Features
MRS. BANDARANAIKE’S GOVERNMENT LOSES BY ONE VOTE
(Excerpted from Memories of 33 year in Parliament by Nihal Seneviratne, Retired Secretary General of Parliament)
In the Parliamentary Election held in July 1960, Mrs. Sirimavo Bandaranaike became the world’s first woman Prime Minister creating a world record. She began her parliamentary career with a seat in the Senate entering the House of Representatives later. It was only subsequently that women like Mrs. Indira Gandhi, Mrs. Golda Meir, Mrs. Margaret Thatcher and Mrs. Benazir Bhutto headed their respective countries.
She headed a 15 Member Cabinet which included Mr. C.P. de Silva as Minister of Lands, Dr. N.M. Perera as Minister of Finance, Felix Dias Bandaranaike as Minister of Agriculture and T.B. Ilangartne as Minister of Trade, Mr. Maithripala Senanayake as Leader of the House and Minister of Rural and Industrial Development. It was indeed a formidable Government and a strong Cabinet.
But four years later things began to get shaky for the Government and Parliament was prorogued in 1964 and a new Session of Parliament began around November that year. After the new Session was opened by the Governor-General William Gopallawa, as was customary following Westminster tradition a motion was moved in the House thanking the Governor General for opening Parliament. This is what we refer to as the Throne Speech Debate.
This is usually a two-day debate. After the Leader of the House, moved the Motion to thank His Excellency, Dr. W Dahanayake (Galle) moved the following Amendment, “…but regret that the people have no confidence in the Government as it has miserably failed to solve the pressing problems of the people, such as unemployment, the high cost of living and housing. “
Before the debate began, Speaker Hugh Fernando summoned me to his chambers and told me of his inability to be present in the House that day and requested that an alternative arrangement be made to chair the proceedings. I vehemently argued with him saying that it was a very important day in the House as a crucial vote was to be taken that evening. I argued with him for over half an hour to be present, but he insisted saying that he had some very urgent private business.
I then realized that I would have to get another government Member to preside and the government, as a result, would lose one vote in its strength. Deputy Speaker D. A. Rajapakse (Mahinda Rajapaksa’s father) chaired the proceedings. By mid-evening a story started circulating in the lobbies of Parliament which took everybody by complete surprise.
It was indeed a well-kept secret till then, but soon it transpired that J. R. Jayewardene as the Leader of the Opposition had been studiously planning and spearheading a coup in Parliament with a view defeating the Government at the conclusion of the Throne Speech Debate vote fixed for that evening. Soon we began to know that many Members of the UNP who were abroad had had been summoned to be present that day. They included E.L Senanayake who had been in London; Paris Perera was away on holiday abroad and a few others. All of them suddenly showed up in the lobbies.
But the bigger surprise of all was when soon after evening tea break when the House resumed at 4.30 p.m., C P de Silva, Minister of Land, Irrigation and Power walked into the well of the House, bowed to the Speaker and instead of taking his assigned seat on the Government front benches, moved to the Opposition side and took his seat there. A few other Members of the Government showing their loyalty to him also walked over and sat in the Opposition benches. Among them were Indrasena de Zoysa and Edmund Wijesuriya. It was no longer a rumour. Soon we found as many as 17 Members of the government party had crossed over to the opposition.
By 7 p.m. that evening the Throne Speech debate had come to an end and a vote was due to be taken. Then following recognized Parliamentary procedure, we had to put the Amendment moved by Dr. W Dahanayake to the House first. The division bells were rung for three minutes. .
As the motion with the amendment read that the House had no confidence in the Government, all Government Members shouted ‘No’ and then the Opposition Members shouted ‘Aye.’ Then, though being tired and exhausted, we called out each name and marked “Aye” and “No” on the provided voting list. We finished counting and then gave the slip with the marked votes to the Presiding Officer. A total 74 had voted “Aye” and 73 had voted “No” with the Government losing by a single vote.
I recall Maithripala Senanayake and Baduideen Mohamed seated on the Government Front benches saying forcefully, “You have counted wrong. Recount the votes.” My heart missed more than a single beat as I realized that if we had made a mistake our jobs were in jeopardy. With our hearts beating vigorously, with added caution and care, we recounted the figures as we may have in the excitement marked a wrong “Aye” or “No” on the one sheet in adjoining columns. After the recount we forwarded it to the Presiding Officer who announced the division to the House and we informed the two Members who had objected that our figures were correct.
