Connect with us

Features

“I offer to resign” on Premadasa’s allegations of cabinet leaks and the 1962 coup d’etat

Published

on

(Excerpted from Memoirs of a Cabinet Secretary by BP Peiris)

At about this time, one Premadasa (later President R. Premadasa), a UNP member of the Colombo Municipal Council, whom I did not know and whom I had not met or seen, made a speech in one of our public parks where he stated that, within five minutes of the conclusion of Sirimavo’s Cabinet meetings, the UNP had a full account of the discussions and the decisions reached at the meeting, but went on to add that they did not get their information from Cabinet officials.

I thoughts it was extremely kind of the gentlemen to pay me and my staff this unsolicited compliment. The next day the Times of Ceylon carried the speech on its front page, including the compliment paid to us. A few days later, a friend asked me whether I had read the attack on me in the Tribune, a paper to which I did not subscribe and did not read. He lent me his copy. The line that the Tribune took was that both Premadasa and the Times of Ceylon were wrong in their information, that Cabinet secrets leaked to the UNP through the top official (myself) in the Cabinet office, who “haunted the pub on the fringe of Colombo 1” – a reference to the Automobile Association of Ceylon of which I was an Honorary Life Member and a member of the Bar and Entertainments Committee – and that it was at this pub that the leaks took place.

The writer went on to add that, if the leaks were to be stopped, the top official should be removed. I was not going to take this insult lying down. A few minutes before the next Cabinet meeting, I told the Prime Minister the gist of the article and that I would not be attending the meeting if she had no confidence in me. I said I would resign. She said “Don’t be silly, Mr Peiris”. I told her that I was not placing on her the burden of coming to a decision and obtained her permission to raise the matter of confidence before the entire Cabinet.

When the Cabinet met, she informed the Ministers that I had a personal matter to raise, and when I finished reading the article aloud and said that I was prepared to go immediately to Queen’s House with my resignation, the following conversation took place between Felix Dias and myself:

F. D. Mr Peiris, why do you assume that the article refers to you?

B. P. Sir, I am the top official of the Cabinet Office, and the reference to the pub on the fringe of Colombo 1 is to the Automobile Association of which I am a member and which I visit fairly frequently.

F. D. Mr Peiris, don’t believe everything you read in the newspapers these days. I speak for the entire Cabinet when I say that we have absolute confidence in your integrity and loyalty.

B. P. Sir, I thank you for that. The matter may therefore be regarded as closed. And so, I continued as an officer of the Cabinet.

Towards the end of 1961, there was a whisper of a series of strikes planned for the new year with a view to paralyzing the Government. Strikes in the public and private sector took place on January 5, 1962. Valuable equipment at Radio Ceylon was damaged and army technicians were put on the job of restoring the radio and transmissions. The strike spread to the Port of Colombo, the Transport Board and the commercial banks, and the Cabinet was meeting almost daily to review the situation to prevent it spreading, particularly to the plantations. The Governor-General, a former Civil Defence Commissioner, was again given complete control of operations.

In the midst of its other problems, the Government had to meet a new situation. In the late Prime Minister’s assassination case, the trial judge had convicted one accused of murder and two others of conspiracy to murder, and had sentenced all three accused to death. On appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeal, on an interpretation of the law, converted the sentence on the charge of conspiracy, from death to one of life imprisonment. The Government was annoyed. It decided that the law should be clearly stated with retrospective effect, namely, that the penalty for conspiracy to murder should be, not life imprisonment, but death.

The Capital Punishment (Special Provisions) Bill was accordingly drafted by the Legal Draftsman under vehement protest and presented in the House of Representatives. It was expected that all three readings would be moved in one day and the item was placed at the top of the Order Paper. A week later this dropped to the bottom because all the accused appealed to the Privy Council. The Crown did the same. Both applications were for special leave to appeal and leave was refused in both cases. The matter became stale and, I believe, the Bill was allowed to lapse.

Another amazing proposal came before the Cabinet in February 1962.1 referred earlier to the continuance in force of certain emergency regulations to enable the detention of certain persons suspected of being connected with a coup to overthrow the Government. It was in the previous month, January, that the proposed coup had failed because someone, at the last moment, got the jitters and spilt the beans. At midnight, a Deputy Inspector-General of Police was arrested. In the succeeding days, other arrests of top ranking officers of the Army, Navy, Police, Civil Service and a few civilians followed. The total number arrested was twenty-nine.

How were they to be tried and what was the punishment to be meted out to them? In some countries today I suppose they would have been shot without trial. But here, Sirimavo had assured the people that she was following the policies of her late husband and that her government was democratic with an admixture of socialism. The Government decided to make drastic and unusual changes in the law.

I have never seen a man more unhappy than Percy de Silva, the Legal Draftsman, who was at this time, preparing, with angry curses under his breath, draft after draft, as fresh instructions, not always consistent one with another, reached him daily from the Government.

Here is a summary of the changes in the law which the Legal Draftsman was directed to put into proper legal form. Instead of a trial by jury, there should be a Trial-at-Bar, that is, a trial before three Judges of the Supreme Court sitting without a jury. There should be no preliminary magisterial inquiry and proceedings should be initiated in the Supreme Court. A Bench is normally appointed by the Chief Justice but, in this case, that power should be vested in the Minister of Justice. The penalty for the offence might be a sentence of death. Bail should be refused unless authorized by the Attorney-General. Confessions made to police officers should be made admissible in evidence.

The trial against any of the accused persons could be commenced and continued in his absence. The judgment of the Court should be declared to be final, and the right of the accused, if convicted, to appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal should be taken away. The right of the subject to appeal to Her Majesty would also have been taken away if the Government only had the power. And, when everything was over and the accused had been convicted (or acquitted) these new changes in the law should cease to have any effect and the old law should automatically revive.

