Features

1956, SWRD, Sir John, some ministers and drafting a Throne Speech on short order

Published

3 years ago

2023/07/23

(Excerpted from the Memoirs of a Cabinet Secretary by BP Peiris)

In view of the dissolution of Parliament, I sat down to draft the Queen’s Speech. I drafted five different speeches, one for each person who might be a potential Prime Minister: Sir John, S.W.R.D., Philip Gunawardena, Dahanayake and N. M. Perera. The elections were spread over three days, and on the last day, April 12, 1956, was S.W.R.D.’s election at Attanagalla.

On the first day’s results, it was clear that there was a swing towards S.W.R.D.’s party, the Mahajana Eksath Peramuna. On the second day’s results, his position had considerably improved and it was clear to any thinking man that, if S.W.R.D. won his own seat on the 12th, he would automatically be Prime Minister.

The shortness of the time given for the drafting of the Queen’s Speech must have struck him as a constitutional lawyer because, on the 12th morning, while polling in his electoral area was going on, he asked me on the telephone to come to his bungalow to draft the Speech.

DS.’s and Dudley’s Secretary was N. W. Atukorale. When Sir John came in, Atukorale was elevated to Queen’s House and P. Nadesan took his place. Nadesan was an efficient officer and was known as Sir John’s man. He was able to write a speech for Sir John for the opening of a Commonwealth Conference or a Volley Ball court. If S.W.R.D. came in, everyone knew that Nadesan had to go; and he went.

Many, including my father, thought that I would have to go likewise although I saw no reason for taking a kick. When S.W.R.D. phoned over the Queen’s Speech, I told him that I did not mean any disrespect, that I wished to act constitutionally as Secretary to the Cabinet, that Sir John was still the Prime Minister, that he was not still member for Attanagalla, that I had no doubt that he would be elected, that I knew the urgency of the matter, that I had a draft ready, and that I would see him early the next morning with Sir John’s permission.

In the afternoon of the 12th, I drove to Kandawala. Sir John, dressed in a sarong and banian, was signing cheques for each of the minor employees of the External Affairs Ministry. When I explained my problem, he readily granted me permission to see SWRD. He then invited me to a drink. As it was only five o,clock, I said I would prefer a glass of iced water, and he said “You b…, you are also refusing my drinks, now that I am down?”

I said it was not that, that I had some drinks at lunch time, and that my throat was a bit parched. He was annoyed but asked the servant boy to bring two glasses of iced water. When I was there, Sir John’s house which is normally full of people was deserted by those who pretended to be his friends and enjoyed his hospitality while he was in power.

And so, the next morning, at 6. 30, I was on SWRD.’s doorstep at Rosmead Place. He had been returned by an enormous majority and was to be our next Prime Minister. I inquired from a servant boy whether the master was up and was told that he was reading a mass of newspapers. I sent my name in and was asked to come upstairs – I went in, in some trepidation, and again told him, that I meant no disrespect and that I was there with Sir John’s permission, and that at Sir John would be handing in his resignation as Prime Minister at noon.

SWRD. then made a short speech at me in a very loud voice. He said he saw no disrespect but complete integrity, that public officers from Government Agents down to village headmen had worked against him (“against me, against me” he shrieked about three times) in the election, and that he admired the correct and upright stand I had taken. He said I was the one public servant, he knew, who had acted correctly during the election. I knew now that I had saved my skin. He asked for my draft and read the three pages which I had written, slowly and carefully. He then took a blue pencil and cancelled all three pages saying “Pedestrian English Peiris, pedestrian English Take this down”, and with his usual intellectual superiority and arrogance, started dictating.

He was naturally elated at his success at the election and his future as the Head of the country. Several times I had to ask him to go slow on his dictation because I knew no shorthand, and he said “Sorry, my dear fellow”. What he dictated to me was not a Queen’s speech but a vitriolic attack on Sir John and the United National Party, an attack which he should properly have made on the floor of the house of Representatives or at a public meeting.

At the end of his dictation, I thought it my duty to point this out, which I did, adding that the Governor-General might refuse to read the Speech. There is the instance of King George V refusing to read a Speech until some objectionable words referring to His Irish subjects had been deleted. He said “take my order”.

While he was dictating to me, the servant boy was coming up every few minutes saying that another gentleman had arrived, and this was before seven o’clock in the morning. SWRD. was unwashed and unshaved and dressed in pyjamas and a dressing gown, not in the shirt and cloth. He was an Oxford man, and an Oxford man cannot easily slough his culture.

About the servant boy’s tenth visit, he lost his temper and shouted at the boy to tell them all to clear out of his house. I reminded him that he was now the Prime Minister and that his remark, if conveyed, would make a very bad beginning. I suggested that he go down as he was, in his dressing gown, see who these gentlemen were, and ask to be excused because he was extremely busy about the formation of a Cabinet and time was short.

