Opinion

Repeal of Online Safety Act vital for economic salvation of Sri Lanka

Published

11 months ago

2025/04/24

I. Imminent Danger

While the economy of Sri Lanka has achieved some degree of stabilisation after the most dire crisis in history, progress along a growth trajectory remains a clear imperative. Fragility of the current situation has been massively increased by the devastating tariffs imposed by the Trump Administration, making our country’s exports to the United States – especially apparel and rubber products – starkly vulnerable.

Against this backdrop the GSP+ facility, affording preferential access to the vast markets of the European Union, becomes a lifeline for our exports. Exemption from import duty for a wide array of products involves an advantage of immense value.

This is, however,neither a right nor an entitlement, and its availability is by no means assured in perpetuity. Its continued enjoyment is conditional upon compliance with provisions contained in 27 treaties, principally the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights. Aspects of this have been incorporated into the domestic legal system of Sri Lanka, by legislation in the drafting of which,as Minister of Export Development and International Trade, I played a key role in 2007.

GSP+ privileges for Sri Lanka are now coming up for review, with a delegation from Brussels expected to arrive very shortly.

One of Sri Lanka’s abiding commitments is a fundamental modification of the Online Safety Act, No. 9 of 2024, an unforgiving onslaught on media freedom, which was vehemently opposed by political parties across the spectrum, and representatives of the media and civil society. Despite the outrageous contents of the Act, no action whatever has been taken up to now, to amend this legislation. There is no doubt that this situation, if it is allowed to continue, will gravely impede vital interests in respect of our international trade. Certainly, the government’s professed intention of enhancing the value of exports to the European Union to the threshold of 3.6 billion dollars in the short term, will be reduced to a fanciful expectation.It is, therefore, a matter of urgent practical importance to identify the most obnoxious features of the law and to set in motion the legislative procedures necessary to effect their repeal or radical reform.

II. Overbroad Definition of Offences

A defect going to the very root of the legislation is a definition which is strikingly vague and overbroad: “Any person, whether in or outside Sri Lanka, who poses a threat to national security, public health or public order or promotes feelings of ill-will and hostility between different classes of people, by communicating a false statement, commits an offence” (Section 12).

The central criterion itself is an attack on basic democratic values. There has been judicial recognition of the reality that “Erroneous statement is inevitable in free debate” (New York Times vs. Sullivan 376 U.S. 254 at p. 270 – 1 (1964). The solution, in a democratic culture, is not suppression but refutation of falsehood through enhanced engagement and challenge.

The central objection is to the use of subjective language like “ill-will” and “hostility” as elements of the definition of a penal offence carrying condign penalties, including long periods of rigorous imprisonment. Inherent vagueness leads to unpredictability of consequences.

Equally compelling considerations apply to the use of “national security” as a lever for restraint on expression and publication. Public policy, as set out in the Johannesburg Principles on National Security, Freedom of Expression and Access to Information (Preamble to UN Document E/CN 4/1996/39), adopted on 1 October 1995, emphasises the need “to discourage governments from using the pretext of national security to place unjustified restrictions on the exercise of freedom of speech and expression”.

It is the absence of necessary qualification that violates the basic ethos of a democratic society.A “threat” to national security, public health or public order as the basis of restriction on free speech and communication is unacceptable without essential limitation.The internationally accepted test of “clear and present danger”(Schenk vs. U.S. 249 U.S. 247 at p.52 (1919)) is in no way reflected as a qualifying element in the Sri Lankan legislation.

III. Overarching Authority of the Commission

The crux of the pivotal offence is a “false statement”. The truth or falsity of the statement complained of, is a matter to be determined at the untrammelled discretion of the Online Safety Commission, the central authority created by the law. It is composed of 5 members appointed by the President,with the concurrence of the Constitutional Council.

A vital circumstance is that members of the Online Safety Commission, unlike the membership of other independent Commissions established under the Constitution, are not recommended for appointment by the Constitutional Council. The initiative is that of the President, not the Constitutional Council, the function of the latter being confined to “approval” (Section 5 (1)). This is a marked, and in principle unacceptable, departure from the pattern of constitutional provisions governing the appointment of independent Commissions.

This difference of approach undeniably impacts public perceptions regarding performance of the Commission’s functions in a spirit of total independence – a result much to be regretted, in view of the awesome sweep of powers conferred on the Commission. These include the prohibition, by mere fiat of the Commission,of statements pertaining to a diversity of matters such as physical security,ethnic and religious harmony,disaffection to the State, personal wellbeing and privacy, and interference with the right of association.

In any event, given the invasion of seminal rights and freedoms as the direct consequence of exercise of the Commission’s powers, it is reasonable to assume the desirability of a process of consultation which would include, among others, internet service providers, internet intermediaries, and representatives of media organisations, as well as the professional, business and academic communities.