This atrocious piece of draft legislation shook the lawyers both in Hultsdorp and the outstations who still had respect for the sanctity of the law and for fair play and justice. After these proposals had been discussed by the Cabinet and finally approved, the Legal Draftsman was given two days time to prepare the complicated piece of legislation.

Wild rumours were gathering momentum involving the Governor-General Sir Oliver Goonetilleke, Dudley Senanayake, Sir John and anyone else on whom the scandalmongers desired to use the tar brush. At the Cabinet meeting just referred to, the Prime Minister asked me whether the Governor-General had inquired from me whether he had the power to dissolve Parliament without her advice. How this got out I do not know. I can only assume that the conversation that the Governor-General had with me on the telephone had been tapped. And that was not the first time he had discussed matters constitutional with me.

I told the Prime Minister that that was not what the Governor-General had asked me. He had asked me to look up my books and let him know whether he had the constitutional power to dismiss his Prime Minister and his entire Cabinet and I had advised him that he had such power but would have to find, without going to a general election, an alternative government which would take responsibility for his decision to dismiss. The Prime Minister asked me how long ago that was and I said it was about three months. She asked me what his reason could be for asking me the question.

I told her that when the Governor-General asked me a question, it was not open to me to ask him another, that he had put constitutional questions to me before, and that it was probably because he thought that I knew my subject. In a ruminative mood at home, it struck me that, some months before, W. Dahanayake, M. P. had made a public speech to the effect that the country was going to the dogs because of mismanagement by the Government and that it was time that the Governor-General sacked the whole bunch and formed a National Government. On inquiry from the newspapers, I was told that this speech was published in the Times of Ceylon of October 2, 1961, and I told the Prime Minister so; it did not appear to me have any connection with the coup.

On February 13, Felix Dias, Minister of Finance, made what he called a factual statement on the coup d’etat, He stated that the whole purpose of the coup was undoubtedly to overthrow the Government on the night of January 27. The statement continued: “The Government takes a very serious view of the abortive coup d’ etat. It is a comforting thought that most of the regular units of the army were unaffected by the spirit of disloyalty that manifested itself among certain officers who have been involved. In the Police too, it is fortunate that a large number of loyal officers remain who are capable of giving valuable service to the Government at this critical time. It is particularly satisfactory that the majority of the rank and file, both in the army and in the police remain completely loyal to the Government and the country.”

He added that the opportunity must not however be lost to effect complete and radical reforms in the Police Service, in the Armed Services and indeed in the public service. Many Army officers and Police officers who had participated in the coup had bitterly regretted their action and one army officer committed suicide in consequence of his participation. It was essential that deterrent punishment of a severe character should be imposed upon all those who were guilty of this attempt to inflict violence and bloodshed on innocent people throughout the country for pursuit of reactionary aims and objectives. The investigations would therefore proceed to their logical end. The Government was determined to do its duty by the people.

In view of this factual statement and the floating rumours, Sir Oliver voluntarily submitted himself to interrogation, but the Police did not dare to question Her Majesty’s representative. My own humble opinion at the time was that the step he took was most unbecoming of the office he held and the respect due to him. Efforts were now made to remove him from office. It was said that the Queen’s permission had been sought to question the Governor-General on the part he was alleged to have taken in the coup, and that a reply had been received that such a procedure would be unusual and unconventional. The next move was to have the Governor-General removed from office.

Here, the Queen had to act on the advice of Her Prime Minister of Ceylon and the Prime Minister advised removal. At very short notice, Sir Oliver’s successor was announced from the Palace – Mr William Gopallawa, M.B.E., our Ambassador in Washington. Whatever Sir Oliver’s other faults may have been, there was no doubt that he carried his office with great dignity during his long term of nearly eight years as the Queen’s representative in the land. After a long and unique record of distinguished service to his country in many capacities, he took his final bow and left Queen’s House on March 1, 1962.

The new Governor-General was sworn in the next day. His Excellency announced that he would give up the trappings of office, that is, the official uniform, the helmet and plumes, the sword and medals, and that he would wear a plain cloth and banian.

It was said that the Queen’s permission was again sought to question Sir Oliver after he ceased to be Governor-General and that the Government had received a reply from a constitutional sovereign that she was unable to intervene in a matter between the Government of Ceylon and a private citizen but that she hoped that no steps would be taken which would bring dishonour on the high office of Governor-General in view of possible repercussions in other parts of Her Commonwealth. The Government ordered that Queen’s House staff should be questioned first and that Sir John Kotelawala, Mr Dudley Senanayake, Mr J. R. Jayewardene, Mr Philip Gunawardena and Dr N. M. Perera be also questioned.

I was then asked whether I had any objection to making a statement to the police regarding Sir Oliver’s question to me about his constitutional powers in the dismissal of a cabinet. I said I had none and my statement was recorded on February 28,1962. I was placed in the most embarrassing position because the Prime Minister told me that my statement to the Police had been shown to Sir Oliver, who then had made a statement somewhat as follows:

I have known Peiris from the days when I was Civil Defence Commissioner and he was an Assistant Legal Draftsman. He is a straight and honest man of unquestioned integrity. If Peiris says that I spoke to him on the telephone and asked him this question, I will accept his statement as true. But the fact is that I did not speak to Peiris. It is quite likely that someone else put the question to him imitating my voice.