But I reassured Government Members that following correct parliamentary procedure, the amended motion would once again be put to the House and there would be another vote soon after. Thus, the Government had every opportunity of getting one or two Members to come into the Chamber and vote with them. So, yet again, the division bells were rung for three minutes and at the end, we once again repeated calling out the names of all the Members seated.
Since the amended motion signified that the Government had lost its confidence in the House, I advised all Government Members to say “No”. By 8.30 p.m. that night we had recounted the votes and it was the identical result- 74 “Ayes” and 73 “Noes”. The Government had been unable to get just one other Member to vote with them and finally the Government lost by a single vote.
I must add here that though the Government had lost by a single vote, it was only because two or three Members of the Government-side were abroad at that moment and the Government, completely unaware that Mr. J.R. Jayewardene was planning this coup, did not arrange for their return. Dr. N.M. Perera as Minister of Finance was in USA for a meeting with the World Bank and Mr. Bernard Soysa was also out of the country.
Mrs. Bandaranaike was made well aware of the constitutional position by her advisers that she could have very easily summoned Parliament to meet on a future date and asked for a Vote of Confidence which she and the Government could well have won. But the great lady that she was, having suffered a defeat in the House, two weeks’ later dissolved Parliament on December 17. Then the General Election was held in March 1965 and the UNP were voted to power with Dudley Senanayake being sworn in as Prime Minister on March 25.
His Cabinet of 16 which included J.R. Jayewardene as Minister of State, M.D. Banda as Minister of Agriculture, U. B. Wanninayake as Minister of Finance, C.P. de Silva as Minister of Lands was sworn. Five years later in March 1970, the sixth parliament was dissolved. In the general election held in June that year, Mrs. Bandaranaike re-took power and became prime minister but seven years later, in 1977 parliamentary election, her United Front Government was routed and the UNP led by J.R. Jayewardene won with a five-sixth majority.
With the change in government there was a change in the fortunes of Mrs. Bandaranaike who was subsequently deprived of her civic rights.
How Mrs. B lost her civic rights
Soon after the new Government headed by J.R. Jayewardene was sworn in after the UNP received a five-sixth majority in the House in 1977, J.R. Jayewardene who was Prime Minister moved a Motion in the House for the appointment of a Select Committee of the House to draft and adopt a new Constitution for Sri Lanka, repealing the 1972 Constitution, which was in place till then.
I worked as an Assistant Secretary to the drafting Committee which was set up soon after the new Government started work. In drafting the Chapter on the Legislative Procedure and Powers, a new Section 81 was introduced titled “Expulsion of Members and Imposition of Civic Disability”.
During our deliberations it came to our notice that this was altogether a new Section which found no place in the Soulbury Constitution of 1948 nor in the Republican Constitution of 1972.
This new Section provided for a Special Presidential Commission of Inquiry being set up consisting of a Judge of the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal, High Court or District Court. They were empowered to recommend that any person should be made subject to civic disability by reason of any act done by such person. Clause 81 stated that if such person was found guilty with two-thirds of Parliament voting in favour, a civic disability on such person for a period not exceeding seven years, was going to be imposed and if such person is a Member of Parliament, for such person to be expelled.
It so happened that in August 1980, a Special Presidential Commission of Inquiry was set up consisting of Hon. J.G.T. Weeraratne (Judge of the Supreme Court), Hon. S. Sharvananda (Judge of the Supreme Court) and Hon. K.C.E. de Alwis (Judge of the Appeal Court). The Commission Report was published as a Sessional Paper of 1980 and the Gazette in September 1980.
The Cabinet decided to accept the recommendations of the Commission which held that Mrs. Bandaranaike be subject to civic disability by reason of the acts done by her, which constitute abuse of power or misuse of power as set out in the Report published. After a lengthy debate, Item 2 of the Order Paper of October 16, 1980, was put to the vote and Parliament with the count being 139 Ayes: 18 Noes. Mrs. Bandaranaike declined to vote.
It was late in the night when the House adjourned. just after the vote was taken, Mrs. Bandaranaike left the Chamber and walked down the stairs of the old building to get into her car. I recall accompanying her down the stairs as the disappointed lady left the building. I felt it was part of an obligation that as she walked down the stairs alone that I accompany the ex-Prime Minister. The country’s and world’s very first lady Prime Minister was leaving the House under the most unusual circumstances. I wished her farewell. Many years later she returned to Parliament as Prime Minister.