He agreed and we both descended the stairs, he with one arm round my shoulder, and I with the draft of the Queen’s Speech under my arm. Before he lost his temper, he had suggested that I wait for bacon and eggs – Oxford again.

I cannot describe my surprise when I came down and saw who the gentlemen were who were calling so early in the morning on the new Prime Minister. They were all gentlemen in high places who used to frequent Kandawala and who had done a quick somersault and a long jump to the winning side. ‘Gosh,’ I thought, ‘aren’t there any decencies in life? What they were there for, I never found out because SWRD ordered me to get back to my office and get on with the job I had in hand.

The senior hands on my staff had dealt with the Queen’s Speech since 1974 and they were surprised when they read the draft in my long-hand before they typed it. They came to me and asked “Is this the Queen’s Speech?” And I said “No. This is Mr Bandaranaike’s speech. I am not going to have this printed”.

When the draft was typed, I took it back to Rosmead Place and asked S.W.R.D. to read in type what he had dictated to me. I told him that the language was far too strong and had to be toned down. He was calmer now; the first flush of victory and elation had receded and he was giving his mind to more urgent and important things like Cabinet-making. He again read the draft carefully, said that he agreed with me and asked me to tone it down.

I asked him whether he wished to see the second draft; time was running short. He said, “Certainly not, my dear fellow. You tone it down; you know my ideas; I can trust your discretion; have your amended draft translated and printed”. As Prime Minister, he was a mellow man. As Minister of Local Government he had been a terror to his colleagues and to the public servants who worked in his Ministry.

His Permanent Secretary, E. W. Kannanagara, told me that he had to be the shock-absorber.

The Speech, toned down by me and read by the Governor-General in S.W.R.D.’s excellent English, contained promises which the Government could not possibly fulfil. A people’s Government had been returned and the people had to be pampered and pleased, whether the Government could afford the luxury or not.

At the Opening of Parliament, the People’s Ministers, including the Prime Minister, were in national dress, wearing blue scarfs to indicate the party. I was surprised to see Ministers M. W. H. de Silva and Stanley de Zoysa in this dress. M. W. H. looked dignified as a judge of the Supreme Court in a full-bottomed wig and gown. Stanley, with his monocle and that meticulous English pronunciation of his which reminded you of a University Don – well, really, you had to look at him twice before you could recognize him. To the Senate and the House of Representatives, Ministers went in the national dress. To the Cabinet, they came in the most nondescript attire.

The first paragraph of S.W.R.D.’s first Queen’s Speech read as follows:

“The free votes of the people democratically cast at the last general election are a clear indication of dissatisfaction with many aspects of policy and administration hitherto pursued. My Government intends, in pursuance of its declared policy, to effect many changes with expedition and efficiency, but in a manner which will neither result in injustice nor cause confusion and dislocation.”

1956,SWRD, Sir. John,

The Speech continued:

“My Government wishes to assure minorities, religious, racial and otherwise, that they need have no fear of injustice or discrimination in the carrying out of its policies and programmes. My Government will ensure to all citizens the rights, privileges and freedoms to which they are entitled in a democratic state.”

Compare this with the following sentence in the Speech:

“It will also take necessary steps for the adoption of Sinhala as the one official language of the State.”

Was the Sinhala only policy not a discrimination against a minority? Was the Assisted Schools takeover not an injustice? Was it a blow at the Roman Catholic community? Are these some of the changes which the Government intended to effect with expedition and efficiency? If these were, then, many more were to follow in the years to come, some overtly, some surreptitiously and yet others by camouflage.

In SWRD.’s Cabinet there was one woman. There was also Dahanayake, later to be Prime Minister, who was always punctual and who came barefooted to meetings with a bottle of eau de cologne and, before he gave up smoking, with a tin of Peacock cigarettes. C. P. de Silva was a double first in mathematics and excelled, by reason of his previous experience as a Civil Servant, in matters relating to land and irrigation.

M. W. H. de Silva, Q. C., Minister of Justice and a kinsman of mine had held high office; he had been a Judge of the Supreme Court and our High Commissioner in India. His nickname in Hultsdorp was the ‘mule’ because, once he had made up his mind, nothing would make him change it. To illustrate this, I shall relate an incident which took place when I was an Assistant Legal Draftsman drafting the Constitution and he was Acting Legal Secretary.

A telegram had come from the Secretary of State asking for an amendment to be drafted on certain lines. M. W. H. told me the lines on which to draft. This was, in my opinion, not the lines that the Colonial Office intended, but I did not tell him so. Instead, I discussed the matter with D. S. Jayawickrama, Assistant Legal Secretary and E. H. T. Gunasekera, Crown Counsel, both of whom agreed that my interpretation of the telegram was right and that M. W. H. was wrong.

I accordingly ignored the Acting Legal Secretary’s order and drafted according to what I thought the Secretary of State wanted and took the draft to M. W. H. to be told “This is not what I want. Please draft on these lines”. I told him politely that I did not think that his interpretation of the telegram was correct, and he, equally politely, told me not to waste his time but to draft as directed by him.

