Connect with us

Opinion

Full implementation of 13A: Final solution to ‘national problem’ or end of unitary state? – Part IV

Published

on

By Kalyananda Tiranagama
Executive Director

Lawyers for Human Rights and Development

(Part III of this article appeared in The Island yesterday (28 Sept. 2023)

President Jayewardene stands up against Ranil Wickremesinghe

President J. R. Jayewardene, on the occasion of the Opening of Parliament on 20 Feb., 1986 said: ‘‘Permit me to speak on the government’s attempts since 1977 to seek a political solution to the problems arising in the Northern and Eastern Provinces.

‘‘Our first attempt to do so was outlined in the UNP Election Manifesto of 1977. These proposals were prepared in consultation with some of the TULF MPs at that time. I have in my Address to Hon. Members on 23rd February 1984 outlined the steps taken to implement them as follows:

‘‘Since 1977 the government has made Tamil a National Language in the Constitution; amended rules governing entrance to universities and removed any racial bias governing those rules; removed the regulations prescribing racial considerations governing entry to the Public Services and promotion in the services.

‘‘District Councils have been created and District Ministers appointed. The TULF accepted them and worked for them for two years and contested elections. Last year they withdrew from them as sufficient powers and finance had not been allotted to them.

‘‘The search for a political solution was the profound concern of the government of SL. It was this commitment to reach a peaceful solution to the problem that led SL to take the unprecedented step on the part of any Sovereign State of sending her accredited representatives to explore the possibility of reaching a settlement at two Conferences held in Thimpu, Bhutan in August 1985 … arranged with the Tamil groups through the good offices of India.

‘‘However, neither the TULF nor the groups who attended these talks showed any serious inclination to discuss any of the proposals placed before them by the Govt. of SL. Their final response was an outright rejection of the government proposals and an invitation to the Govt. of SL to make new proposals that would accord with the so-called cardinal principles which they enunciated, which were no more than a re-statement of the demand for Eelam.

‘‘On 12th July 1985 the 6 Tamil groups made a statement of the ‘Four Principles’ on which they were working. On 13th August 1985 the leader of the SL Delegation, Dr. H.W. Jayewardene responded to it with a statement on the ‘Four Principles’ mentioned by the Tamil groups.

‘‘He dealt with the (i) recognition of the Tamils as a distinct nationality, (ii) a separate homeland and (iii) self-determination for the Tamils; and (iv) the linkage of the Northern and Eastern Provinces as a reaffirmation of the demand for a separate state and could not be the subject of discussion and acceptance by the SL govt.

‘‘The SL delegation also submitted an outline of the structure of the sub-national units of a Participatory System of Governance on 16th August, but this too was not considered by the Tamil groups though it indicated areas on which discussion and agreement were possible.

‘‘The Accord reached in Thimpu and New Delhi were to be the basis of any future discussions. Such discussion would not reopen the Four Principles mentioned earlier in any form whatsoever. This was the basis of the understanding of both the Govts of India and Sri Lanka ….

There are certain principles which we cannot depart from arriving at a solution. We cannot barter away the unity of Sri Lanka, its democratic institutions, the right of every citizen in this country whatever his race, religion, or caste to consider the whole Island as his Homeland, enjoying equal rights, constitutionally, politically, socially, in education and employment are equally inviolable.”

“At present the Sri Lanka Tamils are in a minority in the Eastern Province while the Sinhalese and the Muslims together constitute nearly sixty per cent of the population. Since the Sri Lanka Tamils constitute more than ninety per cent of the population in the Northern Province, the object of the amalgamation of the North and the East is clear – the Sri Lanka Tamils will after amalgamation become the majority group in the combined unit of administration. Once the amalgamation is achieved the concept of the traditional homeland of the Tamils which has been a corner-stone of agitation in the post-independence period will be revived as this is the only ground on which the T.U.L.F.

denies the legitimate rights of the Sinhala people to become settlers in the Northern and Eastern provinces. Nor does the traditional homelands theory recognise any rights for the Muslims either except as an attenuated minority in the amalgamated territory. So, on the one hand while professing to urge the case for all Tamil speaking people in fact the T.U.L.F. is covertly seeking to secure the extensive areas for development, especially under the accelerated Mahaweli Program, for exploitation by the Sri Lankan Tamils alone. This in short is the duplicitous motivation behind the demand for amalgamation.