Sir Oliver, on relinquishing office, left Ceylon on a well-deserved holiday. The Hindu of March 2, 1962, carried the following editorial:

The cryptic announcement from Colombo of the appointment of Mr Gopallawa as the Governor-General of Ceylon in succession to Sir Oliver Goonetilleke only serves to deepen the mystery surrounding the Island’s affairs for some time. Stringent Press censorship has made matters worse and it may be anybody’s guess what is happening and why. There has been no announcement so far that Sir Oliver, an elder statesman commanding considerable respect within the country and outside, had offered to resign. When his name was stated to have been mentioned by suspects interrogated in connection with the recent reported attempt at a coup d’etat, he had offered to be questioned.

The Government spokesman who should have known the facts expressed disbelief in the suggestion that the Governor-General had anything to do with the attempted coup and apparently viewed with disfavour Opposition demands for his removal. He had mentioned that the Queen had been informed by cable of the position. The Governor-General of Ceylon is appointed by Her Majesty, and, under the 1947 Order in Council, may exercise in the Island, during her Majesty’s pleasure, such powers, authorities and functions as are assigned to him. His appointment is also to be made on the advice of the Prime Minister of the Dominion.

Are we to infer that a sufficiently strong case exists for the Ceylon Government to advise the Queen to order the removal from office of Sir Oliver and the appointment of a successor recommended by the Ceylon Prime Minister? Since other prominent names are also said to have been mentioned by suspects, notably Sir John Kotelawala and Mr Dudley Senanayake, former Prime Ministers, the drastic action in one case can only set speculation rife and add to the prevailing uncertainty in the Island.

The long and heated debate in the Ceylon House of Representatives a fortnight ago has been the only source of information from which any inference could be drawn about the attempted coup and its possible ramifications. And sections of the Opposition did not waste this opportunity to make political points of “right” and “left”. With censorship clamped down, and the prolonged emergency, the people of Ceylon are perhaps the most mystified by the extraordinary developments in the country.

From the assassination of Prime Minister Bandaranaike two years ago to the unprecedented removal from office of the Governor-General this week, it has been a crisis to crisis existence for the hard-pressed Island. The people can well see in the recent developments not only a threat to the stability of the Island’s administration, but to their democratic right to choose their Government and remove it. If inflation, unemployment and a strike-wave had struck at their economic well-being, the attempted coup and the subsequent emergency Bill seeking to bypass judicial processes and the rule of law should be causes for even greater disquiet.

It is no doubt the prime duty of the Government to unearth the conspiracy to overthrow the Government by force, if there had been such a one. But in the process, all care should be taken to preserve the spirit as well as the letter of democracy, and also steer the country clear of any kind of involvement in cold war politics. The suggestion of foreign inspiration for the coup has been here, but so many suggestions have been made in this context, some mostly tactical, that one would hope this too belongs to that category.

And now, the Bill to deal with the coup suspects, which the Legal Draftsman was asked to prepare within two days, was presented in Parliament under the title of the Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Bill. It was severely criticized by all parties of the Opposition. Those in favour of the Bill argued that our former British masters did not foresee a situation where evil men would conspire to arrest the Prime Minister and other ministers and confine them in a dungeon, and that it was necessary to bring the law up to date.

Against this, it was asked why it was proposed to change the law, to empower the Minister of Justice instead of the Chief Justice to nominate the Bench for the proposed Trial-at-Bar. One member of Parliament pleaded that, for the sake of the integrity of our courts of law, the normal process of the selection of the Bench should be left to the discretion of the Chief Justice. The Honourable member for Galle pointed out that you may not be able to stop an appeal to the Queen.

It was also pointed out in Parliament that what the Government was trying to do was to enact a new offence, relate it back to the time of the commission of the offence, and charge the offenders. One remember commented “If this Bill gets into the Statute Book in the form in which it is presented, we would become the laughing stock of the World. It is possible that this matter might be taken up by the United Nations or by the International Jurists or even by our constitutional experts.”

On behalf of the Government, Finance Minister Felix Dias admitted that there were many things in the Bill of an unusual character. He appealed to the members not to oppose the Bill. The debate dragged on.

The General Council of Advocates in Ceylon passed the following resolution:

The General Council of Advocates in Ceylon vehemently opposes the Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Bill in that

(1) it removes the safeguards which are designed to ensure as far as possible a fair investigation and a fair trial;

(2) it empowers the Minister of Justice to choose a Bench of Judges for a particular case; and

(3) it deprives an accused person of the cherished and fundamental right of appeal.

The Bill, after a long debate, was passed by both Houses and came on the Statute Book as the Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Act, No 1 of 1962.

The International Commission of Jurists in Geneva took notice of the new law. They expressed “profound concern” at legislation in Ceylon following the alleged attempted coup. Many of the provisions of this Law, they said, were entirely contrary to the generally accepted principles of the rule of law. The Commission asked permission for an observer to attend the trials, expected shortly, of those arrested in connection with the coup. The Commission noted that investigations into the coup were being conducted by members of the Cabinet themselves with police approval. They added that, apart from the irregularity of this procedure, a specially passed emergency regulation prohibited the persons arrested from being visited by lawyers.

Sir Leslie Munro, Secretary-General of the Commission, commented on some features of the law which were open to criticism. These included the retrospective nature of the law, the provision that hearsay evidence may be taken into account and denial of the right of appeal.

I pointed out to the Cabinet that the validity of the Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Act was likely to be contested in court as the Act

one Official Language from January 1, 1961 ( the point was raised at the first trial). If the point succeeded, all the “culprits” would escape. And, if the point was upheld in one case, it would apply to all the other laws passed since January 1,1961. The Cabinet thanked me for bringing the matter to their notice, left an agenda of forty-two items aside, and discussed the problem.

