brand logo

An oral history of the ‘Polim Yugaya’ 

15 Dec 2021

By Sumudu Chamara “At dawn, hundreds of people wait in bread lines. Elderly men and women pick through garbage. Thieves harvest vegetables and rice in the countryside. Although the Earth is bountiful in Sri Lanka, the nation of 13 million has a critical food shortage. Moreover, it is going broke, jolted by inflation, torn by internal dissension, and plainly alarmed about the future.” This is how the food and economic crisis in the 1970s had been described by journalist Bernard Weinraub, in an article published by The New York Times in 1974. The article quoted former Prime Minister Sirimavo Bandaranaike as having said that the then economic crisis had “almost squeezed the breath out of us – we are literally fighting to survive”. Adding that Sri Lankans have been among the best fed, best educated, and healthiest people in South Asia, Weinraub said that perhaps, the fundamental reason for Sri Lanka’s plight was that the cost of food imports has spiralled while export earnings have remained stationary.  The queues, the scarcity of essentials, and black markets were prevalent then as well. The phrase “Polim Yugaya (era of queues)”, which was a political slogan back then, has emerged again. To those who have not lived in that era, the prevailing crisis may be the worst period of time they have lived in. However, those who have experienced both the crises opine that the circumstances that prevailed in the 1970s bear a great deal of similarities to the circumstances Sri Lanka is facing at present. They also feel that the country has gone back to that era in a different and a more complex way. To discuss this, The Morning spoke to several members of the public who have experienced the two crises firsthand. Similarities and differences V.K.A.N. Ananda, a 56-year-old engineer, explained the similarities and differences between the crisis situations. He said that even though there are certain similarities between the prevailing food crisis and the situation in the 1971-1975 era, what caused these two situations and how the earlier one was resolved and the present one should be resolved are completely different. He noted that while the food shortage in the 1971-1975 era was mainly caused by the then Government’s efforts to minimise imports and strengthen local industries, the prevailing crisis is largely a result of short-sighted plans and economic mismanagement on the part of several governments which has reached a tipping point due to the Covid-19 pandemic. With regard to the solutions, he added that while the Government, under J.R. Jayewardene, who succeeded the Bandaranaike Government in 1977, had to introduce the open economy and allow imports to address the crisis situation, the present situation has prompted the present Government to close the economy and restrict imports. He reminisced: “In the early 1970s, the goods situation, especially food, was not in a crisis. Local farmers grew food, and unless in the case of a food item that is not produced in the country, importing food was not a very famous practice. However, Bandaranaike wanted to promote and encourage local production, and she was very determined to do that. The people also liked and supported it, and they voted for her. However, even though Sri Lanka produced food and a large number of non-food items, due to various reasons including the supply not being able to meet the demand, a crisis situation arose. The then Government had to ration several food and non-food items including rice, sugar, wheat four, chillie, and clothes, and it affected the people to a great extent. On the one hand, the people had to scramble to obtain some of these products, and on the other hand, the quality of some of these locally made products was extremely poor. The Government had to distribute the limited supply of food, especially rice, bread, and wheat flour, among all citizens, and therefore, the ration system was taken seriously. In fact, being in possession of more than the approved (rationed) amount of certain goods was an offence, and there were checkpoints to catch people who had obtained more goods.” He compared that era with the present situation. “There are a lot of similarities. People being in queues to obtain goods in limited quantities, not being able to obtain certain goods despite the ability to pay, having to purchase goods regardless of their quality due to limited options, and the existence of a black market and sellers who take undue advantages from crisis situations, are some of the similarities between the two situations. I also remember that the then Government requested the people to refrain from consuming rice two days a week (and replace it with something else), in a bid to manage the limited rice supply. Even though the present Government has not said so specifically, their appeals to the people to curtail the consumption of various goods are indicative of the fact that the country has gone back to the same era.” Ananda added: “Back then, the supply of wheat flour to bakeries was limited, which in turn affected the people’s ability to obtain bread. In addition, co-operatives shops had a limited supply of other food items. I remember that there were cases of people stealing from co-operative shops, and the officials of certain co-operative shops were reported to have hoarded goods to be sold for higher prices. I don’t think today’s situation is much different; creating a shortage by hoarding food items and making it a reason to sell food items at exorbitant prices is much more prevalent than back then. However, I see one difference in these acts. During the crisis in the 1970s, illegal acts took place predominantly due to the scarcity of supplies, especially food, but now, traders create a scarcity and try to make profits. There were also times when poverty overpowered hunger, because even though food was the main concern, people had to fulfil their other needs. Some people sold the food they received through the rationing system to wealthy people for higher prices, and ate the food procured from their garden or village for free. Today’s situation is different; what happens today is money hungry businessmen buying food from Sathosa for lower rates and selling them at higher prices. As a matter of fact, back then, a lot of people consumed the food they could find from village areas for free. Despite the crisis, people shared what they had with others.” He explained how the crisis was politicised. “By around 1975, the situation got worse, and the people were fed up with living in such dire conditions. At the next election, Jayewardene promised to resolve the food crisis by introducing the open economy concept, which allows imports and exports, and he received the public’s support. In fact, people saw the era that followed as a golden era. Everything developed and evolved, and the food shortage got resolved. What is worrying is the fact that I never thought I would have to live in a similar or worse situation.”  Domestic and household economy H.N. Amarawathi, a 68-year-old housewife, explained what the household economy was like back in the 1970s and how relatable it is to the present situation.  “Back then, the amount of money you had, had little impact on how much food you got. Of course, certain people got more goods by paying more. But, it was done secretly. There were many wealthy people in my area; however, even they could not obtain more goods because the situation was that bad. Like we do now, we had to think twice about consuming certain food items. At that time, it was mainly rice and wheat flour, and now it is milk powder, vegetables, and sugar. One of the similarities I see in both the situations is that when there is a real shortage, how much money can help is also questionable. The money I have today and had back then did not get me what I needed in the quantities and quality I wanted. Instead, we had to use sparingly even the rationed food we received, and opt for food items that can be found or farmed in our lands. Some of the food we consumed back then was a last option, and I would not personally consume them ever again. However, whatever the food we had, people tended to share them among relatives and neighbours.” She opined, however, that had the Bandaranaike plan to strengthen domestic food production continued, the country would have been a self-sufficient nation by now, and that perhaps, the prevailing crisis would result in a stronger domestic production culture. Settling for less Meanwhile, Abaya H. Ranatunga, a 69-year-old retired public sector employee, spoke about what the future of this crisis might be like, based on his experiences in the 1970s. “One thing I learned in that era, and has a likelihood of happening now, or in the near future, is that crisis situations can become the norm when the people’s expectations of a good life keep declining for a long period. I personally think that despite how unpleasant and challenging the situation is, if people live long enough in the prevailing crisis with no adequate or high-quality goods or products, they will gradually get used to a complacent life with no high hopes. Essentially, people tend to compare the resources they have and can have, with the resources available out there, and if there are no resources to obtain, not having or not being able to afford such resources would not bother people and would become the norm. For example, my household usually consumes three packets of milk powder a month. But, during the past few months when there was a milk powder shortage, which still persists in my area, not being able to purchase the usual amount of milk powder bothered me only in the initial era of this shortage. I could purchase one packet of milk powder after it became available in the market. However, since I was used to not being able to obtain milk powder at all, when I had to purchase one a month, instead of three, I felt that it was alright. Also, I felt lucky because I knew through my friends that at the time I could buy one packet of milk powder, the shortage still existed in some areas. I remember the same happened in the 1970s when there was a severe shortage of food items and the people had to get used to eating less and struggle to get their hands on some food. I cannot speak for the entire country, but in my then neighbourhood, where the majority was middle-class people, having to spend hours in queues and eating less became normal. In fact, eating the right amount of food, which should be the norm, became a luxury and a thing that happens once in a while.” Ranatunga explained how the prevailing crisis situation can have an impact on the evolution of the country’s political system and the people’s quality of life. “The people having to settle for less and accept the same as normal are actually only one aspect of this issue. I think inferior living conditions becoming the norm can continue the deplorable political culture Sri Lanka has, which can, in turn, hinder the development of the quality of life. When the people are used to receiving and living with less than what they deserve, and their only expectation is survival, not a quality life, it is easier for politicians to promise a little relief and get elected. It could be any of the existing parties. For example, giving an uninterrupted supply of milk powder was never an election promise because it was an extremely normal thing. But, if an election comes before this shortage ends, it will certainly be an attractive election promise for which most people will vote forgetting what they experienced due to the acts of the very same politicians. This is not a speculation. This happened in the 1970s. The most prominent election promise Jayewardene’s Government gave was making essential food items available again, because that is what was lacking.” In this context, he said, depending on how long the prevailing crisis would continue, politicians will merely promise to ensure the uninterrupted supply of essential goods, instead of ensuring the quality of life. He added: “I think that the situation is worse now, or it can be worse in the near future, because the population and the number of goods and services identified as essentials have increased. Also, according to the little I have read and watched about the economy, the situation has already got worse because Sri Lanka’s foreign reserves are sufficient only for a few months.” Ill-conceived plans Meanwhile, Nandana Amarasinghe, a 69-year-old former vendor, opined that ill-conceived plans are one of the major reasons that led to the crises in the Bandaranaike era and at present. “Bandaranaike had a good intention, and the people and local industries supported it. It was intended to strengthen and expand domestic production, which could have created a lot of jobs and strengthened the national economy. However, this endeavour seemed to be lacking a mechanism to help the people to adjust to that change. Even though I have heard that rice was imported when the crises got worse, I think that the then Government could have come up with some plan to do something more. Had it been planned properly, perhaps, local industries would have been able to make the country self-sufficient. The present Government has also shown a lack of good planning. Even though the fertiliser crisis may not be the main reason for the prevailing shortage or limited supply, the poorly planned programme affected the agriculture sector to a great extent, and the farmers are struggling to feed their families.” When questioned what he thinks of the future of the prevailing crisis, Amarasinghe said that even though the measures that resolved the 1970s crisis were taken by local politicians, in the present context, Sri Lanka will have to depend on foreign support, which he said does not look promising.  Even though the Covid-19 pandemic is a crisis almost every county is facing, critics, economists as well as some who spoke with The Morning are of the opinion that the pandemic worsened the unstable economy Sri Lanka had failed to strengthen during the past few decades. Topics such as strengthening domestic production were relevant in the 1970s, and they are as relevant even today, and it begs the question as to what progress the governments that came to power during the past four to five decades have made in that regard. People may have different opinions as to whether Sri Lanka has gone back to the era of queues. However, the authorities have a responsibility to ensure that the coming few months or years will not see the situation worsening.  


More News..