The S.J.V. Chelvanayakam KC Memorial Lecture delivered on 26 April, at Jaffna Central College, by Professor G.L. Peiris, an academic with outstanding credentials, was published, under the title, “Federalism and paths to constitutional reform,” in The Island of 27 April, 2026.

In Part II of the publication, titled “Advocacy of Federalism: Origins and Context,” Professor Peiris states: “At the core of political convictions he held sacrosanct was his unremitting commitment to federalism…”. Contrary to popular belief, however, federalism in our country had its origins in issues which were not connected with ethnicity. At the inception, this had to do with aspirations, not of the Tamils but of the Kandyan Sinhalese. The Kandyan National Assembly, in its representations to the Donoughmore Commission in 1927, declared: “Ours is not a communal claim or a claim for the aggrandizement of a few. It is the claim of a nation to live its own life and realise its own destiny”.

Commenting on S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike’s views, Professor Peiris states: “Soon after his return from Oxford, as a prominent member of the Ceylon National Congress, was an advocate of federalism. He went so far as to characterise federalism as ‘the only solution to our political problems”.

THE COMMON THREAD

The thread that is common to the sources cited above is that while their focus was on the political framework, there is not even a hint as to the territorial units to which the political framework of federalism is to apply. With time the Tamil “nation” claimed that their federal State was to be the Northern and Eastern Provinces of Sri Lanka. However, the Kandyan “nation” was silent on this issue. Since Britain annexed the Kandyan Kingdom and the unified, then Ceylon in 1815, for all intents and purposes it would be reasonable to assume that the claim of the Kandyan “nation” was to be the region under the last Kandyan King, leaving the Western and Southern coastal regions for the Rest of the “nation”.

Chelvanayakam

Sri Lanka, while being a colony under the British, was not interested in political frameworks. Instead, the British were interested in structural arrangements that facilitated Administration. It is evident from the evolutionary processes explored by the British that subdivided units of a State are critical not only for effective Administration but also for the political framework that ensures political stability. Federalism, advocated by the Tamil and Kandyan Leaderships for territorial units, as claimed by them, would inevitably lead to political instability. The lesson to be learnt is not to start with political frameworks, such as Federalism, but to first decide on the territorial units, within which a State functions, to ensure stability, and then frame political aspirations of the People belonging to such a State, in order to ensure political and structural stability.

LESSONS of HISTORY

Material from an article, dated 16 June, 2016

“When the British took control of the Dutch possessions in former Sri Lanka, in 1796, the Kandyan Kingdom was independent and separate from the Maritime region. The Kandyan Kingdom consisted of the “central highlands with the eastern and southeastern coastal strips”. It was after ceding of the Kingdom, at the Kandyan Convention of 1815, and after the rebellion of 1817-1818, that the two regions were merged. However, despite the merger, the administration of the two regions remained divorced from each other, with the Kandyan region being divided into 11 Districts, and the Maritime region into five, creating a total of 16 Districts for the administration of the whole country (Sir Charles Collins, Public Administration of Ceylon, 1951, p. 49).

“The above arrangements continued until the recommendations of the Colebrook – Cameron Commission. In 1832, the recommendations of the Commission were accepted , “… and the separate administrative system for the Kandyan provinces was abolished and amalgamated with the territories on the littoral acquired from the V.O.C. in a single unified administration structure for the whole island. The existing provincial boundaries within the two administrative divisions – the Kandyan and maritime provinces – were redrawn, and a new set of five provincial units, of which only one – the Central Province – was Kandyan pure and simple, was established. The new provincial boundaries cut across the traditional divisions and placed many Kandyan regions under the administrative control of the old maritime provinces” (K.M.de Silva, A History of Sri Lanka, 1981, p. 263), continued until as late as 1889, resulting in nine Provinces for the sole purpose of facilitating the Colonial administration. In point of fact, the Province never functioned as the administrative unit. Instead, the administrative unit was essentially the District, and the situation has remained so throughout the Colonial period and into this day. According to Sir Charles Collins cited above: “Most provinces were divided into districts, each Government Agent having charge of his own district, with general supervision over the whole province. The districts not in the direct charge of Government Agents were under the control of assistant Government Agents”. (Ibid, p. 62.)