Ministers said that they could not take a risk in this case and that, if there were any doubts as regards the correctness of the law, the doubts ought to be removed by fresh legislation. After, discussion, the Minister of Justice was told to a have Bill drafted immediately to clarify the position. The Bill was drafted, the Parliamentary Session was about to come to an end, and the Government hesitated to present the Bill because of its serious political implications. The Bill validated all Acts passed in English and proposed to enact that “Notwithstanding anything in any other law, the English language may continue to be used for the purpose of drafting legislation to be enacted after the date of the commencement of this Act until such date as my be determined by the Cabinet of Ministers”.

The Opposition and the Tamil community would have been given a powerful weapon for attacking the Government. Why was the Bill restricted to the English language? Why not the Tamil language? Is the Official Language Act unenforceable, and if it is impracticable to enforce it, why not repeal it? And numerous other arguments with the only object of embarrassing the Government.

The Prime Minister, a blunt and outspoken woman said “This is what happens when we try to go too fast”. Felix Dias said that he had consulted the Attorney-General Jansze who had advised “Let lying dogs sleep” meaning, do not introduce the Bill. Some of the Ministers attacked the bona fides of the Attorney-General in giving that opinion. They thought that the Attorney-General was trying to leave a loophole to allow the coup suspects to escape. One Minister attacked his honesty as being anti-Government.

I have known Jansze for several years. He was an honest, upright and God-fearing man, an honest and honourable lawyer who did not hesitate to give his opinion on a matter of law and did not care whether that opinion suited the party asking it or not. In view of the Attorney-General’s opinion, the Government decided not to proceed with the Bill.

Under the new Act, No. 1 of 1962, the Minister of Justice, named the Judges for the Trial-at-Bar of the coup suspects – T. S. Fernando, L. B. de Silva and Sri Skanda Rajah. Charges were served on the accused and the preliminary steps taken to hold the trial.

At the trial, Attorney-General Jansze led for the Crown with Solicitor-General Tennekoon and several Crown Counsel. For the defence, there appeared G. G. Ponnambalam, E. G. Wickramanayake, H. W. Jayewardene, A. H. C. de Silva, all Queen’s Counsel, supported by an array of juniors. It was rumoured that defence counsel were appearing pro deo. Objection was taken to the jurisdiction of the court on the ground that it was wrongly constituted and the objection was upheld. The Judges proved, if proof were at all necessary, that the Supreme Court is not and never had been, a stooge of the Executive. In upholding the objection, the court said:

For reasons which we have endeavoured to indicate above, we are of opinion that because:

(a) the power of nomination conferred on the Minister is an interference

with the exercise by the Judges of the Supreme Court of the strict judicial power of the State vested in them by virtue of their appointment in terms of section 52 of the Ceylon (Constitution) Order in Council, 1946, or in derogation thereof, and

(b) the power of nomination is one which has hitherto been invariably exercised by the Judicature as being part of the exercise of the judicial power of the State, and cannot be reposed in anyone outside the Judicature, Section 9 of the Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Act, No. 1 of 1962, is ultra vires the Constitution.

(To be continued)



Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Features

Aligning graduate output with labour market needs:Why national policy intervention essential

Published

on

A protest by unemployed graduates, demanding jobs, in Colombo. (File photo)

The lack of a committed and competent workforce is no longer a routine managerial complaint in Sri Lanka; it has become a defining national problem. Recent widely reported malpractices, in leading public institutions, have exposed the depth of this challenge. From a macro-economic perspective, large and persistent gaps exist between the competencies required to perform jobs effectively and the competency profiles of the existing workforce. The consequences are visible across the economy; we witness the key economic drivers, such as agriculture, energy, tourism, finance, and education, continue to underperform. This chronic condition is not a result of insufficient and incapable human capital, but of its persistent misalignment and misutilisation.

Economic development in any country is ultimately driven by the quality and relevance of human capital deployed within its key industries. In Sri Lanka, however, the education sector, particularly higher education, has been repeatedly criticised for its limited role in producing graduates, aligned with economic needs. This misalignment is often justified by higher education institutions on the grounds that their role is not to train graduates for specific jobs, but to produce broadly capable individuals who can perform in any work context. This position appears defensible in principle. Nevertheless, it remains problematic in practice, when economic sectors continue to underperform, and graduates struggle to find productive and relevant employment.

We were surprised to see a large number of university graduates appear at a recruitment interview for post of office labourer. Their intention was to secure a public sector job as a career path, nothing else. Alas, in another job placement interview, to select office clerks, several candidates presented degree qualifications, in statistics, and degree programmes, like archeology and geography, although a degree was not an entry requirement. When questioned, the common response was the difficulty of finding jobs, relevant to their degrees. Does this mean university degrees are worthless? Certainly not, if strategically channelled into relevant economic drivers, they could have contribute meaningfully to national development. For instance, an archeology degrees can be directed to tourism, heritage management, city planning, or spatial development. The tragedy is neither the policymakers, nor the university authorities bother about the time and money spent on graduates, which go in vein in an inappropriate job. No one bothers to assess the value of having such graduates directly channelled to relevant economic sectors. The graduates also may not be bothered to question the value they dilute in generic jobs.

Periodically, state university graduates, particularly those qualified through external degree programmes, flock to the streets, demanding government employment. In response, successive governments absorbed large numbers of graduates as school teachers and development officers. Whether such recruitment exercises were grounded in a systematic analysis of labour market demand, and sector-specific competency requirements, is dubious. The persistent deterioration in productivity and service quality, across key economic sectors, therefore, raises a fundamental question: Does strategic alignment between graduate output and labour market demand exist?

Systemic Weaknesses across Economic Sectors

We see deep structural weaknesses in nearly all segments of the Sri Lankan economy. Persistent deficiencies in public sector management; outdated agriculture management systems, relying on raw exports, weak preservation and production practices; structurally underdeveloped, unattractive tourism sector slow to adopt modern global approaches; an education system, from early childhood to higher education, showing more decline than progress; and digitalisation and e-governance initiatives repeatedly undermined by implementation failures, are some lapses to mention here.

