Monte Cristo Estate Police Shooting

Published: December 4, 2024

December 4, 1959

Inquiry demanded

On December 5, 1959, an estimated thirty thousand tea estate workers in the Nawalapitiya area struck work. Their reason was to protest the fatal police shootings of three fellow workers the day before at Monte Cristo estate.1 Three prominent estate unions, the CWC, DWC, and LEWU, called for a commission of inquiry to be held into the shooting. They threatened to launch a mass strike on December 14, involving hundreds of thousands of workers across the estate sector, unless the commission was established.2 Estate employers agreed to the workers’ demand on December 12, so the initial thirty thousand strikers returned to work,3 and the threatened mass strike never materialized.

However, by February 1961, there was still no inquiry, and the CWC once again threatened to launch a strike, involving over 450,000 workers and two thousand estates, if one was not established.4 Three months later, its demand was acceded to as the defence ministry announced that a commission of inquiry into incidents at Monte Cristo estate since October 1959, headed by retired judge Francis Conrad Perera, was established.5 From July to December 1961, the commission heard evidence from various witnesses. Prominent lawyers or lawyers who would become famous, such as Jaffna MP G. G. Ponnambalam and Lakshman Kadirgamar, served as legal representatives during the inquiry. Dozens of witnesses testified and about six hundred documents were prepared for the commission.6 In May 1962, the commission published its report.

Watchers shoot

The report stated that 1959 started with no troubles at Monte Cristo, but there was a strike on the adjacent Craighead estate. Monte Cristo’s superintendent, Robert Harley, had rendered assistance to Craighead by manufacturing tea at Monte Cristo while Craighead’s manufacturing operations were paralyzed. Harley believed that his role in mitigating the impact of the Craighead strike drew negative attention towards him and Monte Cristo.7

The first major incident on Monte Cristo estate occurred on October 22. Harley had priorly hired eight watchers, two of whom, Aranolis and Karunatilleke, were armed with guns, to maintain security on the estate at night. He had been alerted to a possible attack on kanakkupillais8 at Monte Cristo by the workers. The CWC was alarmed by the recruitment of armed personnel and requested a joint conference with the management, but nothing happened. Harley had earlier informed workers and residents of the estate about the watchers and advised them to stay indoors after dark. That night, in a scattered group, the watchers were near a nursery where, they claimed, a crowd of workers threw stones at them, injuring one. The watchers arrested three workers and took them to the superintendent’s bungalow. There, Harley phoned the police about the arrest, and they said they would come to the estate. While waiting, Harley was notified about a group of workers approaching the house of a kanakkupillai, Segu Davudu. Harley sent three watchers, including Aranolis and Karunatilleke, to investigate. When the watchers arrived, the workers had left, but they found Davudu’s house slightly damaged. Davudu’s wife said that the crowd had asked for him, but he was not present at the time.9

After this, about one hundred workers came to the house, demanding the release of the arrestees. To them, the guards had intercepted, assaulted, and arrested three fellow workers. The watchers told the commission that they stated that they could not, and attempted a retreat, but the crowd attacked them. After three assaults, Aranolis opened fire. Seven workers in the crowd were injured, and one, Selliah, later succumbed to his injuries. In the workers’ version of events, they had gone to Davudu’s residence to protest the arrest. Harley had been at the house, and one worker asked him to release the arrestees. Some workers accused Harley of having pointed out specific individuals in the crowd to shoot at, and one even accused Harley of having issued the order to kill earlier in the day. 10 The two watchers were taken into custody, though they were later released after the attorney general’s office recommended filing a case against them.11

The commissioner believed the watchers over the workers, but regardless of the justifiability of the shooting, it aroused discontent among the Malaiyaha Tamil workers (referred to simply as “Tamil” hereafter). At Selliah’s funeral, Thondaman declared a strike. Thirty thousand workers of the CWC went on a one-day strike. However, the CWC and Harley later came to an agreement that stipulated, among other things, that neither side would use violence if the management withdrew Aranolis and Karunatilleke and if no victimization of strikers by management would take place.12

Despite the agreement, on November 2, Harley sent a letter to the CWC telling him that a kanakkupillai’s wife complained of an estate worker threatening to mutilate her husband even though there was an agreement by both sides not to use violence. The next day, the CWC ended the strike. However, trouble at Monte Cristo continued and was now taking a communal angle. Apart from general property damage, Tamil workers were reportedly attacking Sinhalese workers. Before the estate disturbances began, about a quarter of the Monte Cristo workforce was Sinhalese.13

“We will murder you and the Sinhalese”

On December 3, Karunatilleke and Aranolis were discharged by the magistrate. Tamil workers of the CWC were furious. A plucking kanakkupillai had told Harley that a worker named Arai had threatened the superintendent and warned that the Tamil workers “will show the fun tomorrow.” A Sinhalese worker also testified to the commission that he heard other workers plotting to kill Harley. The witnesses also accused CWC leaders Annamalai and Arunasalam of instigating workers to violence, but the commissioner felt that the allegations were incredible.14