PRIORITISING POLITICS OVER STABILITY

The lesson learnt by the British was that if a Colony is to be Administered effectively, the Colonizer had to choose the most appropriate unit of administration. Similarly, to an Independent Sovereign State, Territorial Stability should be its foremost priority. This means deciding on the most structurally secure territorial unit within which political power sharing should operate and not prioritise political frameworks, such as Federalism, at the expense of the structural stability of the State. Political instability would have been inevitable had Sri Lanka succumbed to pressures from the Tamil and Kandyan Leaderships.

Although Britain was not concerned with territorial stability, they recognised that the District was the most effective unit for effective administration. In fact, the 1977 Constitution describes the Territory of Sri Lanka in terms of Administrative Districts. Despite this, it was the Indo-Lanka Accord that first recognised the Northern and Eastern Provinces as political units. Following this, the 13th Amendment of 1987 extended this recognition to all Provinces.

The adoption of the Province as the political unit may not have had an impact on the territorial integrity of the Sri Lanka State, except for the Northern and Eastern Provinces, judging from the events that followed over three-plus brutal decades. The transformation of the territory of Sri Lanka, from Administrative Districts to Provinces and Provincial Councils, is the direct result of prioritising politics over territorial stability. For India to be the handmaiden of this transformation is beyond comprehension because instability in Sri Lanka, in whatever form, would impact on India’s own territorial integrity. This serious blunder cannot be ignored any further for the sake of both Sri Lanka and India. It is imperative that measures are taken to engage in a course correction through Constitutional Reform.

PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL REFORMS

The path to Constitutional Reform should start with the territorial subdivision of the Sri Lankan State into Districts, not only to ensure the territorial integrity of the State but also to improve administrative and development efficiencies coupled with Local Government units; a lesson learnt from the British. Any political powers devolved/decentralised to Districts should be the responsibility of District Councils, elected by representatives to Local Governments within each District.

Political power at the Centre should reflect the commitment to a single Sri Lankan Nation, through an elected Legislature, with Executive Powers being shared by a President/Prime Minister, with a Cabinet made up of all communities, in the ratio represented in Parliament. An attempt to share Executive Power with all communities, in an inclusive Cabinet, has not been the practice in the past, and under the present government, as well, despite its strident calls for unity and reconciliation. Consequently, the tendency for minority communities is to seek peripheral power to the maximum extent possible.

CONCLUSION

The approach to Constitutional making has been how best to accommodate political power in the form of Federalism, first by the Kandyan “nation” and later by the Tamil “nation”. The claim by the Tamil Leadership morphed from Federalism to a Separate State resulting in tragedies of an unimaginable order, to the point of threatening the very existence of the Sri Lankan State.

The current arrangement is based on Power being devolved to Provinces, in the form of Provincial Councils, with no regard the Province, makes to the territorial durability of the Sri Lanka State. How successive Governments hope to prevent threats to territorial vulnerabilities is to curtail the operation of sensitive provisions of devolved powers. This is being disingenuous.

On the other hand, the more direct and forthright approach to Constitutional Reform is to make the District the unit of peripheral power in order to ensure territorial stability and effective peripheral development and share Executive Power with communities in the ratio of their representation in the Legislature. The first could be achieved through a referendum and the second by the President/Prime Minister of any government. This approach prioritises territorial stability over political power; a change that has eluded policymakers. Therefore, it is imperative that territorial stability is given the foremost place in Constitutional Reform processes for the sake of not only Sri Lanka but also for India, for reasons of connectivity.

by Neville Ladduwahetty

In a striking symbol of the global energy transition, vast stretches of once-abandoned coal mines in China have been reborn, not as relics of an industrial past, but as shimmering hubs of renewable energy.

What were once scarred landscapes, destabilised by years of mining, and later submerged by landslides and floods, have now been transformed into expansive artificial lakes.

Floating atop these waters are some of the world’s largest solar power installations, quietly generating clean electricity on a massive scale.

Among the most notable are the Fuyang Floating Solar Farm and the Huainan Floating Solar Farm. Together, they represent a remarkable engineering and environmental achievement.