I therefore went and prepared a fresh draft, but was careful to send it to him with a letter in which I said that the draft gave effect to his oral instructions but, in my opinion, did not give effect to the Secretary of State’s instructions as set out in his telegram. My second draft was telegraphed to England and soon there came back a telegram saying that the draft was not what they wanted.

M. W. H. sent for me and asked me to re-draft and I said “I told you, Sir”. All that the mule said was “Well, your job is to draft. Draft again”. I said “Here’s my first draft which you rejected earlier” and he was compelled to accept it. Except for this idiosyncrasy, he was a straight and honest and upright man, pleasant in his manner, with a sense of wit and humour. During a Cabinet discussion in which he was not interested, he would doodle, always the figure of a female.

There was William Silva, young in years, as Minister of Industries. He appeared to understand his work and the nature of his duties and made a useful contribution to the discussion. In charge of Finance was Stanley de Zoysa, an old Royalist, about two years senior to me at school, and an exceedingly polite man. Philip Gunawardene, Minister of Agriculture and food must, as a student, have spent long hours poring over Das Kapital. I had never met him before, but when I was a student in London, I had seen him addressing the mob on Sundays in Hyde Park from a soap box – a platform called the Indian Freedom League.

He always wore a canary jersey, and was a very effective and forceful speaker, with plenty of venom against the Britisher, ready wit and repartee. I mentioned this fact to him at his first meeting when I introduced myself, and he agreed that my memory was correct. He is the only Minister I have worked with since the beginning of Cabinet Government who came to a meeting thoroughly prepared, not only on his own memoranda, but also on the papers submitted by other Ministers. He would bring with him a number of Sessional Papers, Administration Reports and other official documents not referred to in the other Ministers Cabinet Papers but relevant to the issue. When he spoke, he never failed to make a useful contribution to the discussion.

As Minister of Agriculture, he was in charge of Paddy Lands and brought what the landowners thought was a revolutionary Bill. As Minister of Food, he was in charge of the Co-operative Wholesale Establishment. In all his functions, he was inclined to take as much legislative power as possible into his hands. This, the other Ministers resented, particularly, the Prime Minister. Philip was definitely of the Left. SWRD, in spite of his public statements that he was for democratic socialism or for socialistic democracy or for the middle path or for pancha sila (he was so clever in stating or not stating his position that I think nobody ever understood what exactly he stood for) was inclined towards the Right. A rift had to come, and it came. Philip’s draft legislation, submitted for Cabinet approval, gave the Cabinet the idea that he, and not SWRD was to be the virtual dictator. What with the Paddy Lands Act, the Multipurpose Cooperative Societies, the People’s Bank and the Co-operative Banking system, and a heap of other legislation he proposed, he would have been in a position to wield tremendous power in the country.

These proposals were obviously put forward to implement his political creed and not for the furtherance of his personal position. I believe he was an honest man, not capable of being bribed or influenced. When be was annoyed, his reaction was violent.

Among the other Ministers were Mrs Wimala Wijewardena, Messrs A. P. Jayasuriya, Kuruppu, Marikkar and Maithripala Senanayake.

The Cabinet came to certain decisions at its first meeting. Ministers had no time to formulate their thoughts in memoranda and the discussion was on very general points. As a People’s Government, they did not believe in Honours and decided that no recommendation should be made to Her Majesty the Queen for the conferment of Imperial Honours on citizens of Ceylon and that Her Majesty be humbly and respectfully requested to be graciously pleased to refrain from conferring such Honours on such of Her subjects as were Ceylon citizens.

Some Ministers thought that the appointment of an advocate to be a Queen’s Counsel was the conferment of an Imperial Honour. Local honours suffered the same fate. Our Diplomatic Missions abroad, Ministers and public officers were informed that no alcoholic liquor was to be served at official functions. The Senate and the House of Representatives were requested to close their bars: the House acquiesced, the Senate refused.

The Prime Minister informed his Ministers that it was his intention to obtain the services of an expert from the United Kingdom to advise the Government with regard to the nationalization of the transport services. On the budget drastic changes could not be made as the budgetary proposals for the next financial year had already been drawn up by the public officials concerned. While accepting the general structure of the next budget, Ministers were requested to include, wherever possible, in the draft estimates, all necessary items in furtherance of the policy of the Government and to omit any items which were in conflict with that policy.

With a view to bringing down the cost of living, it was proposed to reduce the price of rice and sugar. It was pointed out that a reduction in the price of rice by one cent a measure would mean an annual loss to revenue of seven million rupees, and a similar reduction in the price of sugar would mean a loss of three million rupees. In spite of the difficult financial position, something had to be done by the Government, and it was agreed to reduce the price of rice by ten cents a measure and the price of sugar by five cents a pound.

The Minister was asked to explore the possibility of buying sugar direct on a Governmental basis with a view to eliminating middlemen and reducing the cost to the consumer. The Governments of the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics made offers of economic aid which the Cabinet gratefully accepted.