Incompatibility of scope and objectives of this Act with the irreducible norms of a functioning democracy is clear from judicial pronouncements of impeccable authority: “The freedom of speech and expression is one which cannot be denied without violating those principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all civil and political institutions” (Mark Fernando J. in Amaratunga v. Sirimal, The Jana Ghose Case, S.C. Application No. 468/92).

The reality of this danger is reinforced by implications of the definition of a “false statement”, the anchor of criminal liability in terms of the Act: “A ‘false statement’ means a statement that is known or believed by the maker to be incorrect or untrue and is made especially with the intent to deceive or mislead but does not include a caution, an opinion or imputation made in good faith” (section 52). The manner of formulation suggests that the concluding phrase is in the nature of an exception from criminal liability, the burden of proof in this regard falling on the shoulders of the accused. In practice, this is an intolerably onerous burden.

In sum, the behemoth of the Commission is destructive of the foundations of civil liberty.

IV. Remoteness of Causal Nexus

One of the reasons why the law is indefensibly wide in its operation is the imposition of criminal liability for consequences which are not proximately linked to the conduct of the accused.It is declared to be an offence to communicate “a false statement which gives provocation to any person or incites any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation or incitement will cause the offence of rioting to be committed” (section 14).

In the envisaged situation, rioting is committed by a third party. Criminal liability on the part of the person communicating through an online account or online location, is grounded solely in assumed knowledge of likely behaviour of the third party. Indeed, criminal liability of the communicator is established, even when the consequence of rioting does not take place at all, the only difference being reduction of sentence (section 14 (f)). Similarly, the communicator of the statement is held criminally responsible for disturbance of a religious assembly, with no clear nexus being insisted upon between the act of the accused and the rioting which takes place (section 15)).

The net of criminal liability is cast far too wide by this approach, the lack of a sufficiently clear causal nexus being the underlying defect.

V. Expanding Frontiers of Criminalisation

A prominent feature of the Online Safety Act is the indiscriminate use of criminal sanctions to attain its objectives. A wide range of offences is created by Part III of the legislation. Many of these are of amorphous scope, lacking in precise definition of constituent elements – for example, “wantonly” giving provocation by a false statement to cause riot (section 14), “voluntarily” causing disturbance to a religious assembly (section 15) and “malicious” communication of a false statement to outrage religious feelings (section 16). The ambit of the offence against “public tranquillity” (section 19) is equally unclear. These are all offences which carry deterrent sentences of imprisonment, in one case for up to 3 years and in the other for a maximum of 7 years, in addition to, or as an alternative to, a substantial fine.

The Commission, on satisfaction that an offence has been committed under the Act, is empowered to “take steps to initiate criminal proceedings in terms of s. 136 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act, No. 15 of 1979” (section 38(2)). Moreover, every offence established by the Act is characterised as a non-cognisable offence within the meaning of the laws governing criminal procedure (section 43(a)).

Penal consequences of daunting severity are visited upon bodies corporate. Every director or other principal officer is held criminally responsible (section 44(a)). If the offender is a firm, criminal liability is imposed on every partner of the firm (section 44(b)) and, in the case of an unincorporated body, “every individual who is a controlling member and every principal officer responsible for management and control” (section 44(c)) is exposed to criminal sanctions. Lack of knowledge or exercise of due diligence is recognised as an exculpatory circumstance but, in keeping with general evidentiary principles, the burden of proof in this regard is borne by the accused.

VI. Chilling Effect of the Law

The core of the statute resides in the powers vested in the Commission, to apply an extensive range of measures to deal with “prohibited statements” (Part II). These include orders “to stop the communication of such statements” (section 11 (b)), “to disable access to an online location” (section 11 (c)) and to direct removal of prohibited statements (section 11 (e)). A worrying factor is the absence of a proper definition of “prohibited statements”, the purported definition consisting merely of a reference to the provisions which use the phrase (section 52).

When the Commission is satisfied that a “prohibited statement” has been made, its coercive powers which come into play, are of a drastic nature. These extend to the authority to issue a notice to the communicator of the statement, ordering the adoption of measures to prevent circulation (section 23 (f)). This renders applicable the draconian provision that the recipient of the notice “shall comply with such notice immediately but not later than 24 hours from such notice” (section 23 (b) and (f)). Failure results in criminal proceedings in a Magistrate’s Court (section 23 (g)).

The Commission has power to name an online location as a “declared online location” if 3 or more prohibited statements have been communicated on that location to end users in Sri Lanka (section 28 (i)). An internet service provider or an internet intermediary, on the making of such a declaration by the Commission, is obliged to cease communication instantly on pain of imprisonment for a term of up to 7 years or a maximum fine of 10 million rupees, the penalty being doubled in the event of a subsequent offence (section 29 (6)).

Especially in light of the broad definition of “inauthentic online account”, “internet service provider”, “internet intermediary” and “internet intermediary service” (section 52), the chilling effect of the law is evident.

It is hardly surprising, then, that prominent internet and technology companies active in Sri Lanka, in their response to the legislation, have sounded a strong note of caution, even indicating the risk of withdrawal from their operations in our country.