‘’ Quite candidly, the Sinhala people do not regard the demand for the amalgamation of the Northern and Eastern Provinces as a bona fide claim but as one motivated by an ulterior purpose, namely, as a first step towards the creation of a separate state comprising these two Provinces. The recent outrages by Tamil terrorists against the Sinhala civilian population settled in the North and East killing vast numbers of them, ravaging their homesteads and making thousands of them refugees in their own land has only made their apprehensions seem more real than ever before.

Even the most naive of people could not expect a single Sinhalese to go back to the North and/or East if the maintenance of law and order within those areas becomes the exclusive preserve of the political leaders and patrons of the very terrorists who chased them out. Could one for instance expect the survivors of Namalwatta to go back to their village if the leader of the Tamil Terrorist gang that murdered their families is the A S.P. of the area? Not only would those poor refugees not go back but those Sinhalese, including those in Ampara and Trincomalee, who are still living in the North and East, would necessarily leave their lands and flee to the South, if these proposals are implemented.”

These proposals are totally unacceptable. If they are implemented, the T. U. L. F. would have all but attained Eelam. It need hardly be said that even if the demand for a Tamil Linguistic State is granted, further problems and conflicts are bound to arise between that Tamil Linguistic State of the North and East and the Centre. Water, hydropower and the apportioning of funds are some of the areas in which conflicts could arise. A cause or pretext for a conflict on which to base a unilateral declaration of independence could easily be found.

There can be little doubt that what T.U.L.F. seeks to achieve by its demands is the necessary infrastructure for a State of Eelam, after which a final putsch could be made for the creation of a State of Eelam, comprising not only of the North and East, but of at least the hill country and the NCP as well.” (quoted in the Judgement of Wanasundara J in the 13th Amendment Case, Pp. 377 – 379)

With all our criticism of JR for the harmful consequences the country had to face with his open economy and executive presidency introduced after 1977, from the above statement it clearly appears that JR was not a traitor to this country, but a patriot who had some genuine concern for the country and its people. He had the wisdom to see through the danger posed to the very existence of this country as a unitary state by giving into unreasonable and crafty demands of the Tamil political leaders in the North-East.

President Jayewardene not only refused to accept these proposals of the TULF and other Tamil groups; he was not even prepared to discuss them. His firm response was that they are totally unacceptable.

(To be continued)



Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Opinion

125th Birth Anniversary of Senator A Ratnayaka – a humble politician with a Vision for Education

Published

on

Senator A. Ratnayake

07 January 2025 is the 125th birth anniversary of Senator A Ratnayake, State Counsellor, Member of Parliament and the last President of the Senate.

Ratnayake Wasala Mudiyanselage Abeyratne Ratnayaka, widely known as A Ratnayake was born the eldest of 13 siblings to Punchi Banda Ratnayake and Dingiri Amma Ratnayake. His father was a stalwart of the Kandy Temperence Movement. Ratnayake was first educated at Dharmaraja College, Kandy and later at Royal College, Colombo. He entered Ceylon University College, now University of Colombo and obtained the Bachelor of Art (London) degree.

Mr. Ratnayake first became a teacher at Ananda College, Colombo. In1924, he was appointed Principle of Maha Bodhi College by late Anagarika Dharmapla, his mentor and who had a great influence on young Ratnayake. Thereafter he studied Law and qualified as an Advocate in 1931. Mr. Ratnayake married Amawathie Andarawewa Kumarihamy, a daughter of a ‘Rate Mahatmaya’ the Head of an administrative locality called a ‘korale’. They had 7 children.