The Cabinet considered seriously the question of abolishing the death penalty for murder, although the murder rate in Ceylon was probably the highest in the world. We had a Buddhist teetotal Minister of Justice, M. W. H., who was strongly in favour of the proposal, and he persuaded the Cabinet to agree to a suspension of the death penalty for a period of three years in the case of murder, abetment of murder and abetment of suicide. A sentence of life imprisonment was substituted.

On July 7, 1956, the Official Language Act, declaring Sinhala to be the one Official Language in Ceylon, came into operation. This immediately split the country into two, separating the Sinhalese from the Tamils whose ancient language had been removed from the scene altogether. This controversial piece of legislation antagonized the entire Tamil community and, for the first time after years of DS’s strenuous efforts to make the numerous races and communities, religious and otherwise, of the country into one homogeneous whole, the country was being divided by SWRD.’s Sinhala only Act.

All News Advertisement

Related Topics:E. W. Kannanagara ministers Sir John Throne

Up Next

Advice my mother gave me, founding Sujatha Vidyalaya and a national honour

Don't Miss

Getting Community Based Rehabilitation started in rural Botswana

Click to comment

Features

America at 250: Most unfitting President, Biggest World Cup Tournament

Published

19 hours ago

2026/07/19

Thilina Walpola

Messi and Yamal to face each other in Sunday’s World Cup Final

The world’s oldest constitutional democracy turned 250 on the Fourth of July, two weeks ago. It is a rather quirky coincidence that in the 250^th year of its largely successful existence, America should be having as its president the most unfitting person in history, and that in keeping with the American trait for mixing serious purposes with fun and play, it should also be hosting perhaps the largest edition of the World Cup Football Tournament. The triple coincidence – the anniversary, Trump presidency and the World Cup – is not without some meaning.

The essence of the Trump presidency has been to recast America in the mould of Trump’s own vulgar and outlandish presuppositions about who belongs in America and what the rest of the world owes to America. Internal exclusions and external isolation have always been a part of American history, but Trump’s project has been to make them America’s sole and permanent purpose. Make America great again by making it more intolerant and more imperfect, as opposed to pursuing the country’s founding purpose of striving towards a “more perfect union.”

Trump is also giving a new meaning to America’s exceptional isolationism by slashing immigration, deporting American residents whom he and his Maga cabal don’t like for the vilest of reasons, withdrawing from global agencies that America created and closing down American agencies providing global services, imposing tariffs on every country and deeming them as payment for America’s past generosity under weak presidents, and threatening neighbours with annexation while militarily attacking others.

2007: Lionel Messi holding baby Lamine Yamal

He got his nose bloodied after listening to Netanyahu and starting a fight with Iran, made a fool of himself by first announcing that he will provide safe passage to ships through the Strait of Hormuz and charge them 20% of their cargo value, and immediately withdrawing it after being told that it was a lamebrained and impractical idea. The Iranian Foreign Minister tweeted that it is a good approach but 20% is too high! The reality is that Iran has effectively closed the strait again, after Trump said his ceasefire with Iran is over, and there is nothing the might of America can do about it – thanks solely to Trump.

The world, not to mention America, are back to where it was soon after February 28. And Trump is back to February 28, with more attacks on Iran while telling Israel to keep out of it and hoping that Iran will soon come to the table. The Iranian regime is insisting that it is Trump and not Iran who will have to blink first again. For the rest of the world and the people of America, fuel and fertilizer prices are again rising along with the prices of goods and services that depend on them.

Meanwhile, the Fourth of July marking America’s 250^th Anniversary of American independence has come and gone. Every year, Americans cheer and celebrate the Fourth of July as a civic festival in their local communities. Families take their children to Washington, Philadelphia, Gettysburg and other historical sites to learn and appreciate their history. The state hardly gets involved and there are no military parades or flights of fighter jets. Trump changed it last year by holding a military parade in Washington but it did not excite anyone. The army had to go to extraordinary lengths to protect the city roads from cracking up while parading its massive tanks. This year Trump’s efforts to turn the 250^th anniversary celebration into a personal vanity affair spectacularly backfired and what was becoming a national damp squib. Not so ironically, it was rescued by the 2026 World Cup tournament that began on Thursday, June 11 and will end on Sunday, July 19.

World Cup Down to the Wire

The 23^rd FIFA World Cup hosted by America, Mexico and Canada with matches played in 16 cities – 11 in the US, three in Mexico and two in Canada – became a significant occasion for the US. It provided an antidote to Trump’s vain and unsuccessful usurpation of the country’s 250^th anniversary, even as it became an occasion to show the world that there is still much more likeable about America in spite of all the ugly MAGA makeover that Trump has been giving it from the White House.

What is unique about America is that it is the first and the only immigrant country to become a superpower in world history. An open door country with a melting pot ethos, America has consistently struggled at every stage of its evolution to defy the homogeneity of the privileged, and to celebrate across-the-board heterogeneity in every aspect of the human condition. If the purpose of Trump’s presidency has been to break this arc of American history, the World Cup became an occasion to demonstrate that the arc will continue in spite of Trump.