The Asian Internet Coalition (AIC) which consists of 13 companies of international stature, commenting on this legislation when it was in Bill form, declared: “Despite our commitment to constructive collaboration, the AIC has not been privy to proposed amendments to the Bill. We unequivocally stand by our position that the Online Safety Bill, in its current form, is unworkable and would undermine potential growth and direct foreign investment into Sri Lanka’s digital economy. We firmly believe that for the Bill to align with global best practices, extensive revisions are imperative” (Emergency Media Statement of 23 January 2024).

This can hardly be disregarded in cavalier fashion.As the government has emphatically acknowledged, digitalization and other technology innovations are central to current plans for economic development and, of equal importance, for ensuring equitable distribution of the benefits of progress. Swift and ready access to market information – be it for farmers, the fishing community, manufacturers of industrial products, providers of services and the small and medium sector in particular – is an indispensable requirement for the success of current strategies. If companies of the calibre of Facebook, Google,X,Apple,Amazon,Cloudflare and Yahoo,contemplate discontinuation of their services because of the oppressive character of the law, economic development, far from being advanced, is certain to be retarded.

VII. The Need for Imperative Change

Parliament debated the Online Safety Bill for 2 full days on 23 and 24 February 2024. Pervasive deficiencies of the law were convincingly identified during this rich and rewarding debate. No one was more forthright than the current Prime Minister, Dr. Harini Amarasuriya, at that time speaking from the ranks of the Opposition, in her unreserved condemnation of the Bill and her strident call for its withdrawal: “The intent of the Government is clear. It is about controlling dissent; it is about taking control of public discourse or public narrative at a crucial time in this country when democracy needs to be protected at all costs. That every instrument is gong to be used to stifle dissent, is very clear” (Hansard of 24 January 2024, Column 224).

The Online Safety Act stands as a monument to illiberalism and as an anchor of State apparatus infringing the substance of civil liberty. Its removal from the statute laws of our country is a dire necessity, no longer to be delayed.

By Professor G. L. Peiris
D. Phil. (Oxford), Ph. D.
(Sri Lanka);
Rhodes Scholar,Quondam Visiting Fellow of the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge and London;
Former Vice-Chancellor and Emeritus Professor of Law of the University of Colombo.

All News Advertisement

Opinion

Neutral Waters, Timeless Laws: Graf Spee, IRIS Dena, and the enduring relevance of neutrality

Published

5 hours ago

2026/03/16

Thilina Walpola

The Iranian frigate, IRIS Dena, torpedoed by a US submarine recently

The story of the German pocket battleship Admiral Graf Spee in 1939 remains one of the most cited lessons in the law of neutrality. During her commerce-raiding mission in the South Atlantic and Indian Ocean between September and December 1939, Graf Spee sank nine merchant ships totalling over 50,000 GRT. Her actions forced the British to deploy multiple hunting groups across vast oceans, culminating in the Battle of the River Plate, where British cruisers HMS Exeter, HMS Ajax, and HMNZS Achilles engaged her. Severely damaged, Graf Spee sought refuge in the neutral port of Montevideo, Uruguay, before being scuttled. This incident highlighted the strict application of neutrality principles under the 1907 Hague Conventions V and XIII—rules still referenced in modern maritime law.

The conventions limited belligerent warship entry into neutral ports to 24 hours, allowed repairs only to restore seaworthiness (not combat capability), and prohibited replenishment beyond provisions for the crew. Neutral states were also responsible for ensuring impartial treatment of all belligerents. The Montevideo episode, often taught in legal and diplomatic schools, resonates today in Sri Lanka, following the sinking of the Iranian naval vessel IRIS Dena and the temporary shelter granted to her accompanying ships, IRIS Bushehr and IRIS Lavan, in Colombo and Kochi, India.

Understanding Neutrality in International Law

Neutrality is the legal status assumed by states that choose not to participate in an armed conflict while maintaining impartial relations with all belligerents. Neutral states refrain from providing military support and undertake obligations to prevent hostilities from spreading through their territory or waters.

The Hague Conventions of 1907, V on land warfare and XIII on naval warfare, codified long-standing customs about the rights and duties of neutral states. These principles are reinforced today by customary international law, the Geneva Conventions, and the San Remo Manual on Naval Warfare, which clarifies modern naval operations involving neutral waters. Neutrality applies only in international armed conflicts between states. By assuming a neutral status, third states commit to abstaining from hostilities and ensuring that their territory and waters are not exploited for military purposes.

Historical Roots

Neutrality evolved to prevent wars from spreading geographically and to protect commerce. By the 17th and 18th centuries, maritime powers began asserting neutral rights, particularly the protection of merchant shipping. The Declaration of Paris (1856) strengthened these protections, recognising neutral flags and codifying blockades. Later, the Hague Peace Conferences formalised obligations to prevent neutral territory from being used as a base for belligerent operations. These frameworks laid the foundation for modern neutrality, balancing sovereignty, commerce, and conflict containment.

