Connect with us

Politics

Drafting of new constitution begins

Published

on

by C.A.Chandraprema

The drafting of the new constitution to replace the 1978 constitution has begun even before the 20th Amendment has been through the committee stage in Parliament. The Special Experts Committee to Draft a New Constitution headed by President’s Counsel Romesh de Silva has been allocated offices in the BMICH, and three senior officers of the Ministry of Justice have been appointed to the Secretariat of the Committee. Sittings of the committee have already commenced with meetings being held every Friday. Two formal weekly meetings have already been held.

The other members of the committee are President’s Counsel Manohara De Silva, President’s Counsel Sanjeewa Jayawardena, President’s Counsel Naveen Marapana, Prof. Nazeema Kamardeen, Dr. A. Sarveswaran, President’s Counsel Samantha Ratwatte, Prof.Wasantha Senevirathne and Prof.G.H.Peiris. The fact that this Committee has commenced work would have been headline news in normal circumstances but it has been completely overshadowed by the latest Covid-19 outbreak.

 For that matter, Covid-19 has drowned out the noise generated over the 20th Amendment as well. The government can be seen to be taking a very cautious approach to this Covid-19 cluster with whole villages and individual establishments being shut down at the slightest suspicion that an infected person may have visited the place concerned. Quite a number of false alarms have been reported but the government is proceeding on the basis that it’s better to be safe than sorry. There seems to be little doubt that the government agencies concerned will be able to get over this latest Covid crisis as well.

 Even though yahapalana theorists have raised a mighty caterwaul of protest claiming that the 20th Amendment will give rise to authoritarian rule, the 20A only restores the constitutional provisions that existed before the 19th Amendment, which essentially means that after the 20th Amendment, the President will have the approximately the same power that past Presidents J.R.Jayewardene, R.Premadasa, D.B.Wijetunga, Chandrika Kumaratunga, Mahinda Rajapaksa and even Maithripala Sirisena had. Even though the 19th Amendment removed some of the powers of the President, the yahapalana President Sirisena continued to enjoy those powers through other means and it’s only the incumbent President Gotabhaya Rajapaksa who has had to bear the full brunt of the 19th Amendment.

 

Yahapalana sleight of hand

 One significant way in which the 19th Amendment sought to truncate the President’s powers was by establishing the Constitutional Council which would have the final say in making appointments to important state positions. After the establishment of the Constitutional Council, the President cannot appoint members and Chairmen of Commissions set up by the 19th Amendment such as the Public Service Commission, National Police Commission, the Election Commission, and several other such commissions without the individuals to be appointed being recommended by the Constitutional Council. Likewise when it came to the appointment of Judges to the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal, the Attorney-General, the Auditor-General and Inspector-General of Police and other such high state positions, any person appointed by the President to such positions had to be approved by the Constitutional Council. Thus either way, it’s the Constitutional Council that has the final say in making such appointments and not the President.

 Even though these provisions in the 19th Amendment were supposed to limit the powers of the President, they did not limit President Sirisena’s or the yahapalana government’s powers because the yahapalana political parties working in concert divided up the parliamentary government and the parliamentary opposition among themselves and established a complete hegemony over the Constitutional Council. It goes without saying that if the political backers and promoters of the President have complete and total control over the Constitutional Council, it’s the same as the President exercising those powers and that was the situation during the Sirisena Presidency. President Sirisena’s political setup enjoyed the same powers over high appointments that the political setups of his predecessors did.

 Another way in which the 19th Amendment sought to limit the powers of the President was by not allowing the President to hold any ministerial portfolios. Hence the pre-19th Amendment Article 44(2) of the Constitution which said that the President may assign to himself any subject or function and shall remain in charge of any subject or function not assigned to any Minister was repealed. Even though the 19th Amendment never expressly said that the President could not hold a portfolio, the repeal of Article 44(2) was supposed to mean that despite the fact that even under the 19th Amendment, the President continued to be the Head of the Government and the Head of the Cabinet he could not hold a ministerial portfolio. President Sirisena was not affected by this limitation because a transitional provision in the 19th Amendment allowed him not only to assign to himself the subjects and functions of Defence, Mahaweli Development and Environment so long as he holds the Office of President but also to determine the Ministries to be in his charge for that purpose. So all that President Sirisena had to do was to decide upfront which ministries he wanted. All Presidents do in fact decide upfront which ministries he would hold, so President Sirisena despite the 19th Amendment was able to do what all his predecessors did in this regard.

 

The genuine changes

To be fair, there were in fact a few genuine ways in which President Sirisena’s powers differed from those of his predecessors. The first and foremost of these was that the tenure of the presidency was shortened from six years to five years by changes made to Article 30(2). This was a genuine change and the 20th Amendment seeks to retain this without alteration. Another genuine change was the effective removal of presidential immunity by the 19th Amendment by means of changes made to Article 35(1) of the Constitution. Article 35(1) as amended by the 19th Amendment states that no civil or criminal proceedings shall be instituted or continued against the President in respect of anything done or omitted to be done by the President, either in his official or private capacity, provided that this shall not be construed as restricting the right of any person to make a fundamental rights application in the Supreme Court under Article 126 against the Attorney-General, in respect of anything done or omitted to be done by the President, in his official capacity.