The chapter on the imposition of civic disability on Mrs. Bandaranaike did not end there. On April 8, 1996, with her daughter Chandrika Kumaratunga as the country’s new President and Mrs. Bandaranaike as Prime Minister, a Minister in her Government Hon. (Prof.) G.L. Pieris moved a Resolution outlining the circumstances which led to the Motion depriving Mrs. Bandaranaike of her Civic Rights in October 1980. He moved that : Parliament hereby resolves that the said Resolution of October 16, 1980, ought not to have been passed.
Prof Peiris winding up the Debate said a remarkable feature of this Debate had been that not a single voice was raised in opposition to the substance of the Resolution. All sections of the House that participated in the debate agreed that it is right and proper that the historic mistake, which was perpetrated on October 16 ,1980 should be rectified. When the Motion was put to the House a division was taken by name and 124 Members voted for it, none against. It should be recorded for posterity that there was just one person who declined to vote and that was none other than Mrs. Bandaranaike herself.
Features
Aligning graduate output with labour market needs:Why national policy intervention essential
The lack of a committed and competent workforce is no longer a routine managerial complaint in Sri Lanka; it has become a defining national problem. Recent widely reported malpractices, in leading public institutions, have exposed the depth of this challenge. From a macro-economic perspective, large and persistent gaps exist between the competencies required to perform jobs effectively and the competency profiles of the existing workforce. The consequences are visible across the economy; we witness the key economic drivers, such as agriculture, energy, tourism, finance, and education, continue to underperform. This chronic condition is not a result of insufficient and incapable human capital, but of its persistent misalignment and misutilisation.
Economic development in any country is ultimately driven by the quality and relevance of human capital deployed within its key industries. In Sri Lanka, however, the education sector, particularly higher education, has been repeatedly criticised for its limited role in producing graduates, aligned with economic needs. This misalignment is often justified by higher education institutions on the grounds that their role is not to train graduates for specific jobs, but to produce broadly capable individuals who can perform in any work context. This position appears defensible in principle. Nevertheless, it remains problematic in practice, when economic sectors continue to underperform, and graduates struggle to find productive and relevant employment.
We were surprised to see a large number of university graduates appear at a recruitment interview for post of office labourer. Their intention was to secure a public sector job as a career path, nothing else. Alas, in another job placement interview, to select office clerks, several candidates presented degree qualifications, in statistics, and degree programmes, like archeology and geography, although a degree was not an entry requirement. When questioned, the common response was the difficulty of finding jobs, relevant to their degrees. Does this mean university degrees are worthless? Certainly not, if strategically channelled into relevant economic drivers, they could have contribute meaningfully to national development. For instance, an archeology degrees can be directed to tourism, heritage management, city planning, or spatial development. The tragedy is neither the policymakers, nor the university authorities bother about the time and money spent on graduates, which go in vein in an inappropriate job. No one bothers to assess the value of having such graduates directly channelled to relevant economic sectors. The graduates also may not be bothered to question the value they dilute in generic jobs.
Periodically, state university graduates, particularly those qualified through external degree programmes, flock to the streets, demanding government employment. In response, successive governments absorbed large numbers of graduates as school teachers and development officers. Whether such recruitment exercises were grounded in a systematic analysis of labour market demand, and sector-specific competency requirements, is dubious. The persistent deterioration in productivity and service quality, across key economic sectors, therefore, raises a fundamental question: Does strategic alignment between graduate output and labour market demand exist?
Systemic Weaknesses across Economic Sectors
We see deep structural weaknesses in nearly all segments of the Sri Lankan economy. Persistent deficiencies in public sector management; outdated agriculture management systems, relying on raw exports, weak preservation and production practices; structurally underdeveloped, unattractive tourism sector slow to adopt modern global approaches; an education system, from early childhood to higher education, showing more decline than progress; and digitalisation and e-governance initiatives repeatedly undermined by implementation failures, are some lapses to mention here.
However, during the colonial period, Sri Lanka was a prosperous country in terms of agro-economy and infrastructure development. During this period, conscious alignment between education and economic priorities was clearly visible. Schools taught subjects relevant to employment and livelihood opportunities, within the prevailing economic structure. Universities were primarily producing personnel to meet the clerical needs of the administration. University enrolment remained limited and targeted, ensuring graduate output remained broadly commensurate with labour market demand. The clarity of policies and orderly execution resulted in comparatively high employee–job fit, highly competent workforce, and better service and minimal graduate unemployment. Nevertheless, during the 76 years of post-independence, Sri Lanka has fallen from its economic stability and administrative orderliness, with rising problems in every sphere of economic, cultural, social, political and environmental segments.