Core Principles

The law of neutrality rests on three pillars:

=Abstention – Neutral states must refrain from participating in hostilities or aiding belligerents with troops, weapons, or military facilities.

=Impartiality – Neutral states must apply rules equally, ensuring no belligerent gains an advantage by exploiting neutrality.

=Prevention – Neutral states must stop their territory from being used for military actions, including attacks, recruitment, or establishing bases.

At sea, these principles are codified in Hague XIII, which limits warship stays, repairs, and supplies in neutral ports. Modern interpretations in the San Remo Manual reaffirm these obligations.

Modern Conflicts and “Undeclared Wars”

Today, wars often occur without formal declarations. Military operations, limited strikes, or hybrid conflicts challenge traditional neutrality. Under the Geneva Conventions’ Common Article 2, an international armed conflict exists whenever hostilities occur between states, triggering neutral obligations.

The Russia–Ukraine war illustrates this. Third states face complex decisions, balancing assistance, neutrality, and legal obligations. Similarly, attacks like the sinking of IRIS Dena test neutral states’ ability to uphold the law while responding to regional crises.

Neutrality and Strategic Dilemmas

The Persian Gulf today highlights modern tensions between neutrality law and military realities. Gulf states such as Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates host significant United States military bases that are central to regional security arrangements, yet aim to avoid direct involvement in regional conflicts. Traditional neutrality forbids belligerents from using neutral territory for operations, but permanent military installations complicate matters.

States often adopt “benevolent neutrality,” officially neutral while indirectly supporting one side. Historical examples include U.S. Lend-Lease aid to Allies before entering World War II. Gulf states today may provide logistical or defensive support while avoiding direct combat. Yet the distinction between support and participation is subtle; command centres, intelligence operations, and logistical hubs can implicate neutral states in hostilities if they directly aid military operations.

This ambiguity creates a strategic paradox for Gulf states in the current conflict, trying to stay neutral while hosting major foreign military infrastructure. On one side, such bases offer security guarantees, deterrence, and advanced defensive capabilities. On the other hand, their involvement in military networks that support active hostilities exposes the host states to constant devastating retaliation by Iran and undermines the credibility of neutrality claims. The Persian Gulf thus exemplifies how the classical law of neutrality, developed in an era of geographically limited wars, faces significant challenges.

Indian Ocean Security and Neutral Ports

The conflicts in the Gulf involving Iran carry wider consequences for the Indian Ocean, a historically peaceful maritime zone. Disruption of shipping through chokepoints such as the Strait of Hormuz risks disrupting global trade and triggering an energy crisis and eventually an economic recession should the conflict be prolonged. Iran’s unilateral closure of the Strait of Hormuz, a strategic Strait used for international navigation, let alone sporadic attacks on oil tankers, lacks any legal basis. Under UNCLOS, the Transit Passage is unimpeded, and International Law on armed conflict at sea (Hague Convention XII) prohibits attacks on merchant vessels unless a ship ascertains a military objective. Mining and conducting indiscriminatory attacks on ships, restricting transit passage, is illegal as well.

The Indian Ocean hosts crucial East–West sea routes connecting the Gulf, South Asia, and Southeast Asia. Incidents like the Dena incident highlight the importance of neutrality in maintaining maritime order. By rescuing survivors and controlling port access, neutral states safeguard trade, human lives, and regional stability. The maritime security and freedom of navigation in the Indian Ocean will be at an unprecedented threat in the event of escalation of belligerency at sea through direct or Proxy attacks, which was evident in 2023 through 2024, when merchant vessels were subject to attack using drones both in the air and on the surface. Belligerents may board or search neutral merchant vessels for contraband, and potentially the USA, attempting to exercise an embargo on Iran, with overreach could escalate conflict in the Indian Ocean.

Neutral ports play a key role. Hague XIII restricts belligerent warship stays, repairs, and operations in neutral waters. On 4th March 2026, IRIS Dena, a modern 1,500-ton frigate of the Iranian Navy, was torpedoed by a US Navy Submarine 19 nautical miles off Galle. Sri Lanka Navy recovered 32 survivors and 84 bodies. Her accompanying ships, Bushehr and Lavan, were granted temporary refuge in Colombo and Kochi, in accordance with strict neutrality rules.

Legal Implications

The Second Geneva Convention mandates humane treatment for wounded or shipwrecked forces, regardless of nationality. Neutral states may temporarily intern personnel while preventing the port from being used for military operations. Attacks outside neutral waters are lawful under the San Remo Manual and customary international law, provided they respect the principles of distinction, proportionality, and military necessity and explain the legitimacy of the US submarine to sink IRIS Dena outside the Sri Lankan Territorial Sea.

Neutral states must also regulate repairs and replenishments. Hague XIII allows only what is necessary for seaworthiness, prohibits enhancements to combat capability, and imposes strict time limits. Impartiality is essential: all belligerent vessels must be treated the same. Sri Lanka and India applied these rules with care, preserving neutrality while fulfilling humanitarian duties.