The Fuyang facility boasts an installed capacity of 650 megawatts, producing approximately 700 million kilowatt-hours of electricity annually. Even more impressive, the Huainan project reaches a staggering 1 gigawatt capacity, generating nearly 1.8 billion kilowatt-hours each year. Combined, these floating giants produce enough electricity to power millions of homes without burning a single lump of coal.

A former General Manager of the Ceylon Electricity Board (CEB), a veteran electrical engineer, described the development as “a glimpse into the future of energy systems.”

“What China has demonstrated is not just technological capability, but strategic foresight. Turning environmentally degraded land into clean energy assets is the kind of thinking countries like Sri Lanka must begin to adopt,” he said.

Why solar on water?

Floating solar, or “floatovoltaics,” offers a range of advantages that traditional land-based solar farms cannot easily match.

Water naturally cools solar panels, improving their efficiency by an estimated 10 to 15 percent. In hot climates, this cooling effect can significantly boost electricity generation.

Additionally, the panels reduce water evaporation, a crucial benefit in regions facing water stress. By limiting sunlight penetration, they also help suppress algae growth, improving water quality.

Perhaps, most importantly, floating solar eliminates the need for large tracts of land. In densely populated or agriculture-dependent countries, this is a game changer.

A dual economy: Fish and power

In an innovative twist, some of these floating solar farms incorporate aquaculture beneath the panels. Known as the “fisheries + solar” model, it allows communities to cultivate fish in the shaded waters below, creating a dual-income system, energy production above, food production below.

This integrated approach not only maximises resource use but also supports local livelihoods, blending sustainability with economic resilience.

Environmental dividends

The environmental benefits are substantial. The Fuyang project alone reduces carbon dioxide emissions by an estimated 580,000 tons annually, while the Huainan facility cuts emissions by around 1.6 million tons each year.

Beyond emissions, these projects reclaim landscapes once deemed unusable—areas heavily damaged by coal extraction. In doing so, they rewrite the narrative of industrial decline into one of ecological restoration and innovation.

Sri Lanka: A nation poised for floating solar For Sri Lanka, the implications are profound.

Unlike China’s abandoned coal pits, Sri Lanka possesses thousands of irrigation tanks, reservoirs, and hydropower catchments that could serve as ideal platforms for floating solar. From the ancient tank systems of the dry zone to major reservoirs like Victoria Dam and Randenigala Reservoir, the country holds untapped potential to generate clean electricity without sacrificing precious land.

The country’s reliance on thermal power, particularly during drought periods when hydropower declines—has long been a challenge. Floating solar could provide a stabilising solution, reducing dependence on costly fossil fuels while complementing existing hydroelectric infrastructure.

Energy analysts note that integrating floating solar with hydropower reservoirs can create a hybrid system: solar power during the day, hydropower balancing supply at night. This synergy enhances grid stability and reduces overall generation costs.

The former CEB official stressed the urgency:

“Sri Lanka cannot afford to delay. With rising energy demand and climate pressures, we must explore every viable renewable option. Floating solar on our reservoirs is one of the most practical and scalable solutions available.”

Challenges and the road ahead

However, experts caution that careful planning is essential. Environmental assessments, grid integration, and financing mechanisms must be properly addressed. Community engagement, especially where fisheries are involved—will also be key.

Yet the blueprint already exists.

China’s transformation of submerged coal mines into renewable energy hubs offers more than inspiration—it provides a working model. For Sri Lanka, adapting that model to its own geography could mark a decisive step toward energy independence.

China’s floating solar farms stand today as one of the clearest symbols of a world in transition—from fossil fuels to renewables, from environmental degradation to restoration.

For Sri Lanka, the message is equally clear: the future of energy may not lie on land alone—but on water, where sunlight meets innovation.

