Land and Housing Reforms and the Nationalization of Plantations

Excepted from the autobiography of MDD Pieris, Secretary to the Prime Minister)

I would like to refer briefly also to two other domestic issues of significant importance, namely the land and housing reform, and the nationalization of the plantations. Land reform was ultimately a response to the shock of the JVP insurrection of 1971. Not that the broad issue of land reform was not on the overall agenda of the government. However, it is my view that certainly the JVP insurrection considerably hastened it. If not for the imperatives arising as a result of the insurrection, given the considerable power and influence of the vested interests involved, a long, extended and tortuous debate might have ensued, under normal conditions, and land reforms could well have been “postponed,” until “thorough studies” were undertaken, which could have meant never.

There was therefore, a direct co-relation between the insurgency and land reform. I shall not give details about the long discussions, both in Cabinet and outside that preceded the reform, or go into details of implementation. Basically, after the reform was implemented a person could not own more than fifty acres of cultivable land. The ceiling on the holding of paddy lands was 25 acres. Besides paddy lands, the reform impacted mainly on the holding of tea, rubber and coconut lands.

The Housing reforms and laws enacted by the Communist Minister of Housing and Construction, Mr. Pieter Keuneman, imposed a ceiling on the ownership of housing to one’s own dwelling and three other houses per person. The housing legislation was mainly aimed at eradicating slum landlordism, where one owner rented out dozens or even scores of unhygienic tenements. The condominium laws and the revised Rent Acts completed the picture. It was a comprehensive package, and the Secretary to the Cabinet, Mr. Alif, who was an expert on housing, assisted his friend and neighbour Mr. Keuneman very substantially. By and large the people accepted the housing laws as being quite fair.

There was a sequel to the land reforms, which concerned the Prime Minister personally. She was accused by the Opposition UNP and the LSSP in particular, of having sold and disposed of some of her lands before the reform came into effect. The charge was that she used her prior knowledge of the dates in respect of the implementation of the reform to unjustly enrich herself. The Opposition called for a debate in Parliament, and an opportunity for a whole day debate was provided. Nothing came of it. The government was able to effectively refute the charges.

Mr. Hector Kobbekaduwe, the Minister of Agriculture and Lands made a masterly speech, laying out facts and figures before Parliament. Others such as Mr. Pieter Keuneman also made very effective speeches during the debate. In fact, the Communist Party’s Mr. Keuneman began his intervention by stating that he was speaking not because he was asked to, but in fairness to the Prime Minister he wanted to. The debate in the end fizzled out. I had a ringside view from the Public Officers Box in Parliament.

Apart from ideological considerations, the nationalization of the plantations was due to the desire of government to bring under greater national control important national assets; and break what they saw as the stranglehold of British dominance, operated through an agency house system based on British traditions and British practice, serving substantial British interests. This was antithetical to the Republican environment now prevailing, and was in line with the theory and practice fashionable at the time of having “the commanding heights” of the economy under national and state control. Like in all such instances, there were positive and negative features.

An analysis of these would be out of place here. It must however, be mentioned that on the positive side, these events led to the development and strengthening of the Colombo tea auctions, thus breaking the virtual monopoly of the London tea auctions There was a feeling that over time we obtained better prices for our tea. On the negative side, the two State enterprises set up to administer thousands of acres of plantation property namely the State Plantations Corporation (SPC) and the Janatha Estate Development Board (JEDB) did not prove to be conspicuous successes.

Strains with ministers and trouble shooting

Apart from the high policy aspects of issues such as land reform, there were also the equitable and human aspects where the Prime Minister had to intervene. I was personally aware that it was her wish to see that the implementation of these laws were done in a proper and fair manner. She was opposed to attempts made by some, including some Ministers to use these as an instrument to harass and intimidate political opponents.

I have been present on some occasions where the Prime Minister argued most vehemently against what she saw as political victimization. One such occasion was a telephone conversation with an important Minister, which progressively grew longer and more acrimonious. At one point she angrily asked, “What do you mean they are UNPers? You mean to say that UNP supporters are not citizens of this country?” There were also complaints which she passed down to the office for follow up and report from the appropriate agency. This was the visible and firm attitude of the Prime Minister. But in a large exercise like land reform, undoubtedly many acts of harassment and victimization would have taken place.

Besides these, there were also acts of bravado and over-reaction. One such conspicuous instance was the take over of an excess portion of one of Mr. Thondaman’s estates. Mr. Thondaman was a veteran plantation trade unionist, leader of the Ceylon Workers Congress (CWC), the biggest plantation workers trade union and at various times a Member of Parliament. The Minister of Agriculture, the Minister responsible for implementing land reform was Mr. Kobbekaduwe, a Kandyan who felt both deeply and emotionally about the injustices done to the Kandyan peasantry during British colonial times, by the introduction of the “Waste Lands Ordinance,” under which large tracts of Kandyan peasant holdings were seized on the pretext that they lacked clear title, and later on the further land grab that occurred in order to open up estates for the cultivation of first coffee and then tea.

Mr. Kobbekaduwe saw his mission as one of rectifying at least some of these injustices. He viewed the mass importation of Indian labour by the British as an aggravation of these injustices. Therefore, he now saw the powerful Mr. Thondaman, himself a descendant of one who was brought over to Sri Lanka by the British, and a staunch defendant of the Estate Raj, as a major obstacle and impediment to his own attempts to ameliorate the conditions of the Kandyan peasantry, now being confined to village ghettos.

Given these circumstances, when a part of Mr. Thondaman’s lands were to be taken over, the Minister personally led a large crowd of people, many of them carrying the national flag and shouting anti-Thondaman slogans on to these premises, where the flag was planted on the ground and emotional speeches made. This act received much publicity in the newspapers and deeply upset the Prime Minister. In fact, actions such as this, and other disagreements led at one stage to a serious deterioration of relations between the Prime Minister and the Minister. Things got to the stage when both of them were hardly on speaking terms.

In this situation, the two Secretaries, the erudite and cultivated Mahinda Silva in Agriculture and I myself in the Prime Minister’s office had an increasingly responsible role to play. We were on the phone often, discussing and resolving issues. At the same time, we gave thought to some method of reconciling these two important personalities. I finally said that I would try my best to get the Prime Minister to invite the Minister for dinner. Mahinda thought that this was an excellent idea, but inquired whether I could achieve it. He was certain that such an invitation would settle the matter, because his Minister also appeared to be searching for some way out of the impasse and towards reconciliation.

I had a frank conversation with the Prime Minister and strongly advised her to invite the Minister. She was reluctant at first, but eventually agreed. She however imposed one condition. I had to be present at the dinner. I tried hard to get her to change her mind on this. But she would not relent. The dinner itself was an unqualified success. There appeared to be relief on both sides. It turned out to be a relaxed social occasion, interspersed with anecdotes and much good humour. The ice was broken, and peace restored.

Having witnessed the success of this one on one convivial get-together, (I made myself a distant presence most of the time,) I repeated this formula with much success on several other occasions as well, during the course of my career. This included, a similar arrangement, after discussions, with the Secretary Trade, Dr. Jayantha Kelegama, when relations between the Prime Minister and Mr. Illangaratne, the Minister of Trade also deteriorated at a given point of time. Again, my punishment was that I had to sit in at the dinner, whilst what I would have really liked was to have relaxed at home. But duty had to come first.