Connect with us


A Brief Response to the Current National Crisis – A Way Forward



Dr. Anila Dias Bandaranaike and Prof. Sharya Scharenguivel

Sri Lanka is at a crossroad, facing current multiple crises, as well as the present impasse of an unwanted Executive with all powers and an inadequate Legislature with little powers. The call of citizens, united in their diversity, is for real change. This requires clear priorities and a framework for a sustainable development plan for Sri Lanka which assigns responsibility to its Executive, Legislature and Public Service to implement that plan. This analysis tries to provide a structured way for the country to do so, based on 3 national priorities.

A. National Priorities – 1. Improving the Well-Being of All Citizens, 2. Safeguarding the Environment and 3. Rebuilding Key Institutions

This prioritisation assumes the basic premise that nations strive to improve the well-being of all citizens and safeguard their environment, which requires sustainable development with social justice, that minimises inequalities and poverty.


• Well-being” – material, intellectual and emotional quality of life

• “Sustainable Development” –progress in well-being lasting for future generations

• “Social Justice” – impartiality in access and opportunities for all, regardless of race, religion, income, social status, gender, political affiliation, sexual orientation, or any other differentiating factor

The importance of citizens’ rights in relation to the first 2 priorities, human well-being and safeguarding Sri Lanka’s environment, must be recognised in our Constitution. Equally important, is rebuilding Sri Lanka’s key institutions for implementation of policies and laws for sustainable development with social justice to realise the first 2 priorities.

1. Improving the Well-Being of All Citizens – Material, Intellectual and Emotional

What’s Wrong? – Successive governments lost sight of this underlying goal. Instead, national development plans have targeted the means to the goal (economic growth, investment, exports), sometimes at a cost to the goal itself.

Immediate Priorities

1.1 Foreign exchange, foreign debt, inflation, fiscal and economic crisis –Monetary and Fiscal mismanagement created these crises. Prepare a sustainable plan to raise confidence, restructure debt, obtain immediate bridge financing for a social safety net and essential imports of food, medicines, fuel, gas, intermediate goods to regenerate the economy and foreign earnings.

1.2 Constitutional crisis – Successive governments have stalled the process of constitutional reform and abolition of an over-powerful executive presidency. The GoGotaGo Movement is not merely a cry for a President to resign, but also for constitutional reform with effective checks and balances. Establish a secular new constitution with these national priorities at its core that overcomes existing weaknesses.

1.3 Corruption and law and order crisis–In recent years the country has experienced crony capitalism, blatant corruption at the highest levels and plunder of Sri Lanka’s assets, while the application of the law was seen as discriminatory, partisan and unequal. The recent independent stand of the Bar Association questioning state action reflects this. Restore confidence of citizenry in the integrity of the executive, legislature, police and justice systems, by strengthening relevant laws and strict implementation of the same, while ensuring independent, equal application of the law to all citizens.

1.4 COVID-related health, welfare and economic crisis – Sri Lanka needed, but did not have, an emergency plan, for vaccination, food distribution, phased people movement, transport and economic activities, in place during the pandemic. Review handling of Covid related issues, positives and negatives, and prepare an effective plan for any similar crisis.

1.5 Raise public awareness on the constitution, the economy, the law, citizens’ rights, particularly minority rights, and the need for reform.

Long Term Priorities (Universal Rights to improve human well-being)

1.6 Right to Representation – Electoral Reforms for meaningful representation that reflects Sri Lanka’s diversity at national, provincial and local government levels.

1.7 Right to Justice – Judicial Reforms through a systematic review process of existing laws and procedures which currently hamper delivery of justice.

1.8 Right to social and cultural freedom of expression and personal safety – Police and Legal Reforms to ensure freedom of expression and zero tolerance of discrimination on any differentiating factor. Build official tri-lingual capacity to ensure access to language rights and official communication in all 3 languages.

1.9 Right to Health – Policy and regulatory reforms to ensure cost-effective state and private, preventive and curative health service delivery to citizens.

1.10 Right to Nutrition – Policy consistency across agriculture and trade, to ensure food security and to increase value addition in agro-processing and agricultural exports.