Limits of Innocent Passage

Under UNCLOS, belligerent warships may pass through territorial seas via “innocent passage.” However, damaged ships that actively avoid combat or return to operations may lose this right. Although Article 10 of Hague XIII also allows belligerent warships to be in ‘mere passage’ within territorial waters, Articles 1 and 5, taken together, prevent a belligerent from exploiting neutral waters for protection from the enemy. Coastal states may restrict passage to prevent their waters from becoming tactical corridors. This principle explains why Dena, Bushehr, and Lavan required entry into neutral ports rather than violating neutral seas for safe passage. Neutral states must actively enforce neutrality in their territorial waters. Failure to do so may invite belligerents to intervene, undermining neutrality. In 1940, during World War II, the British destroyer HMS Cossack entered neutral Norwegian waters, boarded the German tanker Altmark, and rescued 300 British prisoners captured by German raiders while the tanker was passing through Norwegian territorial waters.

Lessons from History

The Graf Spee incident in 1939 and the IRIS Dena in 2026 demonstrate continuity in neutrality law. Montevideo and Colombo showed how neutral ports can mediate crises, enforce legal limits on belligerent activity, and offer humanitarian aid while managing diplomatic pressure from belligerent states. Neutrality law, grounded in abstention, impartiality, and prevention, continues to guide states in complex modern conflicts, balancing legal, strategic, and humanitarian considerations. This incident was not the first time Sri Lanka had been in the spotlight for its neutrality. Sri Lanka faced a similar challenge earlier when Pakistan air force planes were permitted to land and refuel in 1976, during the East Pakistan war, after India closed its airspace to West Pakistan. The unique stance taken by the Sri Lankan government was that East and West Pakistan are not belligerent states, and that neutrality, as applied in international armed conflict, was irrelevant.

Conclusion

While warfare has evolved, the principles of neutrality remain vital. Classical laws codified in the Hague Conventions, the Geneva Conventions, and the San Remo Manual remain fully applicable in the 21st century. Coastal states such as Sri Lanka and India demonstrate that adherence to these laws preserves sovereignty, protects lives, and stabilises critical maritime corridors. The IRIS Dena incident is not only a contemporary test of neutrality but also a reaffirmation of its enduring relevance in international law.

The writer is a distinguished naval leader, maritime strategist, and defence academic who served as the 25th Commander of the Sri Lanka Navy, completing nearly four decades of service.

A three-time recipient of the Rana Soora Medal for gallantry, he commanded all major naval vessels and elite units of the Navy and shaped doctrine, including Naval Strategy 2030. As Navy Commander, he strengthened international partnerships, led the Navy’s entry into the Combined Maritime Forces, and advanced digital transformation and was highly effective in counter-narcotics operations.

A scholar with three Master’s degrees, he also champions nautical tourism and youth empowerment, and holds the record for Sri Lanka’s first-ever sea-kayak circumnavigation.

by Admiral Pryantha Perera,
the 25th Commander of the Sri Lanka Navy

Opinion

M. D. Banda: Memories of Appachchi – II

Published

3 days ago

2026/03/13

Thilina Walpola

M. D. Banda: Memories of Appachchi – II

(Part I of this article appeared yesterday (March 12)

Insights into a political career Prior to this period, for a very long time, Appachchi had always resided at Shravasti while he was in Colombo. For some time at Shravasti, his roommate was his friend, Mr. U.B.Wanninayake, Minister of Finance (1965 – 1970). Mr Wanninayaka too was well known for his honesty and integrity. Like Appachchi, he, too, possessed an unblemished political record. (I later married his youngest daughter, Swarna, who maintained her father’s honour and she herself lived a modest, unpretentious and a simple life as a government school teacher for 35years. She now leads a quiet life in retirement).

On our occasional visits to Shravasti as children, Mr Wanninayaka would give up his bed for us and move to another room. We loved to stay over at Shravasti mainly because of thescrumptious food. The food at home was good too but consisted mainly of rice and curry or local fare such as hoppers, string hoppers and pittu. At Shravasti we were served bacon and eggs and other Western food which made it feel like a hotel. It felt like a different world. It is there that I saw a spring bed for the first time. We jumped on these beds in glee.The period 1965-1970 was the pinnacle, the golden era of Appachchi’s political career. Hewas the Minister of Agriculture and the all-round development in the agricultural sector was remarkable as vouched for by the reports of The World Food and Agriculture Organisation,The Asian Development Bank and our own Central Bank. The unprecedented increase in paddy production by 38%, the introduction of potato cultivation and popularising the growing of chillies, etc., contributed to the vast development in the Agricultural sector during Appachchi’s tenure as minister of Agriculture.