The next morning, testified one Sinhalese worker Karunawathie, a Tamil worker had physically and verbally harassed her. However, her alleged assailant accused Karunawathie of having struck Arai. The commissioner felt that the Tamil workers were likelier to have initiated the fight since the Sinhalese were much fewer in number. Consequent to the scuffle, Karunawathie retreated to Harley’s bungalow to complain. Soon after, at least one hundred Tamil workers from different parts of the estate marched towards the bungalow. Some time before the advance, the secretary of the Mather Sangam15 had approached the bungalow and reportedly told Harley, “Adaey Harley, send those Sinhalese away; otherwise, we will murder you and the Sinhalese. You have killed one of ours. We don’t mind sacrificing another ten lives to get you and the Sinhalese. You wait there. I am going to bring down my people.” Segu Davudu had stated to police that a CWC leader, Sinniah, had led the crowd, and that he was ordering it to damage property.16

Police were soon notified about the advancing mob and consequently sent out a party of eight to suppress it. Police Sergeant Banda testified that, while in the jeep, the party encountered a mob of hundreds of workers who blocked the road and swarmed the vehicle. He had to force the door open to extricate the officers because of how close the crowd was. A worker attempted to hit him, but he warded off the blow. The crowd began to throw stones at the policemen and jeep from all sides, causing minor injuries but significant vehicular damage.17

At this point, Banda felt that action needed to be taken. He first warned the crowd, in Tamil, to desist. However, upon repeated failure of this, he ordered two constables to fire below the knees of the section of the mob in the direction of Dolosbage. After two rounds of fire, the section retreated but continued to stone. The section on the Nawalapitiya side continued their attacks, apparently unaware of the retreat of their Dolosbage-ward counterparts. Banda ordered another firing, this time in the direction of Nawalapitiya. The crowd retreated slightly but, like the other section, continued to stone. After another firing, they dispersed completely. As he moved to see if there were any casualties from the shooting, the crowd barraged them with missiles again. He then withdrew and ordered two officers to summon more police.18

At 10:30 a.m., more police arrived. As they ascended the hills, they came across three dead workers, Arai, Nadesan, and Mariappan, near a line room. They had been killed by the police firing. In the line rooms, they found several injured. They also arrested nine workers. The day after, they recorded statements from the workers who generally matched the police narrative that the crowd stoned the police and the police consequently opened fire. However, another group of workers told the magistrate a different story two days after. They reported that the police had alighted from the jeep, assaulted workers, and then went to Harley’s bungalow. As they returned, they opened fire at the crowd. The commissioner noted that the implication of the police firing after visiting the bungalow was that Harley instigated the police to shoot.19

The CWC sought the assistance of a retired ballistics expert who felt that the forensic evidence suggested that the police had opened fire after meeting Harley. However, the commissioner felt that his evidence was weak. The commissioner ultimately held that the police did not visit Harley before the shooting and that the police fired in self-defence. This was consistent with the magistrate’s conclusion.20

The day after the shooting, December 5, several estate trade union representatives met Prime Minister Wijayananda Dahanayake at Temple Trees to discuss the shooting and asked him to establish a commission of inquiry. Eela Nadu observed that “all the major trade unions in Ceylon are working together in unity and solidarity in this regard.” A. Aziz, president of the DWC, noted that no commission had been established for the watchers’ shooting. Thondaman asked that the policemen involved in the December 4 shooting be transferred, and that police from another station investigate the case. They were supported by LSSP MP Colvin R. de Silva. Dahanayake responded that he would think about it and decide.21

The next day, the funeral of the three deceased took place. Thondaman and CWC president S. Somasundaram had bemoaned the tendency of the police to open fire on estate workers in recent times. The latter noted that a government that had passed laws to prevent animals from being shot did not prevent the shooting of the workers. Aziz also attended and spoke at the funeral.22

Rs. 5,600

A director of Lewis Browns, an agent for Monte Cristo estate, revealed that between 1959 and 1960, the company (Lewis Browns) had paid Rs. 5,600 to the police. 2,500 of this was paid to the barrack fund of the Kandy and Gampola police, and the rest, Rs. 3,100, was paid to a boutique keeper who supplied food to the police. Harley had personally suggested paying the latter dividend “in view of the excellent work done by the police.”23 The director testified that the Rs. 2,500 was priorly approved by the IGP, whereas the Rs. 3,100 was not.24 He also said that he had attended a conference with the prime minister along with the finance and labour ministers, at which the Rs. 5,600 payment was discussed.25