1.11 Right to Social Safety Net – Welfare and social security reforms and policy consistency, with relevant and timely information for decision-making, to ensure adequate safety nets for all vulnerable citizens.

1.12 Right to Housing – Policy reforms to ensure access to housing markets across all socio-economic strata.

1.13 Right to Education –Education Reforms in curricula, teacher training, technology and infrastructure to suit today’s world. Regulate state and private institutions to ensure quality service delivery to citizens.

1.14 Right to Gainful Employment – Labour Market and related Legal Reforms to recognise and regulate new forms of atypical employment; establish liveable minimum wages policy; establish decent working conditions and allow employers more hiring flexibility, while protecting worker rights, thereby reversing people drain.

1.15 Right to a sustainable natural environment – Legal and related Reforms and action plans to reverse environmental destruction through a review process of existing laws, penalties and procedures.

1.16 Right to information – Address inadequate budgets, supply-side constraints and need for capacity building in key data agencies to ensure transparent methodology and access to public data.

1.17 Right of access to essential utilities and government services – National Administrative System Reform to eliminate multiple levels of authorisation for simple requirements, with a clear demarcation of what services are to be delivered at national, provincial and local government level, to ensure effective and efficient administration.

1.18 Right to stability of financial system and responsible fiscal management – Reform Central Bank of Sri Lanka (CBSL) to ensure independence. Improve fiscal management and accountability at General Treasury.

1.19 Right to conduct business in an ethical, transparent, level playing field – Institutional and Legal Reforms to rationalise and simplify business regulation and approvals, with zero tolerance of bribery and corruption.

1.20 Right to National Security – Clarify role of Armed Forces. Foreign Policy Reform to include rationale for geopolitical relationships that ensures safety against physical, social or economic international threats.

2. Safeguarding the Environment for Sustainable Development

What’s Wrong? Without consistent plans, guidelines and adequate checks and balances to safeguard our biodiversity, ad-hoc “development” has taken a severe toll on our environment, thereby jeopardising the future.

Immediate Priorities

2.1 Maritime environmental crisis – Review and gather information on the progress or lack of progress on the recent case and establish processes to prevent other such occurrences in the future.

2.2 Plastic and toxic chemical pollution of land and waterbodies – Immediate ban on plastic with strict penalties for violations.

2.3 Ad hoc construction detrimental to biodiversity – Establish guidelines to monitor and regulate new construction in all environmentally sensitive (see 2.6 below) areas.

2.4 Ad hoc decisions detrimental to biodiversity – Establish guidelines with respect to landfills, garbage disposal, inland fisheries and tourism projects in environmentally sensitive areas.

2.5 Proper management and safeguarding of state lands in terms of the existing legal framework.

Long Term Priorities

2.6 Strengthen Regulations with severe penalties to protect Sri Lanka’s natural habitats –

o inland and coastal resort areas

o wild life sanctuaries

o mangroves, coasts and reefs

o rainforests, montane and dry-zone forests, wetlands and water sources

2.7 Establish and implement regulations to reverse –

o encroachment, invasive plant sand water plants, loss of animal and bird life in the above natural habitats

o detrimental landfills, plastic, fuel and other pollution within the above habitats

3. Rebuilding Key Institutions to Ensure Independence, Professionalism and Accountability.

What’s Wrong? – A Complete breakdown of independence, professionalism, accountability, channel-of-command and decision-making processes in key institutions critically hinders national systems from delivering services to achieve priorities 1 and 2. Currently, overlapping functions in over 30,000 entities functioning under 1,300 government institutions with 1.5 million employees, is both inefficient and costly.

3.1 Decision-making – Select Professionals with acumen to key positions, with guidelines for recruitment based on meritocracy

3.2 Public Sector Contraction and Reforms – Re-introduce responsibility, delegation of authority, co-ordination, channel-of-command and accountability. Cull ineffective institutions and posts.

3.3 Corruption – Enforce strict penalties against any form of bribery or corruption in public service.

3.4 Constitution – Accommodate Universal Rights outlined in Section A above. Revisit the role of the Constitutional Council (CC) and Independent Commissions. Assign all electoral delimitation to one independent authority.