If harnessed wisely, Sri Lanka’s  vast network of reservoirs could one day mirror that transformation, turning calm waters into engines of sustainable growth.

by Ifham Nizam

The apparent suicide of an Assistant Director of the External Resources Department (ERD) of the Ministry of Finance, who was among the four officials suspended over the alleged USD 2.5 million cyber fraud, adds personal tragedy to a growing public concern about the overall competence of the NPP government and its stubborn inability to come clean and explain not infrequent infringements of government protocols and procedures. Indeed, there have been too many of them one after another and they cannot all be ‘disappeared’ by claims of inexperience, suggestions of innocence, or assertions of honesty. April 1971 was called Sri Lanka’s politically cruellest month. April 2026 has been quite a cruel month for the NPP government.

That four suspended senior officials, two Directors, an Assistant Director and Additional Director, over cyber fraud is symptomatic of the rot at the head of the civil service. Besides the USD 2.5 million (Rs 800 million) the cyber fraud at the Treasury, there was a bank fraud at the National Development Bank to the tune of Rs. 13.2 billion, the largest by far in the country. While the cyber fraud shows Sri Lanka is fast maturing in cyber crimes as in other increasingly wired economies, the NDB is fraud has been described as yet another instance of turmoil that Sri Lanka’s financial sector regularly goes through.

To wit, the 2002 collapse of the Pramuka Savings and Development Bank and the 2006 bankruptcy of the Golden Key Credit Card Company. Except the NDB has a substantial government role in it, and despite the assurances by the Central Bank that the NDB’s total assets, customer accounts and capital adequacy are safe and well regulated, the shock of the scandal cannot be minimized. Five bank officials, including a manager, an executive assistant and a bank assistant, are involved in the racket and in custody.

A fraud of a different kind involving coal importation has rocked the power industry triggering belated resignations of the Energy Minister and the Ministry Secretary. The former is an Electrical Engineer and the latter an Electrical Engineering Professor. The two should have known better and done better. A Commission of Inquiry has been set up to probe the entire coal saga from its beginning to now.

Previous to these, there was the furtive release last year of 323 containers from the safe harbour of the customs. The containers had been red-flagged by computer for inspection, but was released through human intervention. Unlike the other three scams, the container release had direct government involvement in it and the ostensible reason was to relieve the port of congestion. But no one has provided any explanation as to why a specific set of 323 red-flagged containers were picked for free passage.

Cumulatively the four scandals scream about the rot that permeates the whole continuum of the economy from the private sector to government departments. It seems quite acceptable nowadays to judge bureaucrats by the shade of the government that appointed them. The NPP has been taken to task for blaming Rajapaksa officials and Wickremesinghe officials for the faults of the NPP government. By that token, when this government gets its turn to go out of office, its successors will be blaming NPP officials for the new government’s difficulties.

Already, the government’s pick for the Treasury Secretary, Harshana Sooriyapperuma, is under fire from all fronts for all reasons. This appointment is straight out of the playbook for Central Bank Governor appointment that started with Chandrika Kumaratunga and later vigorously acted out by Mahinda Rajapaksa and Ranil Wickremesinghe. This new Secretary appears to be among a quite few professional beneficiaries out of the JVP-NPP fusion, but they could be assigned to contribute to and benefit from positions where they have prior experience and cause least harm. Not for high-level apprenticing at the Treasury or the Central Bank. The country has seen enough of the Cabraals and the Mahendrans. Now there is a Sooriyapperuma, perhaps with a more nationalistic flavour but not necessarily with the requisite competence. Where is the JVP/NPP difference – at least in style, even if not in substance?

Whose Responsibility?

Legacy blaming of government officials is certainly new, and it might be a stretch but it is also not far fetched. Blaming government officials is the upside version of the old school of taking political responsibility. That is when ministers take responsibility for serious government failures even if officials are the ones who really screwed it up. Now ministers blame officials and the previous governments who appointed them. Political resignation of ministers is a time honoured British and Commonwealth traditions. This tradition is being upended by the insistence on the resignation of everyone except the minister. Only lying to parliament is serious enough for a minister to resign; for everything else it is the officials who take the blame and with it the sack.

In Britain, ministers resign for a host of reasons. Policy and political differences account for most. The hapless current British Prime Minister has already suffered resignations of 13 ministers in less than two years. The clownish Boris Johnson had nearly 50 of them bolt from his stables, while Margaret Thatcher had the fewest of them, but one of them – that of the very, very mild mannered Sir Geoffrey Howe – forced Thatcher herself to resign.