 Making the President subject to fundamental rights litigation basically makes it possible to challenge any action that the President takes. In fact the 19th Amendment specifically stated that the Supreme Court shall have no jurisdiction to pronounce upon the exercise of the powers of the President only when it comes to declaring war and peace – which establishes that the Supreme Court can pronounce judgments on virtually everything else other than that one exception. President Sirisena was subject to this provision during his tenure and this was a genuine change made by the 19th Amendment. But it’s an unusual, and arguably counter-productive change. Even under the 1972 Constitution, the ceremonial President was designated the head of the Executive who was required to act on the advice of the Prime Minister. Article 23 of the 1972 Constitution stated that while any person holds office as president, no civil or criminal proceedings shall be instituted or continued against him in respect of anything done or omitted to be done by him in his official or private capacity.

 If one takes the Ceylon Constitution Order in Council of 1946, the Executive power was exercised on behalf of the British crown by the Governor-General who was required by convention as mentioned in Article 4(2) of that Constitution to act on the advice of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. Even though the Governor General was the representative of a titular head of state, even he was protected from litigation with the proviso that no act or omission on the part of the Governor-General shall be called in question in any court of law. We see the same protection accorded to the President of India. Article

53(1) of the Indian constitution says that the  executive  power  of  the  Indian Union  shall  be vested  in  the  President. Article 77(1) states that  all  executive  action  of  the  Government  of India  shall  be  expressed  to  be  taken  in  the  name  of  the President. Article 74(1)  requires the Indian President to act on the advice of the Prime  Minister and the  Council  of  Ministers  and the question whether any, and if so what, advice was  tendered  by  Ministers  to  the  President  cannot  be inquired  into  in  any  court. Under Article 77(2) of the Indian constitution, orders and other instruments made and executed in the name of the President shall not be called in question on the ground that it is not an order or instrument made or executed by the President.

 Thus we see that in the 1946 Ceylon Constitution Order in Council, the first Republican Constitution of 1972 and the second Republican Constitution of 1978, and even in the Indian Constitution, the actions of the head of the executive had always been given immunity from litigation. If the actions of the executive can be subject to litigation, then it can be argued that the final arbiter if not the wielder of executive power will be the judiciary and not the executive. The immunity of the President from suit was removed on the argument of limiting the President’s executive power. That gives the impression that before the 19th Amendment was passed there were no limits on the President’s executive power.

 

President never had unlimited power

 Two Supreme Court cases presided over by former Chief Justice Sarath N.Silva indicate otherwise. The 2006 landmark judgment in Nallaratnam Singarasa vs the Attorney General stated as follows:

“The President exercises the executive power of the People and is empowered to act for the Republic under Customary International Law and enter into treaties and accede to international covenants However,… such acts cannot be inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution or written law. This limitation is imposed since the President is not the repository of the legislative power of the People…. such a treaty or a covenant has to be implemented by the exercise of legislative power by Parliament and where found to be necessary by the People at a Referendum to have internal effect…where the President enters into a treaty or accedes to a Covenant which is “inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution or written law”… such act of the President would not bind the Republic qua state….”

Then there was the famous Waters Edge judgment of 2008 (Sugathapala Mendis and Another vs Chandrika Kumaratunga and Others) where it was stated as follows:

 “The principle that those charged with upholding the Constitution – be it a police officer of the lowest rank or the President – are to do so in a way that does not “violate the Doctrine of Public Trust” by state action/inaction is a basic tenet of the Constitution which upholds the legitimacy of Government and the Sovereignty of the People. The “Public Trust Doctrine” is based on the concept that the powers held by organs of government are, in fact, powers that originate with the People, and are entrusted to the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary only as a means of exercising governance and with the sole objective that such powers will be exercised in good faith for the benefit of the People of Sri Lanka. Public power is not for personal gain or favour, but always to be used to optimize the benefit of the People. To do otherwise would be to betray the trust reposed by the People within whom, in terms of the Constitution, the Sovereignty reposes. Power exercised contrary to the Public Trust Doctrine would be an abuse of such power and in contravention of the Rule of Law.”

 The Water’s Edge judgment also quoted a previous 1998 judgment by Justice Mark Fernando, Karunathilaka v Dissanayake which stated as follows: “The immunity conferred by Article 35 is neither absolute not perpetual….Article 35 only prohibits the institution (or continuation) of legal proceedings against the President while in office; it imposes no bar whatsoever on proceedings against him when he is no longer in office…To hold otherwise would suggest that the President is, in essence, above the law and beyond the reach of its restrictions. Such a monarchical/dictatorial position is at variance with (1) the Democratic Socialist Republic that the preamble of the Constitution defines Sri Lanka to be, and (ii) the spirit implicit in the Constitution that sovereignty reposes in the People and not in any single person.”

 

Keeping yahapalana overkill in check

 All these cases were heard long before the 19th Amendment. Thus the proviso to article 35(1) introduced by the 19th amendment enabling fundamental rights cases to be filed against the AG over actions taken by the President was clearly a case of yahapalana overkill. The removal of this proviso and the restoration of the pre-19th Amendment Article 35 does not turn the President into an autocrat. It just provides the executive branch of the government the leeway to exercise the powers vested in the executive. While it’s true that former presidents in Sri Lanka have been accused of being authoritarian, the same accusation has been levelled at former Prime Ministers like Mrs. Sirima Bandaranaike. Much the same thing was said about Mrs. Indira Gandhi as well.

 The person holding the title and functions of head of the government can be as authoritarian or as liberal as he or she is inclined to be. In fact it may be argued by some that Prime Ministers have even greater potential and incentive to be authoritarian because no Prime Minister in the world seems to have term limits whereas almost all presidential systems do have term limits. Even the 20th Amendment will retain the two term limit for the President. Lee Kuan Yew was a Prime Minister but he too was accused of being authoritarian. It just so happens that Presidents tend to attract more charges of authoritarianism than Prime Ministers even though everyone knows at the back of their minds that Prime Ministers who are heads of government can be as every bit as authoritarian as any President holding the position of head of government.