3.5 Cabinet – Establish a Cabinet based on the Universal Rights in Section A, consisting, for example, of the subjects of – 1. Finance & Plan Implementation, 2. International Relations, 3. Defence, 4. Environment, 5. Justice, 6. Public Administration & Security, 7. Health, 8. Education, 9. Housing, Utilities & Welfare, 10. Food Security, Agriculture. Irrigation & Trade, 11. Transportation & Communication, 12. Infrastructure, 13. Information & Media, 14. Labour Relations, 15. Business Facilitation, 16. Cultural & Religious Affairs

B. Way Forward

Immediate Priorities

1. Reduce the powers of the Executive and bring in checks and balances, by introducing a 21st amendment to the Constitution that repeals the 20th amendment and re-introduces the 19th amendment with relevant changes.

2. Select professionals with knowledge, experience and acumen to key Public Service positions.

3. Define broad areas of responsibility and policy based on the Universal Rights identified from 1.1-1.20 above and taken from items 3.4-3.25 above.

4. Limit Government Cabinet to, at most, 20 Ministries, by grouping Items 3.4 to 3.25 appropriately for maximum efficiency. No State or Deputy Ministers. Opposition parties to establish a shadow cabinet for oversight purposes.

5. Assign each Government institution to the relevant Ministry identified at 4 above.

6. Review all Government institutions with a view to eradicating duplication of responsibility by retaining/combining/ closing institutions, as necessary.

7. Reassign staff to those that remain, accordingly.

8. Appoint experienced and capable professionals, giving due recognition to the Sri Lanka Administrative Service (SLAS), as Secretaries to all Ministries. Establish chains of command, responsibility and accountability within, and co-ordination between, ministries. Hold Secretaries responsible for smooth functioning of their ministries and all government institutions under their respective ministries. Monitor performance and implement stiff penalties and fines under the law for any government official found guilty of bribery or corruption.

9. Close all loopholes that allow for political patronage. Ministers will be responsible only for policy-making and legislating in their areas of responsibility, not day-to-day running of institutions.

10. Reduce wasteful government expenditure, including excess security and unnecessary “perks” currently provided to Cabinet Ministers and other MPs.

11. Establish codes of conduct to ensure all non- Cabinet MPs attend to their responsibilities in their electorates and on parliamentary oversight committees to which they have been appointed to serve. Hold Party Leaders responsible for monitoring adherence to such regulations.

Long Term Priorities

12. Prepare a Framework for a Sustainable Development Plan for Sri Lanka based on the 3 National Priorities discussed in Section A.

13. Identify specific Universal Rights of citizens to be enshrined in a new Constitution using 1.1 to 1.20 above.

14. Prepare a separate code of ethics and guidelines or incorporate checks and balances into the new Constitution, to address the issues raised in 3.1-3.3 above.

15. Prepare a new Constitution and limit the size of the Cabinet of Ministers, based on 3.4-3.5 above.

Sharya Scharenguivel, MLitt., is Emeritus Professor of Law, University of Colombo, and Anila Dias Bandaranaike, Ph.D., is a former Assistant Governor and Director of Statistics, Central Bank of Sri Lanka.

NOTE: The numbering in this article has been used for ease of reference and does not signify any order of importance.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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


Thomians triumph in Sydney 



Nothing is happening for us, at this end, other than queues, queues, and more queues! There’s very little to shout about were the sports and entertainment scenes are concerned. However, Down Under, the going seems good.

Sri Lankans, especially in Melbourne, Australia, have quite a lot of happenings to check out, and they all seem to be having a jolly good time!

Trevine Rodrigo,

who puts pen to paper to keep Sri Lankans informed of the events in Melbourne, was in Sydney, to taken in the scene at the Sri Lanka Schools Sevens Touch Rugby competition. And, this is Trevine’s report:

The weather Gods and S.Thomas aligned, in Sydney, to provide the unexpected at the Sri Lanka Schools Sevens Touch Rugby competition, graced by an appreciative crowd.

Inclement weather was forecast for the day, and a well drilled Dharmaraja College was expected to go back-to-back at this now emerging competition in Sydney’s Sri Lanka expatriate sporting calendar.

But the unforeseen was delivered, with sunny conditions throughout, and the Thomians provided the upset of the competition when they stunned the favourites, Dharmaraja, in the final, to grab the Peninsula Motor Group Trophy.