However, during the colonial period, Sri Lanka was a prosperous country in terms of agro-economy and infrastructure development. During this period, conscious alignment between education and economic priorities was clearly visible. Schools taught subjects relevant to employment and livelihood opportunities, within the prevailing economic structure. Universities were primarily producing personnel to meet the clerical needs of the administration. University enrolment remained limited and targeted, ensuring graduate output remained broadly commensurate with labour market demand. The clarity of policies and orderly execution resulted in comparatively high employee–job fit, highly competent workforce, and better service and minimal graduate unemployment. Nevertheless, during the 76 years of post-independence, Sri Lanka has fallen from its economic stability and administrative orderliness, with rising problems in every sphere of economic, cultural, social, political and environmental segments.

Decoupling of Higher Education and Economic Needs

As we see with the expansion of higher education, graduate–job fit has gradually weakened. Both public and private higher education providers continue to offer academic programmes that are decoupled from economic development priorities. If I may bring an example, one of the most critical constraints to development in Sri Lanka is the persistent absence of timely and accurate data. Decisions, policies, and reforms frequently encounter implementation difficulties due to judgments based on outdated or inaccurate data. Organisations continue to operate in the absence of reliable information systems, admitting failures and presenting excuses. Notwithstanding the need, limited attention has been given to producing competent graduates, specialised in statistics, data analytics, and information management. National-level interventions to address this gap remain minimal, despite the urgent need for such expertise, within key government institutions, and the overall industry. A large number of agriculture degree holders pass out every year from state universities, but insufficient progress has been made in modernising agricultural products and value chains, although the agricultural sector is a key economic driver in the country. We often meet agricultural graduates holding general administrative positions, which are supposed to be handled by the management graduates. Agricultural specialised knowledge is underutilised, despite the potential to deploy this expertise in promoting agricultural development. It is noteworthy to consider that when graduates, trained in specific disciplines, enter irrelevant job markets, their competencies gradually erode, organisational performance declines, and additional costs are imposed on both organisations and the wider economy.

Misalignment of human capital constitutes a significant negative externality to national development. The government invests substantial public funds, generated through taxation, to provide free education with the expectation that graduates will contribute meaningfully to economic and social development. When graduates are misaligned in the job market, the resulting costs are borne by the economy and society at large. Consequently, the economy suffers from an absence of appropriate competencies, skills, and work attitudes. Poor judgments arising from capacity deficiencies, performance inefficiencies, and a lack of specialised human capital, generate externalities.

Why Strategic Alignment Matters

A clear and coherent national human capital development policy is required, to ensure strategic alignment with national economic drivers. Such a policy should be formulated by the government, through structured consultation with government institutions, public and private higher education providers, industry representatives across key economic sectors, as well as stakeholders from social groups, and environmental authorities. Universities should ensure that degree programmes are explicitly linked to sector-specific labour market demand, based on objective and systematic analysis rather than ad hoc decision-making. National competency frameworks, for major job categories, should be developed to guide curriculum design and enrolment planning. Of course, there are competency frameworks developed as initiatives of the governments time to time, but the issue is although policies were made, they were displaced, and still to search for.

Countries that have achieved rapid economic development consistently demonstrate strong strategic alignment between human capital development and policy initiatives, underscoring the importance of coordinated planning between education systems and national economic objectives. Singapore, for example, closely aligns higher education planning with labour market demand through initiatives, such as graduate employment surveys and industry-focused programmes. Universities, like the National University of Singapore and Nanyang Technological University, play a vital role in such initiatives.

It is important for us to explore the strategies of the other countries and benchmark best practices, adopting to the local context. If we, at least, take this need seriously, and plan, in the long term, strategic alignment between graduate output and labour market demand could fundamentally change Sri Lanka’s development outcomes. Where alignment exists, productivity improves, service delivery strengthens, and institutional accountability becomes unavoidable. Effective utilisation of discipline-specific graduates would curb skill erosion and reduce the recurring fiscal cost of graduate underemployment, misallocation and ad hoc public sector recruitment.

The Role of the Government and Policymakers

Policymakers must treat human capital development as a strategic mechanism, maintaining explicit alignment between higher education planning, economic development priorities, and labour market absorption capacity. Fragmented policy stewardship across ministries and agencies should be reduced through coordinated human capital governance mechanisms. Public administration, including sector-level managers, must actively articulate medium and long-term competency requirements of key economic drivers, and feed these requirements into higher education policy processes. Governments should shift from ad hoc graduate absorption practices towards planned workforce deployment strategies, ensuring that graduate output is absorbed into sectors where national productivity, innovation, and service delivery gains are most needed. In this effort, continuous policy dialogue, between education authorities, economic planners, and industry stakeholders, is essential to prevent symbolic alignment of graduate outputs while functional mismatches persist, if we aim for a prosperous nation.

Dr. Chani Imbulgoda (PhD) is a Senior Education Administrator, author, researcher, and lecturer with extensive experience in higher education governance and quality

assurance. She can be reached at cv5imbulgoda@gmail.com.

By Dr. Chani Imbulgoda

Continue Reading

Features

The hidden world of wild elephants

Published

on

A tender moment as a baby elephant feeds safely beside its mother in the heart of the forest.

… Young photographer captures rare moments of love, survival and intelligence in Udawalawe National Park’s Wilderness

In the silent heart of the Udawalawe National Park’s wilderness, where dust rises gently beneath giant footsteps, and the afternoon sun burns across dry landscapes, young wildlife photographer Hashan Navodya waits patiently behind his camera lens.