The payment was brought up by Thondaman in 1963, when he accused the police of being biased in favour of the estate management because of it. He also complained of police prejudice against Tamil estate workers, noting that when the workers were charged before rural courts, the proceedings were done in a language they did not understand. When a worker was found guilty, he and his entire family would be sacked.26

Harley

Harley himself became a topic of focus of the inquiry and was subjected to a multi-day examination. In a letter from December 1959 sent to Lewis Browns, he complained that there was an open plot to murder him and destroy the bungalow.27 CWC witnesses accused him of having assaulted them and accused his managership of causing harassment to the workers. 28 The labour relations officer of the Ceylon Employers’ Federation claimed that the relationship between Monte Cristo’s management and its workers was “novel” in his experience.29 Harley was also accused of having stifled the creation of a union on the estate until shortly before the watchers’ shooting.30 However, the commissioner dismissed all the allegations.31 In virtually every dispute in the estate, the commissioner sided with Harley and the Sinhalese workers as against the CWC and Tamil workers. He laid the blame solely on the latter.

Exoduses

After the strike, the commission reported that tensions between the Sinhalese and Tamil workers continued unabated. In 1960, Harley hired several dozen Sinhalese workers, stirring the CWC. By the end of the year, three shooting incidents on the estate occurred, causing the deaths of five people.32 Between August 1960 and April 1961, there had been three exoduses of Tamil workers from the estate. After all the turmoil from 1959 to 1961, due to both the addition of Sinhalese workers and departure of Tamil workers, the workforce on Monte Cristo consisted of nearly equal numbers of Sinhalese and Tamils. Concluding his report, the commissioner noted that since April 1961, there had been peace on the estate for a year.33

උපුටා දැක්වීම්

Perera, Francis Conrad. “Report of the Monte Cristo Estate Commission of Inquiry.” Ceylon Sessional Papers, XV (1962).

අවසන් සටහන්

  1. “3 Dead, 7 Hurt in Police Firing,” Ceylon Daily News, December 6, 1959. Hereafter, “Ceylon Daily News” will be abbreviated as “CDN.”
  2. “Inquiry into Monte Cristo Shooting Urged,” CDN, December 10, 1959; “Plantation Unions to Ask for Inquiry,” CDN, December 10, 1959.
  3. “Ceylon Planters Go Back to Work,” The Times, December 12, 1959.
  4. “Threat of a Token Strike,” CDN, February 6, 1961.
  5. “Monte Cristo Inquiry,” CDN, May 31, 1961.
  6. “Monte Cristo Inquiry Concludes,” CDN, December 6, 1961.
  7. Francis Conrad Perera, “Report of the Monte Cristo Estate Commission of Inquiry,” Ceylon Sessional Papers, XV (1962): 13.
  8. Bookkeepers
  9. Perera, Sessional Paper XV, 25. “Laṭcumi Toṭṭat Takarāṟu,” [Monte Cristo Estate Dispute] Eela Nadu, November 14, 1959.
  10. Ibid., 25; “Laṭcumi Toṭṭat Takarāṟu,” [Monte Cristo Estate Dispute] Eela Nadu, November 14, 1959.
  11. “Laṭcumi Toṭṭat Takarāṟu,” [Monte Cristo Estate Dispute] Eela Nadu, December 12, 1959.
  12. Perera, Sessional Paper XV, 34; “Laṭcumi Toṭṭat Takarāṟu,” [Monte Cristo Estate Dispute] Eela Nadu, November 14, 1959.
  13. Perera, Sessional Paper XV, 2; 35-39.
  14. Ibid., 41-42
  15. The CWC’s women’s organization
  16. Ibid., 44-45.
  17. Ibid., 46-48.
  18. Ibid., 49.
  19. Ibid.
  20. Ibid.
  21. “Laṭcumi Toṭṭat Takarāṟu,” [Monte Cristo Estate Dispute] Eela Nadu, December 12, 1959.
  22. Ibid.
  23. “Company ‘Gave Gift of Rs. 5600 to Police’,” CDN, September 5, 1961.
  24. “‘They Want to Bump Me Off’,” CDN, September 6, 1961.
  25. “Witness Says There Was ‘Violence on the Estate’,” CDN, September 9, 1961.
  26. “Bandarawela Incidents: Ban D.M.K – M.Ps,” CDN, September 3, 1963.
  27. “‘They Want to Bump Me Off’,” CDN, September 6, 1961.
  28. “A.S.P. Concludes His Evidence,” CDN, November 14, 1961; “Labourers Say They Were ‘Assaulted’,” CDN, October 20, 1961.
  29. “Gentleman’s Pact Held Up Police Action – A.S.P.,” CDN, November 13, 1961.
  30. Perera, Sessional Paper XV, 23.
  31. Ibid., 21-22.
  32. “Threat of a Token Strike,” CDN, February 6, 1961.
  33. Perera, Sessional Paper XV, 65.