The 2nd Cabinet of Ceylon formed in June 1952. Prime Minister, Dudley Senanayake, H. W. Amarasuriya, M. D. Banda, P. B. Bulankulame, A. E. Goonesinha, Senator Oliver Goonetilleke, J. R. Jayewardene, M. C. M. Kaleel, C. W. W. Kannangara, John Kotelawala, V. Nalliah, S. Natesan, E. A. Nugawela, G. G. Ponnambalam, Senator Sir Lalitha Rajapaksa KC) , A. Ratnayake, R. G. Senanayake, C. Sittampalam, and Senator Edwin Wijeyeratne

I happened to be at our Wijerama Rd, residence during this hectic period of activity in Appachchi’s life, and got the opportunity to accompany my father on some of his official visits to every nook and corner of the island to observe, first hand, the progress of the flagship programme of the Dudley government, the Food Drive. I was amazed by his knowledge and thorough understanding of the ground situation. The officials of theDepartment of Agriculture still speak with admiration of the way in which he interacted with the farmers and officers.

Although he had to be away from Colombo for 3 or 4 days a week, Appachchi never missed a single Cabinet meeting. Walter Jayawardene (Editor) mentioned in a newspaper article that Prime Minister Dudley was so keen to be updated on the progress of the Food Drivethat on days when Appachchi was due in Colombo, he postponed having his lunch or dinner until MD arrived.

The outstation trips with Appachchi at that time involved incredibly long journeys, and Appachchi used to start snoring in the rear seat of the car even before we reached the Kelaniya bridge! He must have been so exhausted. When we went to places likeAnuradhapura or Nuwara Eliya, we spent the night at the Prime Minister’s official residence,the Lodge. He must have had the full approval of the PM. Secretary to the PM, BradmanWeerakoon, would have done the required coordination. The beds in the lodge were obviously so comfortable that one fell asleep instantly! Fortunately, Appachchi slept in a separate room, otherwise, his snoring would have kept me awake the whole night. It goes without saying that the food was excellent. Before going to bed, Appachchi would come into check on me. “Cover yourself well, Puthe, and if you need anything, ring this bell” he would say.

Early in the morning he set out to check on the progress of the Food Drive in that particular area,and ended up attending the meetings scheduled in the Kachcheries the same evening. The GA who organised the visit, sat beside the Minister throughout the proceedings. Appachchi never failed to visit the livestock farm at Ambewela and the potato farm at Bopaththalawa whenever he visited Nuwara Eliya.

The Cabinet of Ministers with Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Ceylon. the photograph was taken in April 1954. The Queen was 28- years-old at the time. He was the Minister of Education during 1952-56. Seated (From left ) Hon. Sir Oliver Goonetilleke, Hon. E. A. Nugawela, Rt. Hon. Sir John Kotelawala (Prime Minister), Her Majesty the Queen Elizabeth II, Hon. J. R. Jayewardena, Hon. M. D. Banda, and Hon. P. B. Bulankulame Dissawa. Standing (From left) Hon. Dr. M.C.M. Kaleel, Hon. E. B. Wikramanayake, Hon. Sir Kanthiah Vaithianathan, Hon. R. G. Senanayake, Hon. S. Natesan, Hon. H. De Z. Siriwardana and Hon. C. W. W. Kannangara. The two European gentlemen standing on either side have not been named in the original caption for the photo.

After one such ministerial visit in the Kurunegala District, a high up official of the Agriculture Department had gone to the Rest House for the night. He was engaged in some activity in his room when the manager of the Rest House knocked on his door. ” I’m sorry sir, we’ll have to give the room to the Minister.” He said apologetically.

Unaware of all this, the minister walked in with his bags and found the officer packing his own bag to quit the room.”‘”Why are you packing your bag ?”, inquired the Minister. “The officer explained the situation. “Do you have a place to go to at this time of the night?”asked the Minister. “Must see” replied the officer. “No, don’t go anywhere. Stay here.There are two beds , and I can’t sleep on both beds, can I?” Pleasantly surprised, the officer agreed to share the room. “I will work till late, is that alright?”asked the Minister.After dinner, both retired to their room. Mr Banda got down some files from his car, and worked till 1 or 2 a.m. and finally switched off the light and went to sleep at 2 a.m. Relieved that he could at last sleep, the officer closed his eyes. But he couldn’t get a wink of sleep till 5 or 6 a.m. because the Minister started snoring! The Minister woke up around 6 a.m. had his breakfast and left for Anuradhapura before 7 a.m. for yet another official visit. When the officer related this story to his colleagues in the Head Office, no one believed him. But their Boss – the Director General of Agriculture, Mr. Ernest Abeyaratne –did. He had said, “It is not surprising at all. Only if he had acted otherwise would I be surprised!” This became a well-known anecdote in the department.

I remember travelling to Anuradhapura in a helicopter once and recall how thrilled I was when the pilot circled the aircraft around the Mihintale Chaithya thrice! Appachchi went to Pollonaruwe often and stayed at the Milk Board circuit bungalow. Once, appachchi had to attend a formal dinner at the Grand Hotel in Nuwara Eliya. He looked so smart in a full suit! He had a fine collection of exotic ties which were much admired by my friends when I wore them much later when I worked at Central Finance.