For the 25-year-old final-year undergraduate student at the University of Jaffna, wildlife photography is not merely a hobby. It is a lifelong passion, a spiritual connection with nature, and a journey into the hidden emotional world of wild animals — especially elephants.

Originally from Gampaha District, Hashan’s fascination with wildlife began during childhood. While many children admired animals from afar, he spent countless hours observing them closely, studying their movements, behaviour and relationships.

“From a young age, I loved watching animals and understanding how they behave,” Hashan said. “At first, I visited zoos because that was the only way I could see wildlife. But later I realised that animals are most beautiful when they are free in their natural habitats.”

That realisation transformed his life.

His photography journey officially began in 2019, while studying at Bandaranayake College Gampaha, where he served as a photographer for the school media unit. Initially, he covered school functions and events before gradually moving into engagement shoots and event photography to improve his technical skills and earn money.

“Wildlife photography equipment is extremely expensive,” he explained. “I worked hard to save money for camera bodies and lenses because I knew this was what I truly wanted to do.”

Armed with determination and patience, Hashan eventually turned fully toward wildlife and nature photography.

His journey has since taken him deep into some of Sri Lanka’s most celebrated natural sanctuaries, including Yala National Park, Wilpattu National Park, Bundala National Park, Udawalawe National Park and Horton Plains National Park.

Among the countless wildlife encounters he has documented, elephants remain closest to his heart.

One of the most remarkable moments he captured unfolded during a harsh dry spell inside the wilderness.

A mother elephant, sensing water hidden beneath the cracked earth, carefully dug into the ground using her powerful trunk. Slowly, fresh underground water, rich in minerals and nutrients, emerged from beneath the dry soil.

Nearby stood her calf, patiently waiting.

“As the water appeared, the baby elephant quietly moved closer and drank beside its mother,” Hashan recalled.

Hashan Navodya

“It was such a powerful moment. It showed survival, intelligence, trust and the deep bond between them.”

The scene revealed more than instinct. It reflected generations of inherited knowledge passed from mother to calf — wisdom essential for survival in difficult conditions.

“These mineral-rich water sources are very important for young elephants, especially during dry periods,” he said. “Watching the mother carefully search and dig for water showed how intelligent elephants truly are.”

Another unforgettable moment, captured through his lens, revealed the softer, deeply emotional side of elephant life.

In a quiet corner of the forest, a baby elephant stood beneath its mother, gently drinking milk, while remaining sheltered under her protective body. The tenderness of the scene reflected unconditional care and the inseparable bond between mother and child.

“You can truly feel the love and protection in moments like that,” Hashan said. “In the wild, survival depends on the herd and, especially, on the mother’s care.”

His photographs also highlight the playful and emotional behaviour of elephants, particularly around water.

Inside the cooling waters of the Udawalawe National Park, Hashan observed a herd gathering together beneath the tropical heat. Young elephants splashed water joyfully over their bodies, using their trunks, while others sprayed water behind their ears to cool themselves.

“One young elephant was playing happily in the water while another carefully sprayed water around its ears as if enjoying a relaxing bath,” he said with a smile. “You can clearly see that elephants experience joy, comfort and emotion.”

The scenes reflected the social nature of elephants and their strong family bonds. Water is not simply essential for survival; it also becomes a place for interaction, play, relaxation and emotional connection within the herd.

For Hashan, wildlife photography offers far more than beautiful images.

“Wildlife gives me peace and happiness,” he said. “It reminds me that humans are also part of nature. Animals deserve freedom, respect and protection.”

His love for animals has even shaped his lifestyle choices.

“Because of my respect for wildlife, I avoid eating meat and fish,” he explained. “I want to live in a way that causes less harm to animals.”

Through every photograph, Hashan hopes to inspire others to appreciate Sri Lanka’s rich biodiversity and understand the importance of conservation.

“Wildlife is one of nature’s greatest treasures,” he said.

“Every animal plays an important role in maintaining the balance of nature. We must protect them and their habitats for future generations.”

His words carry the quiet conviction of someone who has spent long hours observing the rhythms of the wild — moments of struggle, affection, intelligence and harmony often unseen by the outside world.

As the golden light fades across Sri Lanka’s forests and grasslands, Hashan continues his search for nature’s untold stories, waiting patiently for another fleeting moment that reveals the extraordinary lives hidden within the wild.

“Nature still holds many beautiful stories waiting to be discovered,” he reflected. “Stories of survival, love, strength and harmony. Through my photographs, I hope people will understand why wildlife conservation matters so much.”

By Ifham Nizam

Continue Reading

Features

Citizenship, Devolution, Land and Language: The Vicarious Legacies of SJV Chelvanayakam

Published

on

From left GG Ponnambalam, SJV Chelvanayakam and M. Tiruchelvam

SJV Chelvanayakam, the founder leader of the Ilankai Thamil Arasu Kadchi, aka Ceylon Tamil Federal Party, passed away 49 years ago on 26 April 1977. There were events in Sri Lanka and other parts of the world where Tamils live, to commemorate his memory and his contributions to Tamil society and politics. His legacy is most remembered for his espousal of the cause of federalism and his commitment to pursuing it solely through non-violent politics. Chelvanayakam’s political life spanned a full 30 years from his first election as MP for Kankesanthurai in 1947 until his death in 1977.

Under the rubric of federalism, Chelvanayakam formulated what he called the four basic demands of the Tamil speaking people, a political appellation he coined to encompass – the Sri Lankan Tamils, Sri Lankan Muslims and the hill country Tamils (Malaiyaka Tamils). The four demands included the restoration of the citizenship rights of the hill country Tamils; cessation of state sponsored land colonisation in the North and East; parity of status for the Sinhala and Tamil languages; and a system of regional autonomy to devolve power to the northern and eastern provinces.

