May Day 1965 Riot

Published: May 1, 2025

May 1, 1965

May Day goes wrong

May Day of 1965 came with a more assertive air than usual. A seven-party government coalition headed by the UNP was now in power, and the principal leftist parties, the LSSP and Communist Party, were now in coalition with the lead opposition party, the SLFP. A desire to show strength by all parties was in the air,1 and such a desire manifested itself in a way that May Day had never seen before in Ceylon: violence. The Ceylon Daily News, unabashedly pro-UNP and anti-left, described the events simply as “Coalitionists went berserk” on the front page of its May 3rd edition. It described how Coalitionist mobs had gone on a rampage against businesses in Colombo on Darley Road, up to Lipton’s Circus, causing damage, totaling over Rs. 50,000, to dozens of businesses.2

Sirisena

The leftists had a different understanding of what had occurred. The general secretary of the CFTU, also a Communist Party leader, claimed that the incidents were due to “reactionary forces that… made a feeble effort to disrupt [a Coalitionist May Day procession] by staging a provocation in which one worker who took part in the procession was killed.” He also noted that it was the first such incident in the 33-year history of May Day in Ceylon.3 The deceased was a 25-year-old CWE employee named H. Herman Perera alias Sirisena.4

A more detailed version of events from the Coalitionist perspective was featured in the new, communist Sinhala paper Aththa. Bemoaning the fixation of the “capitalist press” on the attacks on businesses on Darley Road, it stressed that UNP toughs started the fight by attacking a Coalitionist procession. Specifically, it blamed a pro-UNP bootlegger named Seeni Malli,5 who was portrayed as innocent by the press, for instigating the attack. It also accused the UNP demonstrators of having attacked a nearby hotel, Bake House, owned by a UNP supporter, and accused the pro-UNP press of omitting this fact.6

At an inquest into the death of Sirisena, a doctor testified that the young man was admitted to the ward at around 4:20 p.m., injured and smelling of alcohol. He was still conscious, and when asked about what happened, he simply replied, “a man hit me.” The only external wound he had was a cut above his left eyebrow. He was sent to the neurology clinic, and two days later, his condition worsened, and he lost consciousness. By the evening, he was dead. The judicial medical officer, who conducted Sirisena’s autopsy, concluded that the death was due to brain damage from a facture of the back of his skull. However, while he felt that the injury on his eyebrow could have been caused by a bottle, the injury to the back of his skull was caused either by being clubbed or falling down.7

Two other hypotheses on how he died were offered. One was presented by the AJMO who examined Sirisena. He claimed that the deceased had told him that he had fallen off a bicycle and did not mention anything about a procession or being assaulted. However, the officer felt that the evidence did not corroborate Sirisena’s story and that Sirisena’s mind was not sound. Furthermore, he did not expect him to die from his injuries. The other narrative came from a fellow worker, who claimed he and Sirisena were co-processionists for the Coalition. On May Day, the Coalition procession was attacked by another crowd with stones and bottles. One of the bottles struck Sirisena in the head. Fearing injury, the witness had fled and was unaware of Sirisena’s condition thereafter.8

Sirisena became a hero to the Coalition. Members of the three constituent parties visited his body at the morgue.9 In an interview with Aththa, his parents described him as a “devoted stalwart of the SLFP” and complained that they would be destitute as he was their sole breadwinner.10 The Aththa paper set up a charitable fund for his family, dubbing Sirisena the “May Hero.”11

Nevertheless, leaders of prominent trade unions like the DWC and Union of Posts and Telecommunication Officers condemned the leftist violence. The former noted that there were communalist slogans being shouted while the latter blamed political scheming for the unruly turn of events.12

Unsurprisingly, the attacks on businesses were met with condemnation from the government party, whose politicians blamed it on the Coalition and even alleged they were premeditated.13 In parliament, LSSP MP for Panadura, Leslie Goonewardene, complained that “pro-government” newspapers had misstated the events. He acknowledged and condemned any violence that was done by the Coalitionists, but also asserted that it was retaliation for the attacks of which they were victims.14

Commission of inquiry

In response to the violence, Prime Minister Dudley Senanayake appointed a commission of inquiry into the incidents of May 1. This was applauded even by the Panadura MP.15 However, the LSSP’s leader, N. M. Perera, was less enthused about it and refused to give evidence, accusing the commission of being established “not with a view to obtain an impartial picture of the incidents.”16

Whether due to this, or the actuality of events, the report largely focused on victimization of UNP demonstrators. The commissioner was G. V. P. Samarasinghe, a senior civil servant, and in his eyes, the violence started when green-shirted processionists, likely UNP workers, were assaulted by red-shirted workers, likely Coalitionists, at Campbell Park. Police, after receiving the complaint, went to find another section of the crowd when the complainers were yet again attacked. This time around, one was stabbed, and he and several others were hospitalised.17 Following this, there were attacks on UNP supporters in vehicles and on the road.18 Regarding the Bake House incident, Samarasinghe conceded that “there is no clear evidence as to what set off the incident” since no representations had been made to him about it. However, police reported that it was set off when people on the balcony threw things at the UNP procession and the latter retaliated.19

What was to blame?