The World Cup was an eye opener to both resident Americans and visiting football worshippers. Except for the Olympics sporting events, competitive sports in America are dominated by (American) Football, Baseball, Basketball and (Ice) Hockey, and the competitions are all limited to American teams along with some Canadian teams especially in Hockey. The extent of any international connection is limited to allowing players from Central America and Japan for Baseball, and from Canada and Eastern Europe for Hockey. In other words, American notions of exclusivity and self-sufficiency seamlessly extend to the world of sports from the universe of politics and economics.

The arrival of the World Cup, 32 years after America hosted its first and only World Cup in 1994, was an eye opener to American sports fans and the general public. This was international sports at their doorstep and an occasion to live through the experience of witnessing the world’s best exponents of the game fiercely displaying their talents in friendly competitions. The visiting fans who thronged the games brought life and diversity and retail spin offs to the cities where the games were played. The visitors to a person, both players and fans, were enthralled by the magnificence of America’s sporting facilities and the range of amusement and entertainment the host cities offered.

The tournament also became a smorgasbord of different nationalisms from around the world but manifesting pride and passion in support of national football teams and not boastful belligerence about national militaries. The teams were also more equal on the pitch than their governments are at the UN podium. The better teams of the day won in the end but every team made each game as competitive as it could. Small countries from West Asia, Africa and little Atlantic islands went boot-to-boot with European and South American giants and kept everyone guessing until the final whistle. The really big Asian countries – China, India, Indonesia etc. – could not qualify for admission, while Asia’s two industrial giants – Japan and South Korea – acquitted themselves well even though they were unlucky not to go beyond the group stage.

The team that America fielded should not have been allowed to represent the country based on Trump’s executive negation of all DEI (Diversity, Equity and Inclusion) programs in government and in federal hiring. But it did and the US team would have made the 1960s promoters of cross-racial ‘rainbow’ alliances proud. Similar rainbow teams have become the norm of almost all West European countries and England.

Players of colour have become superstars in western football teams and have quite clearly internalized natal nationalism as opposed to being assimilated by them. They are all descendants of birthright citizens of the old empires, a legal tradition that is more universal and anterior to the abolition of slavery and the 14^th Amendment in the US, as Chief Justice John Roberts reminded the Trump Administration in overturning its executive order to end the recognition of birthright citizenship in America. A practice that is shared by three dozen countries.

The US Team at the World Cup began as a promising outfit playing with flair and freewheeling style and could have gone as far as the Quarter Finals to play Spain. The team was undone prematurely by Trump’s sleazy intervention with FIFA bosses to suspend the Red Card penalty ban of a US player, Folarin Balogun, for a foul he had committed in an earlier match. Trump’s role and the penalty suspension created a public uproar and in the upshot an inspired Belgium trounced the US whose players performed very poorly perhaps under the weight of the embarrassment that their President had inflicted on them.

The World Cup tournament itself is now down to the final match, the 104^th of the tournament, on Sunday, July 19^th, between the reigning World Cup champions, Argentina, and Spain, the current Euro Cup holders. The match for the Third Place will be played on Saturday (July 18), between France who lost 0-2 to Spain in a surprisingly one-sided game, and England who went down in a heartbreaking 1-2 defeat to Argentina after leading 1-0 up till five minutes before the final whistle.

The French were the tournament’s cracking team till they came up against Spain who had been belabouring until then. The English team had bestirred all of England back home with their gritty win against Mexico in its national stadium full of 85,000 spectators, but once again came up short in the penultimate game.

The final between Argentina and Spain will feature the 39 year old Argentinian maestro, Lionel Messi, looking to win his second World Cup, and the 19 year old Spanish prodigy, Lamine Yamal. The football internet is abuzz with a 2007 photograph showing then 20 year old Messi carrying Yamal as an infant during a photo session in Barcelona, Spain, where Messi played club football. On Sunday, in New York/New Jersey, they will face each other in a spirited encounter for the biggest prize in sports.

by Rajan Philips

Features

Two memorable excerpts from a former SLAF commander’s memoir

Published

19 hours ago

2026/07/19

Thilina Walpola

Prime Minister Magaret Thatcher at opening of the Victoria dam. President Jayewardene, Mahaweli Minister Gamini Dissanayake and Finance Minister Ronnie de Mel are also in the picture

These two excerpts from the forthcoming book, To Survive As One Nation, One People by Air Chief Marshal Oliver Ranasinghe. A Retired Commander of the Sri Lanka Airforce makes interesting reading. The first is of a sudden demand on the SLAF for emergency air support for the besieged Jaffna Fort when the only available helicopters were being prepared for a VVIP flight for UK PM Margaret Thatcher and her husband, Mark.

The second deals with ferying PM Rajiv Gandhi and his wife Sonia to Katunayake after a naval rating had hit Gandhi with a rifle butt.