 It’s interesting to speculate on why this is so. Is it because the President sits and does his work in grand isolation whereas the Prime Minister sits in Parliament with everyone else and is available to be heckled and booed at? Is it because the President once elected, is very difficult to remove whereas the Prime Minister (at least theoretically) can be thrown out at any moment through a Parliamentary revolt? It has to be noted that under the presidential system introduced by the 1978 Constitution, the President cannot rule without the support of Parliament. In 2001, at a time when President Chandrika Kumaratunga possessed all the powers of J.R. Jayewardene’s presidency, her party lost a parliamentary election and lost her majority in Parliament. She gave all powers to the newly elected Prime Minister Ranil Wickremasnghe and took a back seat for a while. Despite all the hype about authoritarian Presidents, the fact is that both Presidential heads of government and Prime Ministerial heads of government that this country has had in the past, have been completely dependent on Parliamentary majorities to govern. No President can override Parliament even under the pre-19th Amendment 1978 Constitution.



Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Features

The Silence of the Speaker and other matters

Published

on

Asoka Ranwala

By Anura Gunasekera

It is more than two weeks since the matter of the Speaker, Asoka Ranwala’s doctorate, or lack of it, was raised in public. If he does have one, it is sufficient time for him to have produced the necessary evidence and laid to rest the ongoing speculation. When my daughter acquired a doctorate from a university in England, she was ceremoniously presented with an ornately inscribed scroll, on thick, parchment paper , along with a foolish hat.

To me, a non-academic, it seemed a paltry outcome for the several years of intense study which preceded the award but that, apparently, is how these systems work. Perhaps Waseda University of Japan, the institution alleged to have conferred the doctoral degree on Ranwala, does not emulate old-fashioned British institutions, but there still needs to be tangible, physical evidence of such an award, with which Ranwala came away from that institution.

Ignore the flippancy of the above paragraphs. The issue of the Speaker’s doctorate is a very serious matter. I understand that Ranwala has been using the prefix, “Dr”, for many years before his investiture as the Speaker of the 10th parliament of Sri Lanka. During the run-up to the recent presidential election, he has been introduced on stage as “Dr Ranwala”. Therefore, he deliberately made the world believe that he was a, “Dr.”

Recently there was some talk of Ranwala’s daughter offering an explanation but that is a ridiculous, unacceptable response. An explanation must come from Ranwala, personally, and not from a member of his family. It is a very simple matter, actually; either he has a doctorate or he has been deceiving the world for many years. In the case of the former he needs to furnish immediate proof to the public and if the latter is the reality, he must apologize for having been a public fraud and withdraw from governance.

To be the Speaker of the Parliament of Sri Lanka, a person must be compliant with the conditions of Articles 89 and 91, of the Constitution of the Republic of Sri Lanka. Neither of those articles specify that the Speaker should be literate, or that he should even be able to read, write and speak, in any known language. In fact, there are simply no minimum educational qualifications for those aspiring to represent the people of Sri Lanka in parliament, although there are clearly specified minimum educational qualifications for any person who applies for employment within the Parliament premises, even if it be the position of security guard, premises cleaner, or a minor employee, respectfully distributing glasses of water and cups of tea, to thirsty legislators within the chamber of representatives.

Then why is the issue of the Speaker’s qualifications of such importance?

When public figures, especially those occupying vital positions such as the Speaker of the Parliament, make a false claim about their educational qualifications, it undermines public trust in the political system. The NPP-JVP machine captured power in the last general election, largely on the promise of restoring principled governance to a corrupt country. I voted for candidate AKD at the presidential election in the fervent expectation of transparent governance. Thus, every elector who contributed to elevating the NPP to power, has the right to know whether Ranwala actually possesses the educational qualifications he claims, although those have no relevance to his current position in Parliament, or to the effective delivery of his responsibilities.

This matter is important because it highlights broader issues of accountability and transparency within governance. When public officials are permitted to misrepresent themselves, it points to a lack of scrutiny in the vetting of candidates for positions of power and influence. The fact that such claims go unchecked, also calls in to question the mechanism the party has in place, for ensuring ethical standards and honesty among its members.

Therefore, the quick and equitable resolution of this issue is crucial and central to entire ethos of the NPP regime, as the expectations of honourable conduct it has inspired within the public, is greater by an order of magnitude than that which was expected of any previous regime. It is also an issue which has been seized gleefully by an enfeebled Opposition, to discredit the government, and to move public focus away from the investigations into issues of corruption within earlier regimes, represented by many members now in the Opposition. The Ranwala affair is the first litmus test, of the present regime’s publicly declared ethos of doing only what is right. It needs to prove to the expectant polity that it means business, on every front.

Speaking of the Opposition, the ridiculous, just concluded (or is it?) charade regarding the appointment of individuals to the respective national lists of the Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB) and the New Democratic Front ( NDF), illustrates the incompetence, the indecisiveness and the lack of leadership ability of the two party chiefs concerned. It is relevant to remind the reader that these two, Ranil Wickremesinghe (RW) and Sajith Premadasa (SP), were highly vocal in the run-up to both the presidential and the general election, about the lack of governance experience within the NPP. It immediately begs the question, if one does not have the necessary control and influence within the party, to decide on a simple but important internal party issue like a nomination, how can one aspire to govern the country? In reality it is not just an internal party issue but one that concerns the entire national polity, as it is entitled, as of civic right, to see that all 225 seats in the legislature are filled.