Still in its infancy, the Sevens Touch Competition, drawn on the lines of Rugby League rules, found new flair and more enthusiasm among its growing number of fans, through the injection of players from around Australia, opposed to the initial tournament which was restricted to mainly Sydneysiders.

A carnival like atmosphere prevailed throughout the day’s competition.

Ten teams pitted themselves in a round robin system, in two groups, and the top four sides then progressed to the semi-finals, on a knock out basis, to find the winner.

A food stall gave fans the opportunity to keep themselves fed and hydrated while the teams provided the thrills of a highly competitive and skilled tournament.

The rugby dished out was fiercely contested, with teams such as Trinity, Royal and St. Peter’s very much in the fray but failing to qualify after narrow losses on a day of unpredictability.

Issipathana and Wesley were the other semi-finalists with the Pathanians grabbing third place in the play-off before the final.

The final was a tense encounter between last year’s finalists Dharmaraja College and S.Thomas. Form suggested that the Rajans were on track for successive wins in as many attempts.  But the Thomians had other ideas.

The fluent Rajans, with deft handling skills and evasive running, looked the goods, but found the Thomian defence impregnable.  Things were tied until the final minutes when the Thomians sealed the result with an intercept try and hung on to claim the unthinkable.

It was perhaps the price for complacency on the Rajans part that cost them the game and a lesson that it is never over until the final whistle.

Peninsula Motor Group, headed by successful businessman Dilip Kumar, was the main sponsor of the event, providing playing gear to all the teams, and prize money to the winners and runners-up.

The plan for the future is to make this event more attractive and better structured, according to the organisers, headed by Deeptha Perera, whose vision was behind the success of this episode.

In a bid to increase interest, an over 40’s tournament, preceded the main event, and it was as interesting as the younger version.

Ceylon Touch Rugby, a mixed team from Melbourne, won the over 40 competition, beating Royal College in the final.

Continue Reading


Marked stress on Asia in US foreign policy



US President Joe Biden disembarks Air Force One as he arrives at the Osan Air Base in Pyeongtaek, South Korea May 20, 2022

US President Joe Biden’s recent tour of some Asian powers is indicative of a renewed and enhanced interest the US is beginning to take in the Indo-Pacific region. In this his first Asian tour the President chose to visit Japan and South Korea besides helming a Quad meeting in Tokyo and there is good reason for the choice of these venues and engagements.

The first phase of these bridge-strengthening efforts by the US began in late August last year when US Vice President Kamala Harris visited South-east Asia in the wake of the US troop withdrawal from Afghanistan. Besides being driven by strong economic compulsions, the US intention was also to ensure that too much of a power vacuum did not open up in the region, following its pull-out from Afghanistan, since China’s perceived expansionist designs are a prime foreign policy concern of the US.

However, the US President’s recent wide-ranging tour of East Asia seems to have been also prompted by some currently intensifying trends and tensions in the wider stage of international politics though the seeming power vacuum just referred to has a significant bearing on it. The immediate purpose of the US President’s tour seems to have been to bolster his country’s backing for Japan and South Korea, two of the US’ closest allies in East Asia. This is necessitated by the ‘China threat’, which, if neglected, could render the US allies vulnerable to China’s military attacks on the one hand and blunt US power and influence in the region on the other.

While Taiwan’s airspace has reportedly been frequently violated by China, sections in Japan have reasons to be wary of perceived Chinese expansionist moves in Japan’s adjacent seas. Moreover, many of China’s neighbours have been having territorial disputes with China, which have tended to intensify the perception over the decades that in the Asian theatre in particular China is a number one ‘bogey’. For historical reasons, South Korea too has been finding the increasing rise of China as a major world power considerably discomforting.

Accordingly, the US considers it opportune to reassure South-east Asia in general and its allies in the region in particular of its continuous military, economic and political support. Though these are among the more immediate reasons for Biden’s tour of the region, there are also the convulsions triggered in international politics by the Russian invasion of Ukraine to consider.