In April 1985, the UK’s first female prime minister visited Sri Lanka to ceremonially declare open the Victoria Dam and Power Station built with aid under the patronage of Queen Elizabeth II. The completion of the project was a significant milestone for the Accelerated Mahaweli Development Programme, with the power station having an installed capacity of 210 MW. Two helicopters were stationed at Air Force Headquarters premises to fly the VVIPs at 6:30 a.m. on 12 April to Victoria Dam. I was Commanding Officer of the Helicopter Wing and assigned to fly Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and her husband.

However, at around noon on the day before the flight, I got a desperate call from the Joint Operations Command (JOC) requesting that 250 troops be airlifted to the Jaffna Fort immediately, since “hot intelligence” had informed that the enemy had planned to attack the fort that night.

I did not have any helis in the Wing as all had been deployed throughout the North and East. The only other two serviceable helis were in the VVIP security cordon, standing by to fly Prime Minister Thatcher and the other VVIPs the next morning. According to VVIP flying procedures, the helis are kept for 48 hours before the flight within a security cordon which is well-guarded by guards and air dogs. No one is allowed to go witin the security cordon without the Commanding Officer’s approval.

I had to take a quick decision about whether to drop the troops using the two helis from the cordon and run the risk of having no heli to fly Prime Minister Thatcher the next morning. The alternative was to say “No,” to the Army and take the risk of losing hundreds of soldiers at the front, facing a humiliating defeat, loss of prestige, morale and losing the Jaffna Fort, which was the Army’s pride.

If the latter happened, our conscience would be inconsolable even today. When we were fighting the battle, we were one unit: Army, Navy, Air Force and Police. The Air Force was always there. We never said no. So, I took the decision to fly immediately to Jaffna to carry out the task using the two VVIP helis. I was taking a huge risk, jeopardizing my career in the Air Force, by disregarding the standing orders and removing the two helis from the VVIP cordon.

By 1:00 p.m., we took off from Katunayake for Jaffna, using the two VVIP helis without Air Force Headquarters approval. I was captaining one heli with Flight Lieutenant Lasantha Waidyaratne as my co-pilot. (He was the pilot who, a long time later on, landed a heli at Jaffna Fort in the impossible task code-named Operation Eagle.) Flight Lieutenant Tennyson Gunawardena was flying the other heli as captain. I had to fly as we did not have any pilots to spare.

From the Palaly airport, we flew with twenty-two passengers without seats, keeping within the maximum all-up weight, and headed into the Jaffna Fort, approaching with the wind and not headwind as usual, avoiding enemy guns.

By 5:30 p.m., Tennyson called me on the receiver transmitter unit and said, “Sir, it is raining heavily in Katunayake, and we have to go in bad weather in the night back to Katunayake. So can I leave now?” I said, “Okay,” and ensured the heli was made ready for the VVIP the next morning. In the meantime, I kept flying the balance troops.

I did not get down at all from the heli and refuelling, too, was done whilst I was sitting in the pilot’s seat. The Brigadier-in-Charge in Jaffna came up to the heli very late in the evening and told me that, if I couldn’t drop all troops that night, to do the balance first thing in the morning. I said, “No, I will drop all tonight as I have to fly back to Katunayake for a very important task.”

We dropped all 250 troops into the Jaffna Fort and, after refuelling at Palaly, left at around 10:00 p.m. to fly back to Katunayake. However, we got caught to heavy rain on the stretch from North of Mannar to Katunayake. The weather was so bad that we had to request radar assistance to steer to Katunayake. However, I decided to disregard radar advice and told my co-pilot to follow the coastline, just to be clear of obstacles such as high-tension wires. Helicopters do not fly in rainy weather, let alone bad weather, and definitely not at night, but we had no choice.

Lasantha, my co-pilot, swears that he has not done a bad weather flight of that nature, either before or since, in his flying career. In fact, he says that he matured as a pilot during the last hours of that flight!

At around midnight, we landed at Katunayake where the crew was ready to take the heli and clean it to VVIP standard, which they did throughout the night. I was relieved and happy that I could return to Katunayake the same night.

The next morning, we positioned the two helis by 6:30 a.m. at Air Force Headquarters premises to fly the VVIP. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and her husband, Mr.Denis Thatcher, had a safe and comfortable flight to Victoria and back. In fact, Mrs.Thatcher was fast asleep when we touched down in Colombo!

As the Commanding Officer of the No.4 Helicopter Squadron, I risked my life and career because I did not want the Jaffna Fort to fall into the enemy’s hands and lose Army lives. Also, I did not want to let down the VVIP and spoil the image of the Sri Lanka Air Force. If anything had gone wrong, obviously I would have been “thrown” in the sea. I believe such life and death situations reveal the inborn/emerging leadership potential of individuals.

This excerpt deals with flying Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi and his wife, Sonia, to Katunayake after a naval rating on ab honour guard struck Gandhi with rifle butt.