Moving on to two equally pressing issues, the high price of coconuts and the non-availability of popular varieties of rice, both are embedded in histories which long precede the installation of the present government.

Coconuts have become progressively more expensive because of increasing consumption and declining production. According to the Sri Lanka Export Development Board (EDB), the annual production ranges from 2,800 mn nuts to 3,000 mn, whilst the combined domestic and export processing demand is around 4,000 mn nuts, annually.

The year-to-year variability of production is linked to climate variations, further compounded by a steady increase in coconut based products since 2012 (EDB). Coconut trees have an economically productive life-span and need to be replaced periodically. However, new planting has also declined drastically, with 2.28 million seedlings being issued in 2021, as against 9.73 million in 2012 and 6.81 million in 2013 (EDB). The 2021 crop had been very high (CRI) but the embargo on inorganic fertilizer imposed around that time by President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, has resulted in declining yields thereafter.

Wild animal depredation also has had a significant impact, suppressing yields and discouraging new planting, resulting in possible decline of production for the future as well. The industry assessment is that the 2024 production will reflect a 40% decline on the 2023 output. Around 33% of the total production is assigned for value added export products with the balance going in to domestic consumption. Thus, with the off-take by industries remaining constant, the volume available to the domestic sector has declined drastically. The grim reality is that unless the national industry is realigned, with viable, sustainable solutions for current problems, coconut prices will continue to rise periodically, well in to the foreseeable future. Solutions should also be able to strike a sensible balance between animal rights and farmer requirements. Animal rights activism, which takes place largely in affluent zones of residential Colombo- acted out by well-to-do urbanites of the city who have never had to defend a paddy harvest from a hungry elephant- has no relevance to the desperate realities of destroyed crops in Dehiattakandiya, Girandurukotte and Ethiliwewa.

The rice shortage, notwithstanding the obvious causes which have been ignored by successive governments in thrall to wealthy rice millers – again not attributable to the present regime – needs both a short-term and a long-term solution. Importing rice from India, as a knee-jerk response to the hunger of an angry nation, is not a sustainable solution but a one-time fix. It cannot happen again as the same scenario is played out the next year as well. The unalterable reality is that we are a rice eating nation and irrespective of the obstacles, that need must be appeased. “Let them eat cake”, whether Marie Antoinette said it or not, is not acceptable.

This regime has a two-thirds majority in Parliament and is headed by a president with supreme power. Should he, as an immediate solution, decide to take the most drastic steps in order to break the rice-millers’ stranglehold on rice stocks, a famished nation will applaud and the Opposition, if they understand what is good for them politically, will not dare raise a whisper in protest.

There are also the many questions which are being asked, regarding the status of pending investigations related to past corruption in high places. The difficulties in resurrecting dormant criminal investigations are understood; files are mislaid, papers vanish, evidence is lost, witnesses die, disappear or are terrorized in to silence, impartial investigators are neutralized and replaced with compliant stooges, cases by the dozen, against the high and mighty, are dismissed whilst authority is subverted. Previous regimes, especially those with the members of the Mahinda Rajapaksa “famiglia” in the right places, reduced these tactics to an exact science.

President AKD himself, in his speech at the recent Anti-Corruption Day, with brutal clarity, exposed the issues involved with reference to actual cases. In the audience were officials who, during previous regimes, may have been complicit in the very acts described in the previous paragraph. This nation, which catapulted the NPP-JVP to power as a last resort, will appreciate a commentary from the president himself, on all of the above issues. From time to time it needs to be assured that the regime is moving in the right direction, and the best person to put its collective mind at rest is the president himself.

Continue Reading

Features

JRJ to Nehru: “India’s freedom is Lanka’s freedom too”

Published

on

‘We in Lanka feel that our fight for freedom is being fought largely in India’

We continue the correspondence between Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru and Mr. J.R. Jayewardene in the pre-independence period excerpted from Jayewardene’s book, Men and Memories.

Wardha August 24, 1940.
J.R. Jayewardene Esqr.
Braemar
66, Ward Place
Colombo

Dear Mr Jayewardene,

Thank you for your letter of the 15th August which I have shown to our President, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad. We shall be glad to meet the deputation from the Ceylon National Congress whenever it comes here. I agree with you entirely that our discussions should not be restricted to any particular issues but should cover future relations with India and Ceylon.

If you have been following developments in India, you will no doubt notice that the situation here is undergoing a complete change and the crisis that I hinted at in my last letter has arrived. This makes it very difficult for us to say definitely when and where we can meet you. It may be that long before November we shall not be in a position to meet you, or rather, that we shall be incapacitated from doing so. But apart from this uncertainty about the future, we shall look forward to meeting you early in November. Gandhiji will be pleased to meet your deputation.

The developing world situation makes in incumbent on all of us to look ahead and to think of the future. Whatever this future may be, it is certain that it will be very different from the past and the present.

About the exact position of the Communist Party in the Indian Congress not much can be said. The Communist Party is not a legal party in India. For many years the Government of India has banned it. Nevertheless, many individual Communists exist and proclaim their faith in communism. They describe themselves openly as Communists. There area fair number of others who, though not official Communists, are near Communists. Between the Communist and Socialist Party here there has been almost continuous conflict. For sometime the Communists were members of the Congress Socialist Party but later many of them left it. Since the War began many of the well-known Communists have been arrested under the Defence of India Act and interned.