Many people have told me that appachchi was a unique person- unassuming, completely honest with integrity and sincere in whatever he said or did. He was warm -hearted and sensitive to the needs and suffering of others. Almost a god in the guise of a human, they said. I think this is true.He donated 35–40 acres of his private land to the government for the benefit of the people without claiming a cent as compensation. The most notable donation was the gift of 22 acres of prime land in the heart of the Polgahawela town when no land was available to build the Central College. This is a gift made to generations of children, already born and still unborn.

It is well known that Appachchi was a sincere and unwavering follower of both DS and Dudley Senanayake. The late Rukman Senanayake often said that M.D. Banda was Dudley’s most trusted comrade in the political world. As vouched for by Bradman Weerakoon too,Appachchi was Dudley’s own choice as his successor. The UNP Working Committee and the rank and file of the party shared this opinion as well. Despite all this, it was Appachchi himself who proposed JR’s name for the party leadership, as revealed by J.R at Appachchi’s funeral on 18 Sept. 1974.

After the unexpected demise of his leader and friend Dudley, Appachchi had no wish to continue in politics. Some of his younger friends like the MP for Dedigama, RukmanSenanayake, Prof. Karunasena Kodithuwakku and JRP Suriapperuma, came to Panaliya during week-ends, to revive and organise political activity but Appachchi’s heart, clearly, was not in it. The situation deteriorated further when his friend and colleague U. B. Wanninayaka,too, passed away.

Having said so much about Appachchi, I think it would be unpardonable if I fail to mention Amma, who was the unshakable strength that held our family together. Gracious and kindto all at all times and so unassuming that she hated being in the limelight. As far as I know, she has attended only two nationally important functions during Appachchi 30-year-long political career. The first such occasion was when Queen Elizabeth II visited Sri Lanka in 1953 and Appachchi was appointed the Minister in Attendance in his capacity as Minister of Education. Amma attended the Dinner that was given in honour of the Royal couple. The second occasion was when Srimati Indira Gandhi visited Sri Lanka as Prime Minister in 1967.Appachchi was then the Minister of Agriculture.

Something that is known only to our family and those close to us is that our Amma has never ever gone abroad – not even to India, although she had plenty of opportunities to do so ,had she chosen to accompany Appachchi on his numerous official visits abroad. Surprising,isn’t it? She and her sisters were old girls of Hillwood College, Kandy and once, as the wife of the Chief Guest , Hon M. D. Banda, she had the honour of distributing prizes at the Prize Giving of her Alma Mater. She was a truly wonderful mother who opted to stay home and look after their 7 children , graciously leaving her husband free to serve the nation.May they all – Appachchi , Amma and Berty Aiyya attain the supreme Bliss of Nirvana!

by Gamini Leeniyagolla
(Loku Putha)

Opinion

M. D. Banda: Memories of our Appachchi

Published

4 days ago

2026/03/12

Sahan Weerasooriya

(The 112th Birth Anniversary M. D. Banda fell on March 09.)

My memories of Appachchi when I was very little are nebulous. Whilst this may be the case with all little children, even ones with fathers who have regular 9-5 jobs, in my case, this was due to two additional reasons: our Appachchi lived mostly at “Shravasthi” the special residence for Lankan parliamentarians and not at our ancestral home home, in our village, Panaliya.

Additionally, we were all at boarding schools and spent nine months of the year in our respective school hostels. Thus, it was just during the holidays that the seven of us (my four sisters, two brothers and I) were at home, in Panaliya.

Looking back on this time, I realise that during most of my childhood my father was a Cabinet Minister, and one who was completely dedicated to his duties. He was conscientious to a fault, attending to ministerial duties, attending parliamentary sittings and cabinet meetings diligently. Appachchi first entered Parliament in 1947 when he was just 29 years old, and

was almost immediately appointed to the post of Parliamentary Secretary (Junior Minister) to the Minister of Labour and Social Services in May 1948. He was Minister of Labour and Social Services in February in 1950 and was again appointed to the same post by Hon Dudley Senanayake in March 1952. He became Minister of Education in June 1952 so that by the time I was born in December 1952, he was a senior member of the Dudley Senanayake Cabinet. I only fully realised how busy he must have been much later in life. As young children, it is our mother who gave us love and a sense of security by being fully present in our lives and seeing to all our needs, even when we were in school hostels.

Pivotal points

Our mother informed us one day, when I was around 3 or 4 years old , that Appachchi would be coming home that evening. Although my memories of this period are quite hazy, I recall very clearly the keen enthusiasm with which we awaited his arrival. Evening moved into night and his arrival was pushed back late and further late into the night. The moment I woke up the next morning I remember asking Amma where Appachchi was. “He came home very late last night but had to leave early this morning. He was a little annoyed with you, Lokka (everyone in the family calls me ‘Lokka’ even now), because you had parked your little car near the stairway, and Appachchi nearly tripped over it’ (this was before we had electricity in our home). My little heart was overwhelmed with sorrow for not only had I not seen Appachchi but I had inadvertently caused him injury with my careless parking of my miniature car.