Whereas sections of international opinion have been complacent in the belief that military invasions of one country by another are things of the distant past, the brutal Russian invasion of Ukraine in February this year proved them shockingly wrong. We have the proof here that not all authoritarian rulers are prepared to adhere to the international rule book and for some of China’s neighbours the possibility is great of their being attacked or invaded by China over the numerous rankling problems that have separated them from their economic super power neighbour over the decades. After all, China is yet to condemn Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and is increasingly proving an ‘all weather friend’ of Russia. Right now, they are the strongest of allies.

The ‘China threat’ then is prime among the reasons for the US President’s visit to East Asia, though economic considerations play a substantive role in these fence-strengthening initiatives as well. While South-east Asia is the ‘economic power house’ of the world, and the US would need to be doubly mindful of this fact, it would need to reassure its allies in the region of its military and defense assistance at a time of need. This too is of paramount importance.

President Biden did just that while in Tokyo a couple of days back. For instance, he said that the US is ‘fully committed to Japan’s defense’. Biden went on to say that the ‘US is willing to use force to defend Taiwan.’ The latter comment was prompted by the perceived increasing Chinese violations of Taiwan’s air space. After all, considering that Russia has invaded Ukraine with impunity, there is apparently nothing that could prevent China from invading Taiwan and annexing it. Such are the possible repercussions of the Russian invasion.

Meanwhile, North Korea is reportedly carrying on with its development of weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons. On this issue too, South Korea would need to have US assurances that the latter would come to its defense in case of a North Korean military strike. The US President’s visit to South Korea was aimed at reassuring the latter of the former’s support.

However, as mentioned, economic considerations too figured prominently in the US President’s South-east Asian tour. While being cognizant of the region’s security sensitivities, bolstering economic cooperation with the latter too was a foremost priority for the Biden administration. For example, the US is in the process of formalizing what has come to be referred to as the Indo-Pacific Trade Treaty. The US has reportedly already inducted Japan and South Korea as founding members of the Treaty while, Thailand, the Philippines, Vietnam, Singapore, Australia and New Zealand are mentioned as prospective members to the treaty.

The perceived threat posed to Western interests in South-east Asia by China needs to be factored in while trying to unravel the reasons for this region-wide endeavour in economic cooperation. It needs to be considered a Western response to China’s Belt and Road initiative which is seen as having a wide appeal for the global South in particular.

While the Russian invasion of Ukraine is having a divisive political and economic impact on the world, international politics will increasingly revolve around the US-China stand-off on a multiplicity of fronts in time to come. Both sides are likely to try out both soft and hard power to an exceptional degree to exercise foremost influence and power in the world. As is already happening, this would trigger increasing international tensions.

There was a distinct and sharp note of firmness in the voice of the US President when he pledged defense and military support for his allies in Asia this week. Considering the very high stakes for the US in a prospering South-east Asia, the US’ competitors would be naive to dismiss his pronouncements as placatory rhetoric meant for believing allies.

Continue Reading


A Majoritarian Constitution



1972 Constitution in Retrospect – II

By (Dr) Jayampathy Wickramaratne, President’s Counsel

In this the second part of a three-part article on the 50th anniversary of Sri Lanka becoming a republic, the writer submits that the 1972 Constitution paved the way for constitutionalising majoritarianism in multi-cultural Sri Lanka.

The unitary state

Although Tamil parties expressed their support for the Constituent Assembly process, they were to be disappointed by the substance of the new constitution.

Basic Resolution No. 2 proposed by the Government called for Sri Lanka to be a unitary state. The Federal Party (FP) proposed an amendment that ‘unitary’ be replaced by ‘federal’.

In a memorandum and the model constitution that it submitted to the Steering Committee of the Assembly, the FP proposed that the country be a federal republic consisting of five states made up as follows: (i) Southern and Western provinces, (ii) North Central and North Western provinces (iii) Central, Uva and Sabaragamuwa provinces (iv) Northern Province and the districts of Trincomalee and Batticaloa and (v) Ampara district. The city of Colombo and its suburbs were to be administered by the centre. A list of subjects and functions reserved for the centre, with all others going to the states, was included. Interestingly, law and order and Police were to be reserved subjects.