So far as the Congress is concerned, it has no rule banning any organization or individual except one preventing members of communal organizations with objectives opposed to that of the Congress. All other persons can join the Congress if they accept its objectives and methods. Of course they are supposed to remain within the general discipline of the Congress. If Communists wish to join the Congress, they are perfectly at liberty to do so and, indeed, many have joined it in the past. Some of these have been important office bearers in different Provinces or districts. There has often been some trouble in local committees with Communist members and strictly speaking they have not always kept with Congress discipline. But no disciplinary action has been taken against them except in very rare instances. This may party be due to the fact that they are often good and earnest workers and partly because the British Government here is persecuting them so much.

It is not easy to write briefly about the recent differences of opinion between Gandhiji and the Working Committee. These differences are largely based on the theory and application of non-violence. They have been exaggerated somewhat in the press and it is quite likely that they will not affect materially any action that the Congress might take. There is no question of Gandhiji doing anything hostile to the Congress or of forming a different organization. All that he intended doing at one time was to invite those who fully believed in non-violence, even for a future state, to get into touch with him so that he might take some action through them. Such action would of course not have been against the Congress in any way. It is quite possible, and indeed probable, that by the time you come here all these problems will be of the past.

Yours sincerely,

(Signed) Jawaharlal Nehru
17th Sept.
The President,
The Indian National Congress,
Swaraj Bhawan,
Allahabad

Dear Friend,

Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru has written to us, that you as President of the Indian National Congress and other leading members of the Congress welcome the idea of meeting a deputation from the Ceylon National Congress to discuss all present and future relations between India and Ceylon.

Our deputation will consist of myself as President of the Ceylon Congress, D.S. Senanayake, Minister of Agriculture and Lands and a few others. We hope to be in India during the first week of November and shall make arrangements to be free to meet you during the second week of November, probably 9th and 10th November. As we are anxious to meet Gandhiji also, I take it the meeting will be arranged at Wardha.

With best wishes, Yours truly,
(Signed) G.C.S. Corea,
President, Ceylon National Congress
17th October 1940.
Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru

“Anand Bhawan”
Allahabad

India

Dear Mr Nehru,

I delayed writing to you as we were expecting a reply from President Azad to our letter dated the 17 September 1940, a copy of which I am enclosing.

I do not know whether he has received the letter. We are making all arrangements to meet the Indian Congress on the days mentioned in that letter.

Please let me know when you intend to hold the meeting. I have just read in the papers that Gandhiji has started the Civil Disobedience Campaign instructing Mr Vinoba to make an anti-War speech. I will not detain you longer but please accept my very sincere wishes for the success of India’s struggle. It is our struggle to that you are waging.

Yours sincerely,
(Signed) J.R. Jayewardene
7th May, 1941
Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru,
Swaraj Bhawan,
Allahabad.
India.

Dear Mr Nehru,

I have not written to you since you were interned, because, I was not sure whether you would receive my letters. I wonder whether you will receive even this? I am however writing in the hope that the censor may pass it. I suppose any reference to politics would mean that the letter may not be passed. Therefore I have refrained from writing about things which are now playing such a large part in the lives of the people of India and Ceylon.

You may have read in the papers about the Indo-Ceylonese differences. They exist. Yet, the wish of an increasing number here is that a free Ceylon should some day, and that very soon, march together with a free India.

Our Congress Party in Ceylon had much success in the Colombo Municipal elections last December, and we were able to have our Congress Mayor.

The 21st Session of our Congress Party was held in December and It was modeled on the lines of the Indian Congress with Swadeshi exhibitions, open air mass meetings & etc. Our visit to Ramgarh enabled us to introduce many of the features we saw there.

I have sent today to Swaraj Bhawan a small memento of out visit, a few hand-woven Ceylon mats.

Wishing you are in the best health,
Yours truly,
(Signed) J.R. Jayewardene
By Air Mail
May 29, 1941 (This letter is handwritten)
From Jawaharlal Nehru
District Jail Dehra Dun
To J.R. Jayewardene Esqr.
Braemar,
66 Ward Place, Colombo

Dear Mr Jayewardene,

Your letter of the 7th May has reached me and I was happy to hear from you again. As you realize it is not possible for me at present to carry on an intelligent correspondence about things that matter and are in our minds. Events are marching fast all over the world and it surprises me that many people are still thinking in the old way and cannot get out of the ruts. But the future, whatever it is going to be, is not going to wait or to confirm itself to their slow-moving minds.

In person especially, when one is cut off from the present, the mind fixes itself more on the future. In the thoughts that fill my mind, Ceylon often recurs and the difficulties of the present day do not worry me much.

My good wishes to you and to the people of Lanka.

Sincerely yours,
(Signed) Jawaharlal Nehru
5th December, 1941

Dear Pandit Nehru,

It is with great relief that we in Ceylon read in the papers of your release and the release of the other political prisoners from gaol.

Does this mean that, at long last, the British Government intends to consider the question of India’s freedom? We too hope that if any discussion takes place between the British Government and the Indian Congress, you will advocate Lanka’s claims to freedom too. Do you think it will be useful to send a representative of ours to India at this time?

The Ceylon National Congress is meeting at its 22nd sessions from 27th-30th December. We hope to hold one of the biggest national assemblies ever held in Ceylon. We have invited representatives from India and Burma, but unfortunately the Indian National Congress has not be able to accept our invitation.