However, his first love was always politics. Mr. Ratnayake was elected to the first State Council of Ceylon from Dumbara constituency in 1931 when the legislative name and the structure of Ceylon was changed from the Legislative Council of Ceylon to The State Council as recommended by the Donoghmore Report. Under the new legislature, members of the State Council were selected to seven special executive committees, the chairmen of these were the Ministers. Mr. Ratnayake chose to be in the Education Committee. On reflecting why he chose education over others; one wonders whether his observation of the plight of his constituents’ educational opportunities compared to the wealthy and the connected in the South and North of the country played a part. Additionally, his awareness of his own privileged education and a desire a provide a similar education for all must have played a part too.

It is worthwhile recounting in detail the story behind Mr. Ratnayake’s role in the free education described in Sir Ivor Jennings memoir, Road to Peradeniya posthumously published in 2005. Sir Ivor was also a member of the education committee. He had stated that Mr. Ratnayake brought the idea of free education for all to the special committee but could not attend subsequent meetings due to ill health from a road traffic accident. However, as fortune may have it, he attended the very last meeting at which the motion was to be signed. Mr. Ratnayake had asked whether the motion contain free education for all. CWW Kannangara, then Education Minister had said that it provided free education up to the age of 14 and thereafter the brightest 25% would be offered scholarships. On hearing this Mr. A Ratnayake is said to have asked whether in the age of the common man they were prepared to deprive the poor student making education a middle-class monopoly. The passionate wish to change education that is not dependent on one’s birth or creed contrasts with other more powerful and influential politicians of the day who were said to have opposed his motion. Mr. Ratnayake’s insistence and strong persuasive powers won the day as the report was rewritten with amendments necessary to provide free education for all. In 1944 the revised motion amounting to a vast increase in the education budget was presented to the State Council by CWW Kannangara.

In 2009, late Professor Carol Fonseka in his CWW Kannangara Memorial Lecture brought these facts to the fore. He asserted that free education would not have been conceived at all if not for A Ratnayake, but it would be stillborn if CWW Kannangara had not put the energy and the enthusiasm to make it into reality.

We now know that child development is variable and very individual and those who do not show early potential can be late developers and achieve great heights that would not have been possible if the opportunities were not provided. Mr. Ratnayake’s vision for education undoubtedly helped this potentially neglected group who would have lost the opportunity if the initial plan of scholarships to the brightest at 14 was implemented.

Mr. Ratnayake played a significant role in other areas of development too. In1948, he became the First Minister of Food and Cooperatives in the post independent Cabinet of Prime Minister D S Senanayake. Mr. Ratnayake initiated the Cooperative Movement in Ceylon, a worldwide organization that began in Great Britain which he advocated to be managed by the people. He inaugurated the Cooperative Federal Bank, which later became Peoples Bank, providing credit to rural folk who otherwise had to depend on money lenders.

In 1952, under Prime Minister Sir John Kotalawela as the Minister of Home Affairs Mr. Ratnayake proposed to the government to commemorate 2,500 years of Buddha Parinibbana a promise he had made to his mentor, the late Anagarika Dharmapala when the two resided at the same accommodation whilst Mr. Ratnayake attended school at Royal College. The translation of the Tripitaka to Sinhala, an encyclopedia on Buddhism in English and the restoration of the Dalada Maligawa were all carried out during his tenure as the Minister of Home Affairs.

It is imperative that the younger generation of today to be made aware of the achievements of Mr. Ratnayake, his determination to provide education for all from kindergarten to university which has benefitted generations of Sri Lankans and continues to do so today. In addition, his contributions to uplift religion, language and culture in the post independent era is worthy of recognition.

When the history of this period is recorded, the name of A Ratnayake will be written in golden letters as a true patriotic son Sri Lanka.

Dr Manouri Senaratne

Continue Reading

Opinion

Newspapers more than just headlines

Published

on

One of my earliest memories is waiting for my grandfather to wake up from his nap in the armchair and passing the time by struggling to read the newspaper that covered his face. As I grew older, being the child of a journalist who chronicled our formative years—albeit thinly veiled with pseudonyms— it was about racing to get the newspaper to see which of us was the target of the week. Sunday mornings meant fighting for the different sections, eager to be the first to open them and breathe in the smell of freshly minted newsprints and leave ink-smudged fingerprints on the nearest sibling.