However, Assembly proceedings show that the Tamils were clearly for a compromise. Dharmalingam, who was a main speaker of the FP under Basic Resolution No. 2, stated that the existing constitution had failed as it was not designed for a multi-ethnic country. He pointed out that in ethnically heterogeneous countries where unitary constitutions had been in operation, concessions to the federal principle have been made to meet the demands and aspirations of the minorities. Where there has been a refusal to concede the federal principle, there have been movements for separation. The FP distanced itself from secessionists such as C. Sunderalingam and V. Navaratnam, referring to them by name, and stated that it was not asking for a division of the country but for a division of power.

Dharmalingam made it clear that the FP’s draft was only a basis for discussion. Stating that the party was only asking that the federal principle be accepted, he suggested that as an interim measure, the SLFP, LSSP and CP should implement what they had promised in the election manifesto, namely that they would abolish Kachcheris and replace them with elected bodies. He stated: “If this Government thinks that it does not have a mandate to establish a federal Constitution, it can at least implement the policies of its leader, S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike, by decentralising the administration, not in the manner it is being done now, but genuine decentralisation, by removing the Kachcheris and in their place establishing elected bodies to administer those regions.”

Sarath Muttetuwegama of the Communist Party, the first political party in the country to propose federalism, in 1944, followed Dharmalingam and stated that ‘federal’ had become a dirty word not because of the federal system of government but because of what the FP had advocated. He was clearly referring to the FP’s association with the UNP and the conservative policies it had followed, such as voting against nationalisations, the takeover of private schools and the Paddy Lands Bill. Seemingly oblivious to the offer that Dharmalingam had made, he asked why the FP had not used the phrase ‘regional autonomy.’ Speakers from the UF who followed Muttetuwegama made it clear that the UF was in no mood to consider the FP’s offer to settle for much less.

Consequently, Basic Resolution No.2 was passed, and the FP’s amendment was defeated in the Steering and Subjects Committee on 27 March 1971.

Dr Nihal Jayawickrama, who was the Secretary of the Ministry of Justice, under the UF Government, and played an important role in the constitutional reform process, has said that the first draft prepared under the direction of the Minister of Constitutional Affairs did not contain any reference to a ‘unitary state’. However, Minister Felix Dias Bandaranaike proposed in the Ministerial Sub-Committee that the country be declared a ‘unitary state’. The Minister of Constitutional Affairs did not consider this to be necessary and argued that while the proposed constitution would have a unitary structure, unitary constitutions could vary a great deal in form. Nevertheless, the proposed phrase found its way to the final draft. ‘In course of time, this impetuous, ill-considered, wholly unnecessary embellishment has reached the proportions of a battle cry of individuals and groups who seek to achieve a homogenous Sinhalese state on this island’ Dr Jayawickrama observed. ‘Reflections on the Making and Content of the 1972 Constitution: An Insider’s Perspective’ in Asanga Welikala (ed), The Sri Lankan Republic at 40: Reflections on Constitutional History, Theory and Practice vol 1 (Centre for Policy Alternatives 2012) 43.

It is significant that the FP continued to participate in the Constituent Assembly even after its amendment was rejected. Records show that its leader, S.J.V. Chelvanayakam, regularly attended the meetings of the Steering and Subjects Committee.

With the advantage of hindsight, it could be said that acceptance of the FP’s proposed compromise for a division of power would have proved to be a far-reaching confidence-building measure on which more could perhaps have been built later. Moreover, such an acceptance would have ensured the continued participation of the FP in the Constituent Assembly. Even had the FP, as the UNP eventually did, voted against the adoption of the new constitution, their participation in the entire constitution-making process would have resulted in greater acceptance of the 1972 Constitution by the Tamil people.

Although they discontinued participation at a later stage, Federal Party MPs nevertheless took oaths under the new Constitution. Tamil parties soon united under the banner of the Tamil United Front (TUF), which later became the Tamil United Liberation Front (TULF). At the famous Vaddukoddai conference of 1976, the TULF embraced separatism and adopted a resolution calling for a separate state called ‘Tamil Eelam’ in the Northern and Eastern provinces. At the 1977 elections, the TULF contested on a separatist platform and swept the Tamil areas.

The place of Buddhism

According to Dr Jayawickrama, Dr. de Silva’s original proposal called for the guarantee of freedom of thought, conscience and religion to every citizen. However, the Prime Minister requested that this proposal be added with a provision for the protection of institutions and traditional places of worship of Buddhists.