I wonder whether you could come, or sent a message? If you could come even for a short stay, I can make arrangements for a quiet holiday in the Hills. I trust you received the books I sent to you in gaol.

With best wishes, Yours truly,
(Signed) J.R. Jayewardene
Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru,
Swaraj Bhawan
Allahabad
India
J.R. Jayewardene Braemar
66, Ward Place
Colombo
28th July, 1942
Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru Anand Bhawan
Allahabad
India

Dear Pandit Nehru,

My letter to you dated the 5th December 1941, and the books I sent with that letter have evidently been stopped by the censor, for I have received no reply or acknowledgment. Though I wanted very much to write to you again, I thought it better that I should not, as any reference to political affairs would have met with the censor’s disapproval.

I have therefore refrained from any such reference and only wish to ask you whether it would be possible for me to meet you if I happen to be in Bombay between the 4th and 8th August.

I am sending separately a small booklet of Essays on Buddhism which I published recently.

With best wishes,
Yours truly,
(Signed) J.R. Jayewardene

J.R. Jayewardene 66, Ward Place
Colombo
29.6.45 Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru
Swaraj Bhawan
Allahabad
India

My dear Pandit Nehru,

I wonder whether you remember our last meeting? It was on the day before the AICC Meeting, in August 1942. A few of us, members of the Ceylon National. Congress had come to Bombay, and you very kindly spared a few minutes of your time, discussing with us, problems affecting our two countries, at Mr Huthee Singh’s residence.

With your help we were able to attend the first day’s meeting. The next day the leaders were arrested, and on our way to the meeting place, we found the Police dispersing the crowds, with violence. We visited your residence that same day, bade good-bye to Mrs Huthee Singh, and left for Ceylon that very evening. On our way back, our train was stoned at one or two places, near Bombay, but without injury to anyone. My Satyamurthi, who was traveling with us, was arrested near Madras. We reached Colombo a few days later.

Three years have gone by since then; years which have seen many changes and stirring events, but few have been so eagerly received here as the release of the Indian leaders. I hope you received our message of goodwill. I think the main reason for this is, that we in Lanka feel that our fight for freedom is being fought largely in India, and India’s freedom is Lanka’s freedom too.

The urge for freedom has grown immensely here, during these three years. Soon after our return, the Ceylon National Congress in December 1942 rejected Dominion Status and adopted Freedom as its objective. Soon after this, I was nominated as the Congress candidate, for the vacancy created, by Sir D.B. Jayatilleke’s appointment as Representative in India, and fighting the election on the issue of “independence” vs “Reforms”, against an elder politician, E.W. Perera, I was able to win by over 10,000 votes. The State Council and all political parties too, now ask for freedom, and India’s help will be a great asset to us. It is to acquaint you with the latest developments in Ceylon that I thought of writing these few lines.

I am sending you the following Sessional Papers which give an account of what has happened here; S.P. 13 of 1943; S.P. 17 of 1943; S.P. 12 of 1944; S.P. 14 of 1944, the draft of an Ordinance to provide a new constitution for Lanka, and the Agenda of the 25th Congress Sessions.

On the 26th May 1943, the British Government declared that it would grant full responsible government to Ceylon, in all matters of internal civil administration. This declaration is printed in S.P. 17 of 1943, together with the Ministers interpretation of it. The Ministers drafted a Constitution and sent it to the Secretary of State in February 1944. They were then informed that a Commission would be sent out to Ceylon. The Ministers objected to the sending out of this Commission, withdrew their Draft and decided not to cooperate with the Commission, vide S.P. 12 of 1944. The Ministers’ Draft Constitution is in S.P. 14 of 1944.

The Commission, an “all White one”, held its sittings from December 1944 to April 1945, and was boycotted by all progressive political bodies, following the lead of the Ceylon National Congress.

While the Commission, which consisted of Lord Soulbury, Sir F.J. Rees and Mr F.J. Burrows, was hearing evidence, we introduced in the State Council, an Ordinance to provide a new Constitution for Lanka. This Ordinance contained the Ministers’ Draft Constitution, shorn of certain limitations, and provided a Constitution of the recognized Dominion type for a Free Lanka. The third reading of this Ordinance was passed in March 1945, with only two elected members, both members of the Tamil Congress, a new body created to give evidence before the Commission voting against it. The Ordinance has now been reserved for His Majesty’s assent.

I understand that the Soulbury Report is now ready, and the Leader of the State Council, Mr D.S. Senanayake, has been invited to England to discuss future constitutional problems with the British Government. I do not think that either the State Council, or the country will accept anything less than has already been promised to India and Burma, that is the status of a free and equal partner, in the Commonwealth of Nations.

The latest Resolution of the Indian Congress Working Committee, demanding freedom for the Colonies, has heartened us, for even the moral support of a powerful neighbour gives strength to our cause.

You may remember in August 1942, I suggested that Ceylon too, should be included in the resolution to be placed before the AICC, as one of the countries for whose freedom the Indian Congress would strive. Specific reference of this nature to Ceylon is of great psychological value to us, in our work.

It is not possible to suggest, just now, any means whereby India can help us. We anxiously await the outcome of the Simla Talks. I have only attempted to provide you, with a summary of recent political events in Ceylon, so that, if you have the time and the desire, you may yourself consider what help you can render us. I am afraid, I have already taken too much of your time, but I cannot close, without extending to you and to any of your friends, you wish to bring, a cordial invitation to be my guests in Ceylon, if you can find the time for a short holiday. The best time would be January, a cool month, when moreover, we will be holding our 26th Congress Session.