In July 1987, I was out of the Helicopter Squadron and serving as Base Commander—Anuradhapura. The Commander of the Air Force called me one day and asked me whether I was still current on helis, and I said, “Yes.” He said, “I am sending a Bell 214 for you to do some flying training.” The next day, the heli arrived at Anuradhapura, and I got back into swing doing some flying training.

After two days, I was told to come to Katunayake to do a flight. I was told that I had to fly the visiting Indian Prime Minister, Rajiv Gandhi, from the Bandaranaike International Airport (BIA) to Galle Face and back. He was coming to sign the much-talked about “peace accord.” The Indian Prime Minister arrived at the BIA, and he was ferried to the Galle Face green, from where he was taken in a motorcade to President’s House to sign the Indo-Lanka Peace Accord.

Without taking much time, the motorcade returned to the Galle Face green. There was no panic. Rajiv Gandhi was smiling, but Sonia Gandhi helped Rajiv get in first, to the inner seat of the helicopter, and Sonia sat next to the window. If not for that, everything was normal.

I started up, switched on the VHF radio and contacted the Air Force Operations Room for take-off clearance. They told me that at the Navy’s Guard of Honour parade, there had been an incident targeting Rajiv Gandhi. That played havoc in my mind. I had to think that whoever planned and failed would have a “plan B,” and that would be to target the helicopter. Then I realized that, if so, both Rajiv Gandhi’s life and mine would be destroyed by “plan B.” That was my thinking. I had to save this VVIP, our state visitor. To do that, I had to make decisions on my own.

There was no one to tell me what to do. So, I took off in the most unexpected direction and avoided the usual route and followed a different route to BIA, whilst all the time being alert. Coming over BIA, I disregarded the usual approach procedure to the surprise of the Air Traffic Controllers and approached from the wrong direction and landed, but not in the designated landing place, to avoid a possible sniper or RPG attack.

The VVIP got off and walked away to the awaiting Indian Air Force aircraft. That relieved me of the tension of delivering the “precious cargo” in one piece.

(The book is distributed by the Vijitha Yapa Bookshop)

Business

‘Giving up was never an option’: The fisherman who fought back after losing millions in SL

Published

19 hours ago

2026/07/19

Thilina Walpola

Seamax factory at Dickowita Harbour

Spanish Israeli entrepreneur Simon Max Astandoust, a fourth-generation member of the renowned Astan fishing family, has endured years of legal battles, business setbacks and the loss of millions of dollars after investing in Sri Lanka’s fishing industry. Yet, despite the challenges, he has chosen to stay and rebuild.

In an interview with the Sunday Island, the founder and CEO of Seamax Ceylon (Pvt) Ltd speaks about his struggle, the restoration of his state-of-the-art factory vessel Astan II, and his plans to introduce cutting-edge seafood technology to Sri Lanka.

Q: You began operations in Sri Lanka in 2018. What was your original vision and investment?

A: We started operations in 2018 with an initial investment of around US$1 million. Over time, that investment grew into several million dollars because we believed Sri Lanka had enormous potential in the fishing industry.

My original intention was to develop a project through the Board of Investment (BOI) and introduce new technology to the country. However, the Government at the time encouraged us to work directly with it instead. We believed that this partnership would help us move forward faster and create something unique for Sri Lanka.

Overhauled Astan II

Our goal was to operate within the harbour and establish a modern fishing operation centred around advanced technology and sustainable seafood processing.

Q: What challenges did you face after starting operations?

A: Around eight to 18 months after we began our investment, COVID-19 hit. The pandemic created enormous difficulties. In countries such as Spain and the United States, governments provided financial support to help businesses survive. Here, the Government itself was facing a difficult economic situation and was unable to provide similar assistance.

Initially, we were told that there would be a grace period and that we would not be pressured for payments as long as we maintained our workforce and kept the operation alive. But later, that understanding changed, and demands for payments began despite the fact that we had a 15-year agreement.

That was the beginning of the major conflict.

Q: How did the change of Government affect your operations?

A: When a new Government came into power, the 15-year agreement signed with the previous administration was not recognized. The factory was closed and legal action was initiated against us.

This was extremely difficult because we had invested heavily based on a long-term agreement. We had built infrastructure, brought in technology and created employment opportunities.

During this period, while the vessel was caught up in legal disputes, a group of people attempted to take control of the ship. One of the most painful experiences was that some lawyers who had been working for us changed sides and supported those attempting to take the vessel.

Simon Max Astandoust

The legal battle continued for years and only concluded in 2025.

Q: Your vessel, Astan II, is central to your investment. What happened to it during this period?

A: Astan II is not just a fishing vessel. It is a huge factory vessel with a complete processing facility inside. It was designed to bring a completely new level of technology to Sri Lanka’s fishing industry.

Unfortunately, because it remained idle during the legal proceedings, it suffered significant damage. Ships cannot simply sit in a harbour for months or years without proper operation and maintenance. The Sri Lankan weather conditions are particularly harsh on vessels.