High-minded Politics

Although the four basic demands that Chelvanayakam articulated were not directly delivered upon during his lifetime, they became part of the country’s political discourse and dynamic to such an extent that they had to be dealt with, one way or another, even after his death. So, we can call these posthumous developments as Chelvanayakam’s vicarious legacies. There is more to his legacy. He belonged to a category of Sri Lankans, Sinhalese, Tamils and Muslims, who took to politics, public life, public service, and even private business with a measure of high-mindedness that was almost temperamental and not at all contrived. Chelvanayakam personified high-minded politics. But he was not the only one. There were quite a few others in the 20th century. There have not been many since.

Born on 31 March 1898, Chelvanayakam was 49 years old when he entered parliament. He was not an upstart school dropout dashing into politics or coming straight out of the university, or even a hereditary claimant, but a self-made man, an accomplished lawyer, a King’s Counsel, later Queen’s Counsel, and was widely regarded as one of the finest civil lawyers of his generation. He was a serious man who took to politics seriously. Howard Wriggins, in his classic 1960 book, “Ceylon: Dilemmas of a New Nation”, called Chelvanayakam “the earnest Christian lawyer.”

Chelvanayakam’s professional standing, calm demeanour, his personal qualities of sincerity and honesty, and his friendships with men of the calibre of Sir Edward Jayatilleke KC (Chief Justice, 1950-52), H.V. Perera QC, P. Navaratnarajah, QC, and K.C. Thangarajah, were integral to his politics. The four of them were also mutual friends of Prime Minister SWRD Bandaranaike and they played a part in the celebrated consociational achievement in 1957, called the B-C Pact.

Chelvanayakam effortlessly combined elite consociationalism with grass roots politics and mass movements. He led the Federal Party both as a democratic organization and an open movement. Chelvanayakam and the Federal Party used parliament as their forum to present their case, the courts to fight for their rights, and took to organizing non-violent protests, political pilgrimages and satyagraha campaigns. He was imprisoned in Batticaloa, detained in Panagoda, and was placed under house arrest several times. His Alfred House Gardens neighbours in Colombo used to wonder why the government and the police were after him, of all people, and why wouldn’t they do something about his four boisterous, but studious, sons!

He was a rare politician who filed his own election petition when he was defeated in the 1952 election, his first as the leader of the Federal Party, and was rewarded with punitive damages by an exacting judge. He had to borrow money from Sir Edward Jayatilleke to pay damages. The common practice for losing candidates was to file vexatious petitions in the name of one of their supporters with no asset to pay legal costs. Chelvanayakam was too much of a principled man for that. As a matter of a different principle, the two old Left parties never challenged election losses in court, but Dr. Colvin R de Silva singled out Chelvanayakam’s uniqueness for praise in parliament, in the course of a debate on amendments to the country’s election laws in 1968.

Disenfranchisement & Disintegration

Although he became an MP in 1947, Chelvanayakam had been associated with GG Ponnambalam and the Tamil Congress Party for a number of years. GG was the flamboyant frontliner, SJV the quiet mainstay behind. Tamil politics at that time was all about representation. In fact, all politics in Sri Lanka has been all about representation all the time. It started when British colonial rulers began nominating local (Sinhala, Tamil, Muslim) representatives to quasi legislative bodies, and it became a contentious political matter after the introduction of universal franchise in 1931.

Communal representation was conveniently made to look ugly by those who themselves were politically communal. Indeed, under colonial rule, if not later too, Sri Lankans were a schizophrenic society where most Sinhalese, Tamils and Muslims were socially friendly, but politically communal. The underlying premise to the fight over representation was that British colonialists were not leaving in a hurry and they were there to stay and rule for a long time. Hence the jostling for positions under a foreign master. It was in this context that Ponnambalam made his celebrated 50-50 pitch for balanced representation between the Sinhalese, on the one hand, and all the others – Tamils, Muslims, Indian Tamils – combined on the other. It was a perfectly rational proposition, but it was also perfectly poor politics.

But independence came far sooner than expected. The Soulbury Constitution was set up not for a continuing colonial state, but as the constitution for an independent new Ceylon. So, the argument for balanced representation became irrelevant in the new circumstances. The new Soulbury Constitution was enacted in 1945, general elections were held in 1947, a new parliament was elected, and Ceylon became independent in 1948. SJV Chelvanayakam was among the seven Tamil Congress MPs elected to the first parliament led by GG Ponnambalam.

The Tamil Congress campaigned in the 1947 election against accepting the Soulbury Constitution and for a vaguely formulated mandate “to cooperate with any progressive Sinhalese party which would grant the Tamil their due rights.” But what these rights are was not specified. In a Feb. 5, 1946 speech in Jaffna, Ponnambalam specifically proposed “responsive cooperation between the communities” – not parties – and advocated “a social welfare policy” to benefit not only the poor masses of Tamils but also the large masses of the Sinhalese.

So, when Ponnambalam and four of the seven Tamil Congress MPs decided to join the government of DS Senanayake with Ponnambalam accepting the portfolio of the Minister of Industries, Industrial Research and Fisheries, they were opposed by Chelvanayakam and two other Tamil Congress MPs. The immediate context for this split was the Citizenship question that arose soon after independence when DS Senanayake’s UNP government introduced the Ceylon Citizenship Bill in parliament. The purpose and effect of the bill was to deprive the estate Tamils of Indian origin (then numbering about 780,000) of their citizenship. Previously the government had got parliament to enact the Elections Act to stipulate that only citizens can vote in national elections. In one stroke, the whole working population of the plantations was disenfranchised.