Decoupling of Higher Education and Economic Needs
As we see with the expansion of higher education, graduate–job fit has gradually weakened. Both public and private higher education providers continue to offer academic programmes that are decoupled from economic development priorities. If I may bring an example, one of the most critical constraints to development in Sri Lanka is the persistent absence of timely and accurate data. Decisions, policies, and reforms frequently encounter implementation difficulties due to judgments based on outdated or inaccurate data. Organisations continue to operate in the absence of reliable information systems, admitting failures and presenting excuses. Notwithstanding the need, limited attention has been given to producing competent graduates, specialised in statistics, data analytics, and information management. National-level interventions to address this gap remain minimal, despite the urgent need for such expertise, within key government institutions, and the overall industry. A large number of agriculture degree holders pass out every year from state universities, but insufficient progress has been made in modernising agricultural products and value chains, although the agricultural sector is a key economic driver in the country. We often meet agricultural graduates holding general administrative positions, which are supposed to be handled by the management graduates. Agricultural specialised knowledge is underutilised, despite the potential to deploy this expertise in promoting agricultural development. It is noteworthy to consider that when graduates, trained in specific disciplines, enter irrelevant job markets, their competencies gradually erode, organisational performance declines, and additional costs are imposed on both organisations and the wider economy.
Misalignment of human capital constitutes a significant negative externality to national development. The government invests substantial public funds, generated through taxation, to provide free education with the expectation that graduates will contribute meaningfully to economic and social development. When graduates are misaligned in the job market, the resulting costs are borne by the economy and society at large. Consequently, the economy suffers from an absence of appropriate competencies, skills, and work attitudes. Poor judgments arising from capacity deficiencies, performance inefficiencies, and a lack of specialised human capital, generate externalities.
Why Strategic Alignment Matters
A clear and coherent national human capital development policy is required, to ensure strategic alignment with national economic drivers. Such a policy should be formulated by the government, through structured consultation with government institutions, public and private higher education providers, industry representatives across key economic sectors, as well as stakeholders from social groups, and environmental authorities. Universities should ensure that degree programmes are explicitly linked to sector-specific labour market demand, based on objective and systematic analysis rather than ad hoc decision-making. National competency frameworks, for major job categories, should be developed to guide curriculum design and enrolment planning. Of course, there are competency frameworks developed as initiatives of the governments time to time, but the issue is although policies were made, they were displaced, and still to search for.
Countries that have achieved rapid economic development consistently demonstrate strong strategic alignment between human capital development and policy initiatives, underscoring the importance of coordinated planning between education systems and national economic objectives. Singapore, for example, closely aligns higher education planning with labour market demand through initiatives, such as graduate employment surveys and industry-focused programmes. Universities, like the National University of Singapore and Nanyang Technological University, play a vital role in such initiatives.
It is important for us to explore the strategies of the other countries and benchmark best practices, adopting to the local context. If we, at least, take this need seriously, and plan, in the long term, strategic alignment between graduate output and labour market demand could fundamentally change Sri Lanka’s development outcomes. Where alignment exists, productivity improves, service delivery strengthens, and institutional accountability becomes unavoidable. Effective utilisation of discipline-specific graduates would curb skill erosion and reduce the recurring fiscal cost of graduate underemployment, misallocation and ad hoc public sector recruitment.
The Role of the Government and Policymakers
Policymakers must treat human capital development as a strategic mechanism, maintaining explicit alignment between higher education planning, economic development priorities, and labour market absorption capacity. Fragmented policy stewardship across ministries and agencies should be reduced through coordinated human capital governance mechanisms. Public administration, including sector-level managers, must actively articulate medium and long-term competency requirements of key economic drivers, and feed these requirements into higher education policy processes. Governments should shift from ad hoc graduate absorption practices towards planned workforce deployment strategies, ensuring that graduate output is absorbed into sectors where national productivity, innovation, and service delivery gains are most needed. In this effort, continuous policy dialogue, between education authorities, economic planners, and industry stakeholders, is essential to prevent symbolic alignment of graduate outputs while functional mismatches persist, if we aim for a prosperous nation.
Dr. Chani Imbulgoda (PhD) is a Senior Education Administrator, author, researcher, and lecturer with extensive experience in higher education governance and quality
assurance. She can be reached at cv5imbulgoda@gmail.com.
By Dr. Chani Imbulgoda
Features
The hidden world of wild elephants
… Young photographer captures rare moments of love, survival and intelligence in Udawalawe National Park’s Wilderness
In the silent heart of the Udawalawe National Park’s wilderness, where dust rises gently beneath giant footsteps, and the afternoon sun burns across dry landscapes, young wildlife photographer Hashan Navodya waits patiently behind his camera lens.