This incident is indelibly etched in my mind because I believe that this was the first time in my life, that I experienced the agony of shattered expectations. Why I felt such intense pain then as a little child was perhaps because of how much I loved my father.

I was admitted to Hillwood College, Kandy at the age of three and a half and lived in the school hostel for three years. I clearly remember Amma visiting us at least once or twice a month with goodies and treats for us and our friends. I do not however have any clear memory of Appachchi visiting us during this time. At the time I didn’t realise that this was due to the busy life he led. At Hillwood, I had all the love and attention I needed from my four older sisters and my four older cousin sisters (our Lokuamma’s daughters).

My younger brother Senaka and I then entered Dharmaraja College, Kandy in 1961 . We were hostelers and attended school from the hostel. I clearly remember Amma visiting us regularly during this period too. I had my first real and meaningful conversation with Appachchi during this time: One day, our warden Mr Wimalachandra informed me that appachchi had come to take Senaka mallie and me out. We visited a relative of ours in Harispattuwa, had lunch with them and on our return journey to the school hostel, I told appachchi that I was playing cricket for the under 12 team at Dharmaraja College, and therefore needed a bat.

“Are you playing hardball?”

(I didn’t understand the question so I was silent)

“Is it the red ball?”

“Ah, yes.”

“Is it that kind of bat that you need?”

“Yes.”

“What is your position in the team?”

(I was once again silent)

“Are you an opening batsman? Or are you number 3, 4 or 5?”

“I can bat and bowl. I do both”

“Ah! Then you are an all-rounder. Number 6,7 – I will buy you this kind of bat. Play well till then.”

And the conversation continued in the vein but no bat has come to date!!!

Little did I know at the time that Appachchi was himself an outstanding cricketer, who represented the St Anthony’s College.Katugastota team and, later, for the Ceylon University College team, as an opening batsman. This is why he was so well versed with the game and was highly interested in my own cricketing capabilities. His passion for cricket was clear to us later on too because we all recall how he and his nephews, Bertie and Nimal, would listen to cricket commentaries and were glued to the radio when England and Australia played biennially for the famous Ashes trophy.

On the day of this momentous conversation, Bertie aiya (appachchi’s long-time Private Secretary, and his sister’s son; a lawyer by profession) had also come with Appachchi. It is from Bertie aiya that I learnt that day that the car they had driven up to Kandy in (an Austin A 70) belonged to Appachchi. I later learnt that Appachchi had not one but two cars (a Fiat 1400 too). Both cars were driven by Ranbanda, the chauffer, and were in Colombo because there was no one who could drive them at Panaliya. Amma always hired a car for her personal use at Panaliya, and would visit us in school in these hired cars, until her youngest brother Tissa came to live in our home at Panaliya. Tissa maama then drove amma around and would very often drive us to our school hostels. Another rather amusing memory from this same time goes like this: during a school holiday when I was in grade 6 at Dharmaraja College, Appachchi asked for my report card. I was 6 th

in class and therefore promptly and proudly took it to him. Appachchi scrutinised my report card carefully and said, not unkindly, ‘If you are 6 th in class with marks like this, all the other children in your class must be buffaloes’.

A shift in gears

I think I really got to know Appachchi well when Senaka malli and I entered Ananda College in Colombo. Although we first went to school from the school hostel, we would go to Appachchi’s official residence at Wijerama Mawatha every weekend. By this time, Amma too had moved to Colombo. Thus, between 1965 – 1970 , our home was at Wijerama Mawatha, with them. So, that is when I got the chance to interact closely with Appachchi. It was only at this time that it dawned on me that Appachchi was a powerful Cabinet Minister who was loved and respected by his constituents and the people of our country.

During this time, when I needed anything, I would go to his room early in the morning to remind him of what I needed. These requests were for the most part fulfilled.

Once I remember that I asked for track shoes (spikes) and Appachchi bought me a pair from abroad. When I needed money to buy a Tennis racket, he told me to go to the sports-ware store, ‘Chands’ at Chatham Street and select a racket. I received top treatment there and was even offered orange barley!

Then again I urgently needed ‘longs’ (trousers) to wear to school. “How many do you need?” he asked. Without thinking I said, “six”. “Why six?” he demanded. “There are only 5 days in the school week, no? Three would do.” Then he directed me to the ‘West End’ tailors’ shop in Pettah and asked me to get them stitched there.

It was Appachchi’s habit to take us to the Lake House Book shop every year and allow us to buy whatever we wanted. Considering that there were 7 of us, Senaka Malli and I chose just three or four books and took them to the counter, while our Chuti Malli Senerath, would bring a pile of books! “Do you want all these books?” Appachchi asked. Chuti Malli nodded “yes” and Appachchi bought all of them for him! This was probably because Appachchi himself loved books and wished to encourage the reading habit in his children.

When apachchi passed away in 1974, Senerath Malli was only 14 years old and I believe that the loss was greatest for him.

(To be concluded)

Loku Putha,

Gamini Leeniyagolla