GG Ponnambalam and all seven Tamil Congress MPs voted against the two bills. Joining them in opposition were the six MPs from the Ceylon Indian Congress representing the Malaiyaka Tamils and 18 Sinhalese MPs from the Left Parties. The Citizenship Bill was passed in Parliament on 20 August 1948. Ponnambalam called it a dark day for Ceylon and accused Senanayake of racism. But less than a month later, on September 3, 1948, he joined the Senanayake cabinet as a prominent minister and the government’s principal defender in parliamentary debates. Dr. NM Perera once called Ponnambalam “the devil’s advocate from Jaffna.”

Chelvanayakam remained in the opposition with two of his Congress colleagues. A little over an year later, on December 18, 1949, Chelvanayakam founded the Ilankai Tamil Arasu Kadchi, Federal Party in English. Not long after, joining Chelvanayakam in the opposition was SWRD Bandaranaike, who broke away from the UNP government over succession differences and went on to form another new political party, the Sri Lanka Freedom Party. As was his wont as a Marxist to see trends and patterns in politics, Hector Abhayavardhana saw the breakaways of Chelvanayakam and Bandaranaike, as well as the emergence of Thondaman as the leader of the disenfranchised hill country Tamils, as symptoms of a disintegrating society as it was transitioning from colonial rule to independence.

Abhayavardhana saw the Citizenship Act as the political trigger of this disintegration in the course of which “what was set up for the purpose of a future nation ended in caricature as a Sinhalese state.” Chelvanayakam may have agreed with this assessment even though he was located at the right end of the ideological continuum. “Ideologically, SJV is to the right of JR,” was part of political gossip in the old days. He saw “seeds of communism” in Philip Gunawardena’s Paddy Lands Act. For all their differences, Chelvanayakam and Ponnambalam were united in one respect – as unrepentant opponents of Marxism.

The Four Demands

Chelvanayakam had his work cut out as the leader of a new political party and pitting himself against a formidable political foe like Ponnambalam with all the ministerial resources at his disposal. Chelvanayakam may not have quite seen it that way. Rather, he saw his role as a matter of moral duty to fill the vacuum created by what he believed to be Ponnambalam’s betrayal, and to provide new leadership to a people who were at the crossroads of uncertainty after the unexpectedly early arrival of independence.

He set about his work by expanding his political constituency to include not only the island’s indigenous Tamils, but also the Muslims and the Tamil plantation workers from South India – as the island’s Tamil speaking people. It was he who vigorously introduced the disenfranchised Indian Tamils as hill country Tamils. In the aftermath of the Citizenship Act and disenfranchisement, restoring their citizenship rights became an obvious first demand for the new Party.

Having learnt the lesson from Ponnambalam’s failed 50-50 demand, Chelvanayakam territorialized the representation question by identifying the northern and eastern provinces as “traditional Tamil homelands,” and adding a measure regional autonomy to make up for the shortfall in representation at the national level in Colombo. To territorialization and autonomy, he added the cessation of state sponsored land colonization especially in the eastern province. Chelvanayakam and the Federal Party painstakingly explained that they were by no means opposed to Sinhalese voluntarily living in Tamil areas, either as a matter of choice, pursuing business or as government and private sector employees, but the nuancing was quite easily lost in the political shouting match.

The fourth demand, after citizenship, regional autonomy, and land, was about language. Language was not an issue when Chelvanayakam started the Federal Party. But he pessimistically predicted that sooner or later the then prevailing consensus, based on a State Council resolution, over equality between the two languages would be broken. He was proved right, sooner than later, and language became the explosive question in the 1956 election. As it turned out, the UNP government was thrown out, SWRD Bandaranaike led a coalition of parties to victory and government in the south, while SJV Chelvanayakam won a majority of the seats in the North and East, including two Muslims from Kalmunai and Pottuvil.

After the passage of the Sinhala Only Act on June 5, 1956, the Federal Party launched a political pilgrimage and mobilized a convention that was held in Trincomalee in the month of August. The four basic demands were concretized at the convention, viz., citizenship restoration for the hill country Tamils, parity of status for the Sinhala and Tamil languages, the cessation of state sponsored land colonization, and a system of regional autonomy in the Northern and Eastern Provinces.

The four demands became the basis for the Bandaranaike-Chelvanayakam agreement – the B-C Pact of 1957, and again the agreement between SJV Chelvanayakam and Dudley Senanayake in 1965. The former was abrogated by Prime Minister Bandaranaike under political duress but was not abandoned by him. The latter has been implemented in fits and starts.

The two agreements which should have been constitutionally enshrined, were severely ignored in the making of the 1972 Constitution and the 1978 Constitution – with the latter learning nothing and forgetting everything that its predecessor had inadvertently precipitated. The political precipitation was the rise of Tamil separatism and its companion, Tamil political violence. Ironically, Tamil separatism and violence created the incentive to resolve what Chelvanayakam had formulated and non-violently pursued as the four basic demands of the Tamils.

After his death in 1977, the citizenship question has finally been resolved. The 13th Amendment to the 1978 Constitution that was enacted in 1987 resolved the language question both in law and to an appreciable measure in practice. The same amendment also brought about the system of provincial councils, substantially fulfilling the regional autonomy demand of SJV Chelvanayakam. The land question, however, has taken a different turn with state sponsored land colonisation in the east giving way to government security forces sequestering private residential properties of Tamil families in the north, especially in the Jaffna Peninsula.

Further, the future of the Provincial Council system has become uncertain with the extended postponement of provincial elections by four Presidents and their governments, including the current incumbents. The provinces are now being administered by the President through handpicked governors without the elected provincial councils as mandated by the constitution. Imagine a Sri Lanka where there is only an Executive President and no parliament – not even a nameboard one. “What horror!”, you would say. But that is the microcosmic reality today in the country’s nine provinces.

by Rajan Philips

Continue Reading

Trending