For the 25-year-old final-year undergraduate student at the University of Jaffna, wildlife photography is not merely a hobby. It is a lifelong passion, a spiritual connection with nature, and a journey into the hidden emotional world of wild animals — especially elephants.
Originally from Gampaha District, Hashan’s fascination with wildlife began during childhood. While many children admired animals from afar, he spent countless hours observing them closely, studying their movements, behaviour and relationships.
“From a young age, I loved watching animals and understanding how they behave,” Hashan said. “At first, I visited zoos because that was the only way I could see wildlife. But later I realised that animals are most beautiful when they are free in their natural habitats.”
That realisation transformed his life.
- A joyful young elephant bathing beside its family in the muddy waters of the wild
- A playful young elephant resting in the cool water on a hot afternoon
His photography journey officially began in 2019, while studying at Bandaranayake College Gampaha, where he served as a photographer for the school media unit. Initially, he covered school functions and events before gradually moving into engagement shoots and event photography to improve his technical skills and earn money.
“Wildlife photography equipment is extremely expensive,” he explained. “I worked hard to save money for camera bodies and lenses because I knew this was what I truly wanted to do.”
Armed with determination and patience, Hashan eventually turned fully toward wildlife and nature photography.
His journey has since taken him deep into some of Sri Lanka’s most celebrated natural sanctuaries, including Yala National Park, Wilpattu National Park, Bundala National Park, Udawalawe National Park and Horton Plains National Park.
Among the countless wildlife encounters he has documented, elephants remain closest to his heart.
One of the most remarkable moments he captured unfolded during a harsh dry spell inside the wilderness.
A mother elephant, sensing water hidden beneath the cracked earth, carefully dug into the ground using her powerful trunk. Slowly, fresh underground water, rich in minerals and nutrients, emerged from beneath the dry soil.
Nearby stood her calf, patiently waiting.
“As the water appeared, the baby elephant quietly moved closer and drank beside its mother,” Hashan recalled.
“It was such a powerful moment. It showed survival, intelligence, trust and the deep bond between them.”
The scene revealed more than instinct. It reflected generations of inherited knowledge passed from mother to calf — wisdom essential for survival in difficult conditions.
“These mineral-rich water sources are very important for young elephants, especially during dry periods,” he said. “Watching the mother carefully search and dig for water showed how intelligent elephants truly are.”
Another unforgettable moment, captured through his lens, revealed the softer, deeply emotional side of elephant life.
In a quiet corner of the forest, a baby elephant stood beneath its mother, gently drinking milk, while remaining sheltered under her protective body. The tenderness of the scene reflected unconditional care and the inseparable bond between mother and child.
“You can truly feel the love and protection in moments like that,” Hashan said. “In the wild, survival depends on the herd and, especially, on the mother’s care.”
His photographs also highlight the playful and emotional behaviour of elephants, particularly around water.
Inside the cooling waters of the Udawalawe National Park, Hashan observed a herd gathering together beneath the tropical heat. Young elephants splashed water joyfully over their bodies, using their trunks, while others sprayed water behind their ears to cool themselves.
“One young elephant was playing happily in the water while another carefully sprayed water around its ears as if enjoying a relaxing bath,” he said with a smile. “You can clearly see that elephants experience joy, comfort and emotion.”
The scenes reflected the social nature of elephants and their strong family bonds. Water is not simply essential for survival; it also becomes a place for interaction, play, relaxation and emotional connection within the herd.
- A baby elephant feeds safely beside its mother
- A playful elephant splashing water and enjoying a peaceful bath with its family
For Hashan, wildlife photography offers far more than beautiful images.
“Wildlife gives me peace and happiness,” he said. “It reminds me that humans are also part of nature. Animals deserve freedom, respect and protection.”
His love for animals has even shaped his lifestyle choices.
“Because of my respect for wildlife, I avoid eating meat and fish,” he explained. “I want to live in a way that causes less harm to animals.”
Through every photograph, Hashan hopes to inspire others to appreciate Sri Lanka’s rich biodiversity and understand the importance of conservation.
“Wildlife is one of nature’s greatest treasures,” he said.
“Every animal plays an important role in maintaining the balance of nature. We must protect them and their habitats for future generations.”
His words carry the quiet conviction of someone who has spent long hours observing the rhythms of the wild — moments of struggle, affection, intelligence and harmony often unseen by the outside world.