Basic Resolution No. 3 approved by the Constituent Assembly was for Buddhism to be given its ‘rightful place’: ‘In the Republic of Sri Lanka, Buddhism, the religion of the majority of the people, shall be given its rightful place, and accordingly, it shall be the duty of the State to protect and foster Buddhism, while assuring to all religions the rights granted by Basic Resolution 5 (iv).’

Basic Resolution 5 (iv) referred to read: “Every citizen shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have and adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.”

But by the time the final draft was approved, the proposal had undergone a further change. Article 6 of the 1972 Constitution is as follows: ‘The Republic of Sri Lanka shall give to Buddhism the foremost place and accordingly it shall be the duty of the State to protect and foster Buddhism while assuring to all religions the rights granted by section 18 (1) (d).’ Section 18 (1) (d), in the chapter on fundamental rights, assures to all citizens the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

To the question of whether constitutionally guaranteeing special status to Buddhism not available to other religions of the land might adversely affect the non-Buddhists, Dr de Silva retrospectively responded in the following manner: “The section in respect of Buddhism is subject to section 18 (1) (d) and I wish to say, I believe in a secular state. But you know when Constitutions are made by Constituent Assemblies they are not made by the Minister of Constitutional Affairs. I myself would have preferred (section 18(1) (d)). But there is nothing…And I repeat, NOTHING, in section 6 which in any manner infringes upon the rights of any religion in this country. (Safeguards for the Minorities in the 1972 Constitution (Young Socialist 1987) 10.)

Dr Jayawickrama has been more critical. ‘If Buddhism had survived in the hearts and minds of the people through nearly five centuries of foreign occupation, a constitutional edict was hardly necessary to protect it now’, he opined. (‘Colvin and Constitution-Making – A Postscript’ Sunday Island, 15 July 2007).

Language provisions

Basic Resolution No.11 stated that all laws shall be enacted in Sinhala and that there shall be a Tamil translation of every law so enacted.

Basic Resolution No.12 read as follows: “(1) The Official Language of Sri Lanka shall be Sinhala as provided by the Official Language Act No. 32 of 1956. (2) The use of the Tamil Language shall be in accordance with the Tamil Language (Special Provisions) Act No. 28 of 1958.”

Efforts by the FP to get the Government to improve upon Basic Resolutions Nos. 11 and 12 failed. On 28 June 1971, both resolutions were passed, amendments proposed by the FP having been defeated. S.J.V. Chelvanayakam informed the Constituent Assembly that they had met with both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Constitutional Affairs, and while the meetings had been cordial, the Government had refused to make any alteration to the Basic Resolutions. He stated that the FP would therefore not attend future meetings. “We have come to the painful conclusion that as our language rights are not satisfactorily provided in the proposed Constitution, no useful purpose will be served in our continuing in the deliberations of this Assembly. By taking this step, we mean no offence to anybody. We only want to safeguard the dignity of our people.” There was not even a dramatic walk out. ‘We do not wish to stage a demonstration by walking out’, he added.

That Dr Colvin R. de Silva, who prophetically stated in 1955, ‘one language, two countries; two languages, one country’, should go so far as to upgrade the then-existing language provisions to constitutional status has baffled many political observers. In fact, according to Dr Jayawickrama, the Prime Minister had stated that it would be unwise to re-open the language debate and that the better course would be to let the ordinary laws on the subject operate in the form in which they were. By this time, the Privy Council had reversed the decision of the Supreme Court in A.G. v Kodeswaranthat a public servant could not sue the Crown for breach of contract of employment and sent the case back for a determination on other issues, including the main issue as to whether the Official Language Act violated section 29 (2), as the District Court had held. Dr. de Silva did not wish the Supreme Court to re-visit the issue. ‘If the courts do declare this law invalid and unconstitutional, heavens alive, the chief work done from 1956 onwards will be undone. You will have to restore the egg from the omelette into which it was beaten and cooked.’ He had, however, resisted a proposal made by Minister Felix R. Dias Bandaranaike that Sinhala be declared the ‘one’ official language of Sri Lanka.

Continue Reading