Australia has a strong tradition of ministerial resignations. Of the 99 resignations since 1901, 37 have been over differences with the Prime Minister, 20 over policy, and 18 for unsavoury reasons: pecuniary interest, abuse of financial privileges, and misleading parliament. Serious train accidents trigger resignations by railway ministers, and India has had a number of them, including the 1956 resignation of Lal Bahadur Shastri who resigned from the Nehru Cabinet in 1956 after two bridge collapsing accidents in the present Telangana and then then State of Madras, now Tamil Nadu. Quiet and competent, Shastri became India’s Prime Minister after Nehru’s death in 1964 and served until his untimely death two years later. Such resignations were symbolic acts of taking moral responsibility, over and above fiduciary accountability.

There have not been many, rather any, principled resignations in Sri Lanka. SWRD Bandaranaike threatened resignation during the State Council days, but did not follow through. He later resigned very dramatically from the first UNP government, but for a very political reason – that of forming his own party and to form his own government – which he did, in 1956, but not quite the way he would have – to the manner born – liked to. But SWRD and Dudley Senanayake, like his father DS, were men of honour and honesty. It was SWRD’s refusal to favour licensing of vested interests in the shipping business and sugar production that allegedly led to his assassination. We are in qualitatively in different times now. And not just in Sri Lanka.

Whither NPP?

The recent high-level NPP resignations were neither spontaneous nor morally persuasive. And the fiduciary part, if at all, is yet to come. The only retribution so far is the unfortunate suicide of a former Assistant Director of the External Resources Department. That is a personal tragedy but it does not answer any of the public questions. The President’s May Day speech in Nuwara Eliya, going by its first reports, is full of fighting past misdoings, but nary a word about the current ongoings. Holding a May Day rally in Nuwara Eliya as opposed to Colombo is in itself revealing.

The President and the NPP have a strong rapport with the Malaiayaka Tamils. That is positive for the latter, but if only the President would also help them by holding the Provincial Council elections without delay. The point being, the Malaiayaka Tamils are the biggest unintended beneficiaries of the Provincial Councils. They have been able to use their restored citizenship and voting rights to directly represent themselves in the Provincial Council and the local bodies of the Central Province where they have the most numbers. The continued shutting down of the Provincial Council is depriving them again of their democratic rights. Be that as it may.

In his May Day speech President Anura Kumara Dissanayake spoke about “intensifying legal action against corruption and organized crime,” and claimed that “a series of high-profile cases are moving through the courts under strengthened state institutions.” But he made no mention of the daylight robbery going on in the economic departments of the state, and how his administration is planning to tackle that.

Digital financial fraud is a fast growing business with multiple manifestations, including information stealing and hijacking, accessing accounts, faking identities, compromising emails, and all manner of commercial scams. Even advanced countries are having their hands full in dealing with smart digital thieves. Inasmuch as the NPP government is gung ho about digitizing Sri Lanka, it should also demonstrate how it plans to measure up to emerging digital thieves in the country. Are the sleuths who seem very adept in chasing the alleged abuses like that of Ranil Wickremasinghe, as capable in tackling the more artful digital fraudsters? That is the question.

What is worrisome is the recent reported incident involving a ‘home protest’ by a political provocateur targeting the residence of the Treasury Secretary and the “shit attack” retaliation against him allegedly by government supporters. Both actions are bad and it is pointless arguing which is worse. But it is up to the government to preserve public order and decorum without provocations and retaliations. Clean Sri Lanka should have no place for public dissemination of human waste.

Whither NPP? – is a timely question and the answer to it depends on how the NPP government handles itself going forward. It is still a young government, but it also showing signs of old age that emerge when a government promises too much and delivers too little. All the scams that are now preoccupying public commentaries may not be traceable to any or all of the cabinet ministers. That has been a feature of all previous governments this century. But the NPP’s fault has been its stubbornness not to acknowledge misdoings no matter who caused them, to come clean with all the information, and to give the public the comfort that the government knows what it is doing. This has to change, but whether it will is the question.

by Rajan Philips