While it’s easy to lament the changes in journalistic ethics and writing styles—or to get news at lightning speed from various channels—when we seek authenticity, we consistently turn to newspapers. Let’s be real, the unmistakable crinkling sound when flipping through the crisp pages of a newspaper, the scent of fresh ink and the smorgasbord of narratives and images is a sensory experience that no smartphone app can replicate.

Can you imagine starting a workday without at least a quick glance at the headlines and a peek at the editorial section? One moment, I find myself engrossed in the latest political scandal; the next, laughing out loud at a cartoon that perfectly captures the mood of the week. There’s something wonderfully charming about how newspapers weave together unexpected connections between stories, juxtaposing global crises with local bake sales. You never know what hidden treasure you might uncover, a delight that’s lost when reading by clicking on specific articles.

So, the next time you find yourself caught in the binary web of modern media, remember the newspaper — a gateway to the past, present and perhaps even the future.

Romany Parakrama

Daughter of late Sita Jayawardana, Chief Editor of Sri Lanka’s first English language women magazine, the Ceylon Women and veteran actress

Continue Reading

Opinion

Solving ethnic issues without PCs

Published

on

Tamils and also Muslims to a degree in the North, East, Centre and Colombo voted for this government rejecting their own ethnic political parties helping the government secure a two-thirds majority. The significance of this change of heart, as it were, should be understood by the government as well as all political leaders of the country. Maybe they want, apart from solving the problems common to all communities, a different approach to the ethnic problem which had been all these years exploited by their politicians for their own political survival. They may have realised the inadequacy of benefits of Provincial Councils (PCs) where the huge expenditure they entail is concerned.

The PCs do not serve any useful purpose. One cannot see a single project or beneficial outcome accruing from the PC system anywhere in the country. Instead, they have led to another bureaucratic barrier to the people and an increase in the number of politicians. The devolution of power via these PCs is totally redundant as shown by the inability of the Northern PC, which was formed for the very purpose of solving the Tamil problem, to make use of the opportunity to serve the people. The work done by the PCs could easily be carried out by the Government Agents and the Kachcheri system we had previously, without the involvement of politicians.

The total revenue of the PCs in 2020 was Rs. 331 billion and their expenditure was more or less equal. Thus, financially there was no gain for the country. The state coffers would have received that revenue even if there had been no PCs with much less expenditure. The PCs have functioned under Governors without elected representatives for several years.

Further, several authoritative worldwide surveys have shown that power-sharing as a solution to ethnic conflicts has not been effective. About 78 countries in Asia, Africa, West Asia, Eastern Europe, the former USSR and the Caribbean experienced intense ethnic conflicts during 1980 to 2010. Of these, only 20 managed to conclude inter-ethnic power sharing arrangements. Some of them such as Rwanda witnessed genocide Sudan in 2005, and Sudan was divided into two states. Only four to six countries achieved stable arrangements but they are also facing political instability (Horowitz D, 2014).

The following are some excerpts of the research findings; The core reason why power-sharing cannot resolve ethnic conflict is that it is voluntaristic; it requires conscious decisions by elites to cooperate to avoid ethnic strife. Under conditions of hyper-nationalist mobilisation and real security threats, group leaders are unlikely to be receptive to compromise and even if they cannot act without being discredited and replaced by harder-line rivals” (Kaufmann, 1997). Proposals for devolution abound, but more often than not devolution agreements are difficult to reach and once reached soon abort” (Horowitz, 1985).

That Sri Lanka provides ample evidence in support of the above research findings. Of the nine PCs the worst failure was seen in the one in the North, where it was supposed to facilitate the efforts being made to find a solution to the ethnic conflict. Its Chief Minister, after willingly contesting for the post, made use of the opportunity to engage in secessionist propaganda. He did not make use of the government grants for the development of the North.

In consideration of the above, what would be more suitable for Sri Lanka is a power-sharing mechanism. The Tamils who voted for the NPP government may prefer such a system.

The government has a two thirds majority and could bring in the necessary constitutional changes to do away with the presidential system, get rid of the 13th Amendment and establish an institution for power sharing at the centre.

N. A. de S. Amaratunga

Continue Reading

Trending