The vessel deteriorated badly, but after we regained control, we decided to completely restore it. It was overhauled.

Q: How much did the restoration cost and what work was involved?

A: The restoration cost approximately US$1.5 million and took about one year, beginning in 2025. The vessel was almost a complete rebuild. One of the biggest technical challenges was repairing the three generators. Because the harbour did not provide electricity, these generators had been running continuously to maintain the vessel. Over time, this caused significant wear and tear.

Finding replacement parts was another major challenge. Many of these parts are not imported into Sri Lanka, so every component had to be sourced from different countries and brought in individually.

A team of around 14 to 20 people worked on the restoration, including a Sri Lankan chief engineer and local professional deck crew. Their expertise and dedication were extremely important.

Today, the vessel is in brand-new condition.

Q: You mentioned that the absence of diplomatic representation made your struggle more difficult. Why?

A: I hold Spanish and Israeli citizenship, and neither Spain nor Israel has an embassy in Sri Lanka. Normally, when a foreign investor faces serious difficulties, an ambassador can engage with authorities and help protect the investor’s interests.

In my case, I had to face everything alone. I had to deal directly with government institutions and the legal system through my lawyers. Having diplomatic support would have made a significant difference. But ultimately, I had to rely on the courts and the legal process.

Fortunately, the maritime judges understood the complexity of the situation and the importance of maritime law. Their fair approach restored some of my confidence.

Q: Your vessel uses unique -70°C “Ultra-Fresh” technology. Can you explain how it works?

A: This is one of the most exciting parts of our project. The technology comes from Japan and is only about two years old. Traditional freezing methods often affect the quality of fish because the freezing process is slower and damages the texture. This technology works differently. It uses a glazing process where the fish is frozen from the outside, creating a protective layer.

Within approximately two hours, the fish is completely frozen. This process eliminates bacteria and preserves the quality of the fish.

When the fish is later defrosted using the correct method, it is almost exactly like fresh-caught fish from the ocean. The taste, texture and quality are preserved. At present, nobody else in Sri Lanka is carrying out this type of ultra-fresh freezing technology onboard a fishing vessel.

Q: What advantage will this technology give Sri Lanka?

A: Sri Lanka has excellent fishing resources, but we need to move beyond simply catching fish. The future is about value addition, quality control and accessing premium international markets.

With this technology, Sri Lanka can export seafood at a much higher value because customers will receive a product that maintains the quality of freshly caught fish.

This is not just about one company. It is about introducing a new concept to the country’s fishing industry.

Q: After everything you have experienced, why did you decide to continue investing in Sri Lanka?

A: I come from a family of fishermen. This is my fourth generation, and my son represents the fifth generation. Fishermen are not people who give up easily. The sea teaches you resilience. You face storms, difficulties and uncertainty, but you continue. Of course, there were moments when I lost faith. Losing millions of dollars and spending years in court is not easy for anyone.

But eventually, the justice system gave me confidence again. The maritime judges understood the situation and treated the case fairly. That showed me that there are people in Sri Lanka who understand the importance of protecting investment and respecting the law. That is why I decided to continue.

Many people told me that, despite the difficulties, the Sri Lankan judiciary would ultimately deliver justice. At the time, after years of uncertainty, it was difficult to know what the outcome would be. But in the end, that is exactly what happened. The courts examined the facts and delivered a fair judgment.

The maritime judges understood the complexity of the situation and the importance of maritime law. Their fair approach restored my confidence—not only in the legal system but also in Sri Lanka itself.

Q: What are your future plans for Seamax Ceylon?

A: Our plan is to expand significantly. We intend to bring two or three more large factory vessels to Sri Lanka, along with five local fishing vessels. We also plan to establish a new processing factory near the beach. However, this time we will work through the Board of Investment rather than entering into a direct agreement with the Government.

The BOI provides a structured framework for investors, and we believe this is the right way forward. My son Sam, who is the CEO of our US-based company, will also return to Sri Lanka to help introduce successful business concepts and support the next stage of development.

Q: What keeps you motivated after such a difficult journey?

A:The answer is simple: we do not give up. I come from a family of fishermen. This is my fourth generation, and my son represents the fifth generation. Fishermen understand struggle. You cannot control the ocean, but you learn how to survive. You face storms, difficulties and uncertainty, but you continue moving forward.

I have lost money, faced difficult times and experienced moments of disappointment. But I never stopped believing in the potential of Sri Lanka. One thing that gave me strength was the faith many people placed in the country’s judiciary. I was repeatedly told that the courts in Sri Lanka would deliver justice, and ultimately that belief was proven right. The maritime judges understood the situation and gave a fair decision based on the law.

That experience reminded me that, despite challenges, Sri Lanka has institutions and people who respect justice. That is why I decided not only to stay but also to invest again.

For me, this is not merely a business project. It is about resilience, trust and proving that when you believe in something, you continue fighting until you succeed.

by Saman Indrajith ✍️