As the golden light fades across Sri Lanka’s forests and grasslands, Hashan continues his search for nature’s untold stories, waiting patiently for another fleeting moment that reveals the extraordinary lives hidden within the wild.
“Nature still holds many beautiful stories waiting to be discovered,” he reflected. “Stories of survival, love, strength and harmony. Through my photographs, I hope people will understand why wildlife conservation matters so much.”
By Ifham Nizam
Features
Citizenship, Devolution, Land and Language: The Vicarious Legacies of SJV Chelvanayakam
SJV Chelvanayakam, the founder leader of the Ilankai Thamil Arasu Kadchi, aka Ceylon Tamil Federal Party, passed away 49 years ago on 26 April 1977. There were events in Sri Lanka and other parts of the world where Tamils live, to commemorate his memory and his contributions to Tamil society and politics. His legacy is most remembered for his espousal of the cause of federalism and his commitment to pursuing it solely through non-violent politics. Chelvanayakam’s political life spanned a full 30 years from his first election as MP for Kankesanthurai in 1947 until his death in 1977.
Under the rubric of federalism, Chelvanayakam formulated what he called the four basic demands of the Tamil speaking people, a political appellation he coined to encompass – the Sri Lankan Tamils, Sri Lankan Muslims and the hill country Tamils (Malaiyaka Tamils). The four demands included the restoration of the citizenship rights of the hill country Tamils; cessation of state sponsored land colonisation in the North and East; parity of status for the Sinhala and Tamil languages; and a system of regional autonomy to devolve power to the northern and eastern provinces.
High-minded Politics
Although the four basic demands that Chelvanayakam articulated were not directly delivered upon during his lifetime, they became part of the country’s political discourse and dynamic to such an extent that they had to be dealt with, one way or another, even after his death. So, we can call these posthumous developments as Chelvanayakam’s vicarious legacies. There is more to his legacy. He belonged to a category of Sri Lankans, Sinhalese, Tamils and Muslims, who took to politics, public life, public service, and even private business with a measure of high-mindedness that was almost temperamental and not at all contrived. Chelvanayakam personified high-minded politics. But he was not the only one. There were quite a few others in the 20th century. There have not been many since.
Born on 31 March 1898, Chelvanayakam was 49 years old when he entered parliament. He was not an upstart school dropout dashing into politics or coming straight out of the university, or even a hereditary claimant, but a self-made man, an accomplished lawyer, a King’s Counsel, later Queen’s Counsel, and was widely regarded as one of the finest civil lawyers of his generation. He was a serious man who took to politics seriously. Howard Wriggins, in his classic 1960 book, “Ceylon: Dilemmas of a New Nation”, called Chelvanayakam “the earnest Christian lawyer.”
Chelvanayakam’s professional standing, calm demeanour, his personal qualities of sincerity and honesty, and his friendships with men of the calibre of Sir Edward Jayatilleke KC (Chief Justice, 1950-52), H.V. Perera QC, P. Navaratnarajah, QC, and K.C. Thangarajah, were integral to his politics. The four of them were also mutual friends of Prime Minister SWRD Bandaranaike and they played a part in the celebrated consociational achievement in 1957, called the B-C Pact.
Chelvanayakam effortlessly combined elite consociationalism with grass roots politics and mass movements. He led the Federal Party both as a democratic organization and an open movement. Chelvanayakam and the Federal Party used parliament as their forum to present their case, the courts to fight for their rights, and took to organizing non-violent protests, political pilgrimages and satyagraha campaigns. He was imprisoned in Batticaloa, detained in Panagoda, and was placed under house arrest several times. His Alfred House Gardens neighbours in Colombo used to wonder why the government and the police were after him, of all people, and why wouldn’t they do something about his four boisterous, but studious, sons!
He was a rare politician who filed his own election petition when he was defeated in the 1952 election, his first as the leader of the Federal Party, and was rewarded with punitive damages by an exacting judge. He had to borrow money from Sir Edward Jayatilleke to pay damages. The common practice for losing candidates was to file vexatious petitions in the name of one of their supporters with no asset to pay legal costs. Chelvanayakam was too much of a principled man for that. As a matter of a different principle, the two old Left parties never challenged election losses in court, but Dr. Colvin R de Silva singled out Chelvanayakam’s uniqueness for praise in parliament, in the course of a debate on amendments to the country’s election laws in 1968.
Disenfranchisement & Disintegration
Although he became an MP in 1947, Chelvanayakam had been associated with GG Ponnambalam and the Tamil Congress Party for a number of years. GG was the flamboyant frontliner, SJV the quiet mainstay behind. Tamil politics at that time was all about representation. In fact, all politics in Sri Lanka has been all about representation all the time. It started when British colonial rulers began nominating local (Sinhala, Tamil, Muslim) representatives to quasi legislative bodies, and it became a contentious political matter after the introduction of universal franchise in 1931.