On the largest incident of the day, the Darley Road attacks, he noted that the attacks spanned about half an hour and involved only a small section of the Coalitionist procession. Acknowledging the difficulty in pinpointing a particular reason for the violence, he tendered two explanations. One was that a UNP supporter had seized a Coalition processionist after being attacked, and the other was that the Coalition procession was hit with projectiles from a boutique on Darley Road.  Samarasinghe also raised the possibility that the vandals were disposed to go on a rampage from the outset. 20

To Samarasinghe, the police arrangements were inadequate given the circumstances, but he refrained from blaming any particular officer. He also acknowledged that the police had managed to restrain the violence quickly. He further recommended:21

  1. Senior police officers be more involved in pre-planning and arrangements for events like May Day.
  2. Police more carefully screen requests for processions, taking into consideration available police resources to manage them.
  3. The police ordinance should be amended to require giving police 14 days’ notice of a planned procession and hold procession organizers liable for any injuries or damages caused by their procession.

He noted that May Day 1965 was different from its predecessors because, this time around, political sectioning was a predominant theme in the workers’ rallies. There were four groups of demonstrators: the CMU, the CTUF, the government, and Coalition. He noted that the former two focused on workers’ rights and anti-capitalism and that there were no complaints against them. The government group was focused on the recent victory in the parliamentary elections. However, the Coalition group slogans often used communalism, primarily against Tamils, Indians, and Christians, seemingly upset about the contributions by these groups to the UNP victory. He concluded that, overall, partisan sectarianism had found its way into the traditional workers’ day. “The main cause of the incidents,” he wrote, “is the build-up of political tension from the dissolution of Parliament and the defeat of the Coalition Parties at the General Election.”22

Bibliography

Kearney, Robert N. Trade Unions and Politics in Ceylon. London: University of California, 1971.

Samarasinghe, G. V. P. “Report on the Incidents in Colombo on 1st May, 1965.” Parliamentary Series, No. 6 (1966).

Footnotes

  1. Samarasinghe, “Report on the Incidents in Colombo on 1st May, 1965,” Parliamentary Series, No. 6 (1966): 10.
  2. “P.M., Police Review May Day Violence,” Ceylon Daily News, May 3, 1965. Hereafter, Ceylon Daily News will be abbreviated as CDN.
  3. Kearney, Trade Unions and Politics in Ceylon (London: University of California, 1971), 150.
  4. “Mæyidā Gæṭumen Maraṇayaki!” [May Day Confrontations Result in a Death!], Aththa, May 5, 1965.
  5. Meaning “Little Brother Sugar”
  6. “Ali Giya Para Soyanu!” [Find the Road the Elephant Went On!], Aththa, May 3, 1965.
  7. “‘Mata Pahara Dunna!’ Kiwwa’ [“I Was Hit,” He Said!], Aththa, May 6, 1965.
  8. Ibid.
  9. “Mæyidā Gæṭumen Maraṇayaki!” [May Day Confrontations Result in a Death!], Aththa, May 5, 1965.
  10. ‘Ādāhanaya Heṭa Kanattē: Pakṣa 3ma Sahabhāgi Veti!” [Cremation at Kanatte: All 3 Parties to Attend!], Aththa, May 7, 1965.
  11. For example, see “Mæyi Vīra Aramudala Piduṇu Dā,” [May Hero Fund Pledge Day], Aththa, November 5, 1965 for a fundraising event.
  12. “May Day Hooliganism Condemned by T.Us,” CDN, May 3, 1965.
  13. “Ministers Deplore Violence,” CDN, May 8, 1965; “Violence Was Pre-Planned, Says MPs,” CDN, May 5, 1965.
  14. “Debate on the Constitution,” CDN, May 5, 1965.
  15. Ibid.
  16. Samarasinghe, Parliamentary Series, No. 6 (1966), 2.
  17. Ibid., 4.
  18. Ibid., 5.
  19. Ibid., 6.
  20. Ibid., 7.
  21. Ibid., 18-19.
  22. Ibid., 10.