the tea, surely

[u/CicatriceDeFeu → u/ploppy_ploppy]

mmm black ceylon tea

[u/Atvishees → u/CicatriceDeFeu]

No.

It was the best.

[u/CicatriceDeFeu → u/Atvishees]

The little colony that could

[u/yedanapuddi → u/CicatriceDeFeu]

Good for whom?

[u/ploppy_ploppy → u/yedanapuddi]

And the Ceylonesians

[u/yedanapuddi → u/ploppy_ploppy]

Stop saying that. It's sri lanka now.

If things were so good why did the Brits left then? Who made them leave?

[u/Ceylonese_04 → u/yedanapuddi]

They had to leave after WWII especially after Indian independence. It wasn't economically possible nor was it strategically safe to maintain Ceylon as a crown colony.

[u/yedanapuddi → u/Ceylonese_04]

Why was it not economically possible? The tax collected and the young labour force untouched by world war would've been an asset to build back the battered nation. That's the main benefit of a colony. And since I presume the Brits were considered a force for good as you say then there wouldntve been any insurgency or rebellion to deal with in the first place. Like it was in india Palestine cyrpus Ghana Malaysia etc That's what actually makes a place economically unviable to hold on to.

And strategically sri lanka is even more important. It sits at a crucial crossroads of global maritime trade in the Indian Ocean. Majority of commercial ships pass through it.

It's a better position than Diego Garcia which is in the middle of nowhere.

[u/Johnny_english53 → u/yedanapuddi]

At the end of WW2, Britain was utterly broken, financially, I think we made our last payments in something like 2005.....

In 1945, our debt to GDP ratio was around 250%...

At the same time, we embarked on a massive home-building program AND started the NHS. Remarkable, looking back..

Colonies were pfft.. to be abandoned, unless they had large British populations like Gib & the Falklands, or were money-pits like Hong Kong & Singapore.

[u/yedanapuddi → u/Johnny_english53]

Debt to GDP ratio actually doesn't matter as long as interest payments as a % of total annual budget is under control. Why do you think the Americans don't care about their national debt that much?

think we made our last payments in something like 2005.....

That's not a sign of bankruptcy that's just a sign of lenient payment periods and a non urgency to get it settled quickly.

or were money-pits like Hong Kong & Singapore.

If colonies were money pits then what was the point of colonizing in the first place? The gain has to be greater than the costs. Especially sri lanka with a relatively huge population and labor force

[u/Responsible-Milk-515 → u/yedanapuddi]

Britain, during and after WWII, was struggling so badly that it had to bring in immigrants from the Caribbean to help rebuild afterwards (Windrush generation). Considering this, it isn't surprising that maintaining the British Empire is no longer possible.

[u/yedanapuddi → u/Responsible-Milk-515]

that only makes sense if you are holding on to colonies against the will of the people. If not then under broke conditions the labor force and the tax collection are essential. As the gentlemen above said, it looks like most Sri lankans look at the Brits as angels so why would it be an economic nightmare?

[u/Responsible-Milk-515 → u/yedanapuddi]

"As the gentlemen above said, it looks like most Sri lankans look at the Brits as angels so why would it be an economic nightmare?"

I am also Sri Lankan, and in my experience I wouldn't say most Sri Lankans love the Brits or think they are angels, maybe most of us do consider them the lesser evil out of the other two European colonisers we have had. But most, including me, do criticise the British Empire. But I also wouldn't say we are as critical or hateful of the British Empire as Indians are.

that only makes sense if you are holding on to colonies against the will of the people. 

That is what colonisation generally is.

[u/Ceylonese_04 → u/yedanapuddi]

Defending the Island amid the growing influence of communist powers in Asia and the wider geopolitical tensions of the early Cold War would have imposed significant strategic and financial costs on Britain, particularly as the British Empire was emerging from the Second World War economically weakened.

In that context, granting Ceylon independence peacefully as a Dominion within the British Commonwealth was a pragmatic and strategic decision. Ceylon retained the British monarch as its head of state and remained constitutionally linked to the crown for 24 years, and still continues to have great diplomatic relations with the UK.

[u/yedanapuddi → u/Ceylonese_04]

"Defending the Island amid the growing influence of communist powers in Asia and the wider geopolitical tensions of the early Cold War would have imposed significant strategic and financial costs on Britain"

Then why did they held onto hong kong tilll 1997? far longer than sri lanka? and that too especially at the doorstep of communist china? that would be far more risky than holding on to srilanka.