Communal representation was conveniently made to look ugly by those who themselves were politically communal. Indeed, under colonial rule, if not later too, Sri Lankans were a schizophrenic society where most Sinhalese, Tamils and Muslims were socially friendly, but politically communal. The underlying premise to the fight over representation was that British colonialists were not leaving in a hurry and they were there to stay and rule for a long time. Hence the jostling for positions under a foreign master. It was in this context that Ponnambalam made his celebrated 50-50 pitch for balanced representation between the Sinhalese, on the one hand, and all the others – Tamils, Muslims, Indian Tamils – combined on the other. It was a perfectly rational proposition, but it was also perfectly poor politics.
But independence came far sooner than expected. The Soulbury Constitution was set up not for a continuing colonial state, but as the constitution for an independent new Ceylon. So, the argument for balanced representation became irrelevant in the new circumstances. The new Soulbury Constitution was enacted in 1945, general elections were held in 1947, a new parliament was elected, and Ceylon became independent in 1948. SJV Chelvanayakam was among the seven Tamil Congress MPs elected to the first parliament led by GG Ponnambalam.
The Tamil Congress campaigned in the 1947 election against accepting the Soulbury Constitution and for a vaguely formulated mandate “to cooperate with any progressive Sinhalese party which would grant the Tamil their due rights.” But what these rights are was not specified. In a Feb. 5, 1946 speech in Jaffna, Ponnambalam specifically proposed “responsive cooperation between the communities” – not parties – and advocated “a social welfare policy” to benefit not only the poor masses of Tamils but also the large masses of the Sinhalese.
So, when Ponnambalam and four of the seven Tamil Congress MPs decided to join the government of DS Senanayake with Ponnambalam accepting the portfolio of the Minister of Industries, Industrial Research and Fisheries, they were opposed by Chelvanayakam and two other Tamil Congress MPs. The immediate context for this split was the Citizenship question that arose soon after independence when DS Senanayake’s UNP government introduced the Ceylon Citizenship Bill in parliament. The purpose and effect of the bill was to deprive the estate Tamils of Indian origin (then numbering about 780,000) of their citizenship. Previously the government had got parliament to enact the Elections Act to stipulate that only citizens can vote in national elections. In one stroke, the whole working population of the plantations was disenfranchised.
GG Ponnambalam and all seven Tamil Congress MPs voted against the two bills. Joining them in opposition were the six MPs from the Ceylon Indian Congress representing the Malaiyaka Tamils and 18 Sinhalese MPs from the Left Parties. The Citizenship Bill was passed in Parliament on 20 August 1948. Ponnambalam called it a dark day for Ceylon and accused Senanayake of racism. But less than a month later, on September 3, 1948, he joined the Senanayake cabinet as a prominent minister and the government’s principal defender in parliamentary debates. Dr. NM Perera once called Ponnambalam “the devil’s advocate from Jaffna.”
Chelvanayakam remained in the opposition with two of his Congress colleagues. A little over an year later, on December 18, 1949, Chelvanayakam founded the Ilankai Tamil Arasu Kadchi, Federal Party in English. Not long after, joining Chelvanayakam in the opposition was SWRD Bandaranaike, who broke away from the UNP government over succession differences and went on to form another new political party, the Sri Lanka Freedom Party. As was his wont as a Marxist to see trends and patterns in politics, Hector Abhayavardhana saw the breakaways of Chelvanayakam and Bandaranaike, as well as the emergence of Thondaman as the leader of the disenfranchised hill country Tamils, as symptoms of a disintegrating society as it was transitioning from colonial rule to independence.
Abhayavardhana saw the Citizenship Act as the political trigger of this disintegration in the course of which “what was set up for the purpose of a future nation ended in caricature as a Sinhalese state.” Chelvanayakam may have agreed with this assessment even though he was located at the right end of the ideological continuum. “Ideologically, SJV is to the right of JR,” was part of political gossip in the old days. He saw “seeds of communism” in Philip Gunawardena’s Paddy Lands Act. For all their differences, Chelvanayakam and Ponnambalam were united in one respect – as unrepentant opponents of Marxism.