With my best wishes to you,
Yours very sincerely,
(Signed) J.R. Jayewardene

Continue Reading

Features

Republicans’ most lethal political weapon – A father’s love for his son

Published

on

Pete Hegseth Defense Secretary confirmation likely – Thanks, mom

by Vijaya Chandrasoma

The Republicans, not satisfied with their recent electoral triumph, continue to vilify President Biden for the pardon of his son, Hunter. Wresting power from the Democrats has not satisfied their blood-lust; they now seek to disgrace Biden, dishonor him and destroy the legacy of one of the most decent and selfless presidents in history, with a first-term record second to none.

A legacy of achievements, the results of which have only now begun to show in what is today the strongest economy in the world. An economy created of bipartisan legislative miracles which will endure for decades to come. Which the contemptible Trump will claim he personally built, on the first day of his office, in January 2025. Just as he claimed he built the booming economy he inherited from President Obama in 2017, only to criminally mismanage it to recession by the end of his first term.

As he will in his second term. Trump is already admitting that he was lying when he promised to reduce grocery prices and inflation. Does anyone doubt that his other pie-in-the-sky campaign promises will prove to be similarly false? Remember the border wall to be paid by Mexico? Not all of us suffer from amnesia.

I recently read about a similar repulsive act of political abuse committed by Republican politicians 70 years ago, to destroy the reputation and, in this case, ultimately cause the suicide of, another fine man, using the most potent weapon in the world – the love of a father for his son. Purely to destroy his reputation and gain political power.

In the 1940s, the general public was becoming more aware of homosexuality, especially after Alfred Kynsey’s bestseller on Sexual Behavior in the Human Male drew attention to the fact that same-sex experiences were not just common, but normal. Homosexuality, even same-sex marriages, are now legal in most intellectually enlightened countries. Though it continues to be treated with contempt, as a perversion (“abomination”) in some, usually religious, sectors in many of these developed nations, including the USA.

Of course, there are primitive countries even today where homosexuality is a crime, liable for punishments up to and including the death penalty. Sri Lanka technically falls into this category of primitive nations. Strictly according to the Sri Lanka Penal Code of 1883, same-sex sexual activity is prohibited, and carries a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment and a fine. Fortunately, these laws are more honored in the breach; otherwise many of our eminent politicians would have been behind bars, along with their cronies and security personnel. Of course, they would have been granted shared cells, where they would have been able to continue to get their jollies at government expense.

In the days of the “Red Scare” in the USA in the 1950s, homosexuality was linked to communism, as, according to now disgraced Republican Senator Joseph McCarthy, “homosexuals had peculiar mental twists” that made them “unsafe risks susceptible to communism”. Ironically, McCarthy was himself a homosexual.

In 1947, the United States Park Police initiated a “Sex Perversion Elimination Program”, a sting operation targeting gay men for arrest for homosexual solicitation. Generally, those arrested as a result of this Program, if they had no prior criminal record, were released with a night in jail and a fine.

In June, 1953, a young man, Lester C. (Buddy) Hunt, Jr, was arrested for soliciting sex from an undercover male police officer, in Lafayette Square, Washington D.C. Buddy was the president of the student body at the Episcopal Theological School in Cambridge, Massachusetts. He had no prior criminal record, so the charges were dismissed with a slap on the wrist.

Buddy Hunt was also the son of Wyoming Democratic Senator, Lester C. Hunt. Hunt had an outstanding career in politics, working in the Wyoming state legislature as secretary of state, the state’s first two-term governor and a most popular Senator from a traditionally Republican state.

More importantly, in 1934, he had shown his love for his son by giving bone grafts to his then six-year-old son, Buddy to treat his bone cysts. A dentist by profession, Hunt had trouble standing by his dental chair after this selfless act of paternal love.

Hunt had made an enemy of Joseph McCarthy, disgusted as he was at McCarthy’s notorious anti-communist campaign and legally questionable tactics. At that time, Democrats held a razor-thin majority in the Senate. One of McCarthy’s Republican allies in the Senate, Idaho Senator Herman Welker, saw an opportunity to eliminate this majority. Welker had Buddy Hunt’s case re-opened, and made sure he was prosecuted. The Republican judge found him guilty of, as he put it, “one of the most heinous crimes a man can commit”. He had obviously not heard of crimes like rape and murder. For this “most heinous crime” of homosexuality, the politically corrupted judge fined Buddy $100 and dismissed the case.

The Republicans threatened Hunt that they would publicize this incident in the Senate. When Senator Hunt resisted, they threatened to blanket Wyoming with flyers about his son’s homosexuality. Hunt gave in and resigned. The Republicans achieved their goal. They disgraced the reputation of a fine Senator and achieved majority in the Senate, as Wyoming’s Republican Governor Rogers would appoint a Republican to replace Senator Hunt.

The Republicans’ “witch Hunt” reached its cruel perfection when Senator Hunt committed suicide in his Washington DC office in 1954.

70 Years later, we are now in the Trump era. Donald Trump was elected president in 2016. He immediately showed his love for his children in more substantial ways, which brought him only praise and devotion in Republican eyes.

Trump dearly loves his daughter, Ivanka and his son-in-law, Jared Kushner. Trump loved them so much that he gave them senior posts in the White House during his first presidential term; Ivanka as Senior Advisor and Director of Economic Initiatives and Entrepreneurship (Ivanka had vast experience as a ladies’ handbag saleswoman); and Jared, a real estate developer facing bankruptcy, as Senior White House Consultant, with the responsibility, inter alia, of Bringing Peace to the Middle East. He even loved Jared’s father, Charles, so much that he pardoned him for crimes of tax evasion, witness intimidation and illegal campaign contributions, for which he had spent two years in prison.