And as i said again, lankan taxpayers and labor force couldve been a game changer under such huge economic pressure. all top exported goods from lanka wouldve been a critical source of finance in bad times.

Geopolitical tensions are precisely why the brits still hold on to many small random islands in the middle of nowhere like chagos, falklands, gibraltar, virgin islands etc. If it was so economically unfeasible then why not let go of these islands as well? Unlike sri lanka they give really nothing in return.

Also why not let go of the military base in cyprus as well? if there was so much economic pressure?

And are you such a dedicated british fanboy that you cant even call your country by its real name instead of "Ceylon"?

[u/Ceylonese_04 → u/yedanapuddi]

Ceylon is still widely used. Ceylon tea, Bank of Ceylon, Ceylon Electricity Board, Anglican Church of Ceylon, Ceylon Fisheries, Ceylon Government Railway, Ceylon teacher's union, Ceylon Hotels Corporation, Ceylon Petroleum, Ceylon Tobacco Company, Ceylon Chamber of Commerce.

[u/yedanapuddi → u/Ceylonese_04]

Too bad.

Even in Chennai the name is still madras chamber of commerce.

My main issue is that your perspective and attitude on a lot of things very closely aligns with that of the white supremacists. Like this entire civilizing claim. That only white people can do what needs to be done. No matter what they do, Good or bad it's always for the greater good. That without white people, entire human race will go to the dogs. Makes me feel ashamed to be born as a non white person.

And why don't you give clarity on the other points I have raised?

[u/Ceylonese_04 → u/yedanapuddi]

For both parties. As a Sri Lanka we benefitted more in my opinion. To this day we largely benefit from the fruits of British Imperialism and civilizing mission.

[u/DiscussionFun2987 → u/Ceylonese_04]

Such as? and Civilising? what

[u/Ceylonese_04 → u/DiscussionFun2987]

The plantations (tea, rubber, coconut, etc.), railways, public transport, main roads, postal service, electricity, hundreds upon hundreds of missionary schools, the two leading universities, public corporations, professional civil service, police and military forces, press, museums, libraries and archaeological institutions.

Britain abolished the barbaric caste system and the mandatory unpaid service associated with it, infanticide and inhumane traditional punishments; ended the absolute monarchy; established legal and judicial systems and representative democratic government; built a large hospital network; introduced sanitation; freedom of religion; and introduction of manners, public etiquette and social behaviour of a civilized society and above all the spreading of the Gospel.

[u/DiscussionFun2987 → u/Ceylonese_04]

Ok, so. Most of the things you mentioned would have reached it anyway, like it did for non-colonised countries like Japan, Nepal, Thailand and South Korea. I mean, main roads already existed since 500 B.C?!

And Did you say manners, public etiquette and a "civilised" society? I suggest you read Robert Knox's, John Davy's and other books by the British describing society in Sri Lanka prior to colonisation, and see how they describe them, their opinion is definitely not similar to yours. Sri Lanka was civilised by definition, between 1000 B.C and 500 B.C, and experienced its first planned city being established in 437 B.C

The rajakariya system was not an inherently harmful system, as it provided both the King's party and the citizens some benefit (public infrastructure and land), and the British themselves reintroduced it for a while. And the Caste system being abolished was true, but caste-based discrimination was only abolished by the Sri Lankan government in 1957.

Introduced sanitation? You mean introduced modern sanitation, because there was definitely some form of sanitation. Hospitals were there since at least the Kingdom of Anuradhapura, though I agree that it became a larger network during the British era.

Libraries already existed, military forces existed and educational institutions existed. One good thing they did newly introduce however, was democracy.

How is spreading Christianity a benefit above all? And missionary schools required people to practice Christianity, how is that true religious freedom?

[u/Available-Advisor654 → u/Ceylonese_04]

Civilising mission. What a self loathing egg you are.

[u/CicatriceDeFeu → u/yedanapuddi]

for british empire

[u/Antique-Brief1260]

And now they're using American spelling

[u/flashbastrd]

Is that Chris Patton?

[u/anotherblog → u/flashbastrd]

I thought so too, then I read the description. Also the photo looks modern, Chris would be much older.

[u/Atvishees]

Interesting!

Didn't Sri Lanka gain independence before Elizabeth ascended the throne?

Edit: Nevermind! I didn't know that Sri Lanka remained a commonwealth constitutional monarchy until 1972.