The Four Demands
Chelvanayakam had his work cut out as the leader of a new political party and pitting himself against a formidable political foe like Ponnambalam with all the ministerial resources at his disposal. Chelvanayakam may not have quite seen it that way. Rather, he saw his role as a matter of moral duty to fill the vacuum created by what he believed to be Ponnambalam’s betrayal, and to provide new leadership to a people who were at the crossroads of uncertainty after the unexpectedly early arrival of independence.
He set about his work by expanding his political constituency to include not only the island’s indigenous Tamils, but also the Muslims and the Tamil plantation workers from South India – as the island’s Tamil speaking people. It was he who vigorously introduced the disenfranchised Indian Tamils as hill country Tamils. In the aftermath of the Citizenship Act and disenfranchisement, restoring their citizenship rights became an obvious first demand for the new Party.
Having learnt the lesson from Ponnambalam’s failed 50-50 demand, Chelvanayakam territorialized the representation question by identifying the northern and eastern provinces as “traditional Tamil homelands,” and adding a measure regional autonomy to make up for the shortfall in representation at the national level in Colombo. To territorialization and autonomy, he added the cessation of state sponsored land colonization especially in the eastern province. Chelvanayakam and the Federal Party painstakingly explained that they were by no means opposed to Sinhalese voluntarily living in Tamil areas, either as a matter of choice, pursuing business or as government and private sector employees, but the nuancing was quite easily lost in the political shouting match.
The fourth demand, after citizenship, regional autonomy, and land, was about language. Language was not an issue when Chelvanayakam started the Federal Party. But he pessimistically predicted that sooner or later the then prevailing consensus, based on a State Council resolution, over equality between the two languages would be broken. He was proved right, sooner than later, and language became the explosive question in the 1956 election. As it turned out, the UNP government was thrown out, SWRD Bandaranaike led a coalition of parties to victory and government in the south, while SJV Chelvanayakam won a majority of the seats in the North and East, including two Muslims from Kalmunai and Pottuvil.
After the passage of the Sinhala Only Act on June 5, 1956, the Federal Party launched a political pilgrimage and mobilized a convention that was held in Trincomalee in the month of August. The four basic demands were concretized at the convention, viz., citizenship restoration for the hill country Tamils, parity of status for the Sinhala and Tamil languages, the cessation of state sponsored land colonization, and a system of regional autonomy in the Northern and Eastern Provinces.
The four demands became the basis for the Bandaranaike-Chelvanayakam agreement – the B-C Pact of 1957, and again the agreement between SJV Chelvanayakam and Dudley Senanayake in 1965. The former was abrogated by Prime Minister Bandaranaike under political duress but was not abandoned by him. The latter has been implemented in fits and starts.
The two agreements which should have been constitutionally enshrined, were severely ignored in the making of the 1972 Constitution and the 1978 Constitution – with the latter learning nothing and forgetting everything that its predecessor had inadvertently precipitated. The political precipitation was the rise of Tamil separatism and its companion, Tamil political violence. Ironically, Tamil separatism and violence created the incentive to resolve what Chelvanayakam had formulated and non-violently pursued as the four basic demands of the Tamils.
After his death in 1977, the citizenship question has finally been resolved. The 13th Amendment to the 1978 Constitution that was enacted in 1987 resolved the language question both in law and to an appreciable measure in practice. The same amendment also brought about the system of provincial councils, substantially fulfilling the regional autonomy demand of SJV Chelvanayakam. The land question, however, has taken a different turn with state sponsored land colonisation in the east giving way to government security forces sequestering private residential properties of Tamil families in the north, especially in the Jaffna Peninsula.
Further, the future of the Provincial Council system has become uncertain with the extended postponement of provincial elections by four Presidents and their governments, including the current incumbents. The provinces are now being administered by the President through handpicked governors without the elected provincial councils as mandated by the constitution. Imagine a Sri Lanka where there is only an Executive President and no parliament – not even a nameboard one. “What horror!”, you would say. But that is the microcosmic reality today in the country’s nine provinces.
by Rajan Philips
-
News4 days agoMIT expert warns of catastrophic consequences of USD 2.5 mn Treasury heist
-
News6 days agoCJ urged to inquire into AKD’s remarks on May 25 court verdict
-
News1 day agoLanka Port City officials to meet investors in Dubai
-
Editorial4 days agoClean Sri Lanka and dirty politics
-
Opinion6 days agoSecurity, perception, and trust: Sri Lanka’s delicate balancing act
-
News2 days agoSLPP expresses concern over death of former SriLankan CEO
-
Editorial3 days agoThe Vijay factor
-
News5 days agoDevelopment Officer bids Rs. 48 mn for CPC’s V8 at auction