One of Trump’s first acts as President-elect last month was to nominate this distinguished ex-con, Charles Kushner as the Ambassador of the United States to France. Trump’s love for his children knows no bounds. Last Thursday, he announced the appointment of Fox News hostess and his son Don Jr’s ex-fiancée, Kimberly Guilfoyle, as the US Ambassador to Greece.

Trump also intends to pardon, “within minutes” of assuming power on January 20, 2025, the “patriots” who stormed the Capitol on January 6, 2021, as he loves them like his own children! His message to his supporters: “If you commit acts of violence on my behalf in the future, I will pardon you”. A chilling precedent for all future presidents.

Pardons, ambassadorships will be available, along with Trump Bibles, guitars, wristwatches, sneakers, even the latest Trump “Fight, Fight, Fight” fragrance, a haunting aroma of blood, sweat and perfidy, at bargain-basement prices at the White House Gift Shop from January 21, 2025.

Now the Republicans, even some Sri Trumpians, are up in their incredibly hypocritical arms about President Biden issuing a “full and unconditional pardon” for his son. Hunter had earlier been convicted of felony charges of tax evasion and gun related charge while he was a drug addict, crimes committed in 2018. The back taxes have been completely settled, the weapon was never used in the commission of a crime and Hunter has been sober for over five years.

Biden had indeed lied at a time when justice was being administered constitutionally. However, justice will take a different guise when the Trump administration takes control. Instead of being released with a slap on the wrist, the regular punishment for these types of crimes, Hunter will be facing the maximum sentence of 17 years’ imprisonment under the Justice Department to be headed by Pam Bondi and Kash Patel, Trump’s nominees for Attorney General and Director, FBI, respectively, who have both vowed to pursue diligently Trump’s threats of retribution.

Extracts from President Biden’s December 1 statement explains his reason for this rare instance of being forced to deviate from the truth:

“Today, I signed a pardon for my son, Hunter. From the day I took office, I said I would not interfere with the Justice Department’s decision making, and I kept my word even as I watched my son being selectively, and unfairly, prosecuted. …People brought to trial on felony charges solely for how they filled out a gun form….or were late for paying their taxes because of serious addictions, but paid them back with interest and penalties, are typically given non-criminal resolutions.

“No reasonable person who looks at the facts of Hunter’s cases can reach any other conclusion than Hunter was singled out because he is my son – and that is wrong….In trying to break Hunter, they are trying to break me – and there’s no reason to believe it will stop here. Enough is enough.

“For my entire career, I have followed a simple principle: just tell the American people the truth. They’ll be fair-minded. And here’s the truth. I believe in the justice system…I also believe raw politics has infected this process and it led to a miscarriage of justice….I hope Americans will understand why a father and a President would come to this decision”.

There is another currently ongoing instance of love, this time the love of a mother for her son, which will surely bring tears to your eyes.

Pete Hegseth is Trump’s choice for one of the top jobs in his cabinet. The Defense Secretary is not just the head of the largest bureaucracy, probably in the world, with nearly three million employees worldwide and an annual budget of $850 billion. The Defense Secretary is also the key link between the presidency and the uniformed military, including the nuclear chain of command.

Hegseth, 44, a war veteran of two tours in Cuba and Iraq, had led a platoon of 35 soldiers in Iraq. He is currently a weekend television presenter with Fox News, and has no administrative experience whatsoever. An alcoholic with a police record of numerous drunken sexual assaults, he recently had an intervention with his employer, Fox News, for being drunk on his program – which starts at 6 a.m. Hegseth flaunts a white supremacist tattoo, considers war crimes such as torture, including waterboarding, justified under certain circumstances, and believes that women have no role to play in military combat. Hegseth has vowed to “fight like hell” to win this coveted job, so long as he enjoys Trump’s confidence.

When his mommy, Penelope Hegseth, heard of her darling son’s nomination to one of the most powerful jobs in the nation, she sprang to his aid with an outpouring of love, rivaling that of legendary Sojourner Truth, the first African-American mother to fight for, and win, her son’s freedom from slavery; the first time an African-American prevailed in court against a white man. Penelope prays her maternal love will similarly have her totally unqualified, misogynistic, racist, alcoholic, sexual predator son confirmed to one of the most powerful, complex jobs in the world.

Mommy went on Fox TV, pleading that her son was a “changed man”; she called Senators, begging for their confirmation. She responded in the negative to a question from a Senator if a breathalyzer test would be required at the entrance to the White House Situation Room, insisting that her darling Pete had undergone a recent epiphany and has promised not to touch alcohol, if he gets the job. In any event, she vowed she that will be right there by his side to help him with the nuclear football, the briefcase which has the launch codes for nuclear weapons, if he ever fell off the wagon.

Although there have been whispers of dissonance among some Republican Senators, chances are they will all fall in line with Trump’s choices. In the end, few, if any of them will dare go against the Fuhrer.

Every one of Trump’s terrifyingly controversial and unqualified cabinet nominations is a test. A test to ensure that every single Republican member of the House, every single Republican Senator bends to his will with unquestioning fealty. A test that establishes his dominance over his party, arming him with the absolute power to carry out his stated dictatorial policies without any of the guard rails provided in the constitution. From the first day of his presidency.

Continue Reading

Trending