Connect with us


An economic programme for the colour-revolution



by Kumar David

We know of a proletarian revolution which toppled Tsarism and transformed the state; we know of China where the state was deposed more by peasants than proletarians but swore fealty to Marx and in the last three decades, we have had Colour Revolutions, Velvet ones and Arab Springs. The aims of the Popular Movement now sweeping Lanka are more modest: “Go Gota Go”, drive out the Rajapaksa Clan and stop its robbery, dissolve parliament and hold elections.

If the first transpires the rest will follow in some disorderly order. Can it be called a revolution if these goodies all come to pass? You may demurr; the state has not been sent packing, there is no economic and class reordering, nothing is fundamental, only a change of costume. “What all this fuss is about?” as my eloquent Indian friend Lawrence would quip.

You may also whine that there is not much difference between the programs of the political entities now competing for a place in the sun. True. And though the Central Bank now seems to be in competent hands, as lender of last resort it has long been an accomplice in fiscal bungling and ineptitude of governments both blue and green. What can it achieve by soiling its hands associating with forlorn pleas to the IMF by a despairing and expiring Administration?

First, ‘Revolution Without a Revolution’ – sorry Debray. If the now snowballing movement succeeds in driving Gotabaya out, how significant would it be? If only that, well it’s great but earns some title less than revolutionary transformation of society. If it sets in motion a process which within a reasonable number of months abolishes the executive presidency and transforms the balances of power in parliament, that’s very significant. Wasn’t 1956 a revolution of sorts?

There’s a statement in circulation regarding a proposal by the Prime Minister, approved by the Cabinet on 26 April, for a new agency to ‘Evaluate, Expedite and Approve Foreign Funded Projects’. I do not have permission to publish the statement but its gist is that the PM’s proposal: “Risks unprofessional decision making, corruption and illicit financial flows in by-passing Board of Investments, and Tender Evaluation Processes including acceptable procurement procedures, procedures governing unsolicited proposals, Treasury Circulars and corporate governance codes.” Placed against the background of the anger pouring out on the streets this is pretty damning; demonstrators will substitute ‘certainty’ for the polite term “Risks”. My point in the previous paragraph was that breaking such a destiny is a big deal.

I am aware that the trend of this essay will alarm my redder-than-red comrades that it is drifting into liberal contamination. Let me reassure them; on the darkest of nights the monkey does not lose its grip! It is pragmatic, appropriately empirical and free of adultery with liberal dross. (The somewhat empirically inclined Ch.10 on The Working Day and Ch.15 on Machinery & Modern Industry are the longest in Kapital my dear comrades will recall). Right now, we need to advance not utopian images but programs to address acute current needs, but of course which also point towards the shinning castle on the hill. There is a term for this among cognoscenti, Transitional Programme, but theory need not detain us here.

This is not a technical paper, but statistics give a measure of the alarming multi-sided crises. The groan on everyone’s lips is: Production is way short of consumption, fiscal deficit is out of control, foreign debt an abyss, repayments are in default; there is no work-ethic in the populace; parliamentarians seek to benefit only themselves; the ruling clan’s theft of public money is legendary. This one sentence is enough summary and introduction, if it is necessary at all. But instead of only letting off steam, which like other people I find exhilarating, let’s look at numbers.

The data in the table freely available on the web is up to 2021 and makes forecasts for 2022 and 2023. Row 1 says real GDP will shrink by 2% to 3% in 2022 and growth will recover to 2.2% next year. Row 2 says inflation will be 18-20% but fall to say 7% next year (fat hopes). Row 3 expects LKR 380 to the $ next year, and I say it will fall to LKR 800 per $ within 5 years. Row 8 is important and interesting; Bond Yield, to less educated folk like us, signals the effective interest rate Lanka will pay for commercial foreign borrowing (18-25%), from capital markets unless the loan is backstopped by the IMF. Rows 10, 11 and 12 forecast budget-deficit, trade-deficit and current account-deficit; all depressing numbers. The last two rows say that total government debt (domestic plus foreign) will remain in the region 110% of GDP while foreign debt alone will float above $40 billion. There could be adjustments expert economists and quacks (are they not the same?) may wish to make to these numbers, but overall, they are not likely to be vigorously contested.


So far, I think, everybody is on the same page; all repeat ad nauseum the same depressing numbers. In their reply to the ‘What is to be Done?’ question everybody again is on much the same page and repeat the same mantras, but not quite ad nauseum since they inject changes of nuance. The invariable ingredients are: Balance the budget, reduce expenditure, export more, get FDI, improve technology, services and manufacturing, give inducements to capitalists to invest, encourage SMEs, restructure/close-down state-enterprises, let professionals and technocrats run the Administration, hang if legally permissible or otherwise dispose of the Rajapaksa Clan, and cull parliament. This truly is Sri Lanka’s new National Anthem.

Let’s take the bull by the horns and cut this ever repetitive unprioritized Gordian Knot. I want the pro-left government that I dream of to propose a sharp two-pronged strategy; a double-sided sword.

(a) A short-term bunker-busting onslaught to get the country out of this ‘Great-Grimpen Mire’ into which it is sinking helplessly.

(b) Then a medium-term five-year programme. [In the long-term we all have to join JMK in purgatory].


Two years of bunker-busting will be painful but people will OK it if they glimpse light at the end of the blitz and if satisfied that the new midwives are not crooked blackguards. I am fed up with liberal euphemisms (speakeasy reform talk and palliative b-s). Like Alexander we have to cut the Gordian Knot. Consumption has to be cut, pruned, cropped, lopped, choose your least-offensive verb. The propensity to consume has to be curbed till production catches up. The begging bowl will ease pain – rent knee-guards for foreign ministers. Keynes’ concern throughout The General Theory was reluctance of interwar wealthy societies to spend and invest (weak effective demand). Our Lankan malady, many other hard-up countries included, is the opposite; a disproportionate-to-production propensity to consume leading to large national debt. Democratic governments that defy this will last only till the next election, authoritarians ones face riots. Screwball incompetents like the Rajapaksas encounter both destinies at once.

Discouraging consumption may be justified in theory but the mood of the people is that they would rather shoot this specific government than trust it with their sweat, tears and tightened belts. The proposed sales taxes will be resisted, increase of medicine prices will be met with fury, Cabinet reshuffles will be ridiculed, offers of an All-Party administration scoffed at. Petitions tell the IMF not to waste its money and warn overseas lenders that loans to corrupt regimes will not be honoured. The regime must GO first! That is unconditional and categorical; nothing can be done or get done till then. Seals and penguins undergo a catastrophic moult where skin and fur peels off completely and make an entirely new start. Got it?

Many countries starved themselves in times of war to produce bombs and tanks and god-forbids, and in the 1930s the Soviet Union endured hardship to build an industrial powerhouse. The Meiji transition in Japan, China generally, Mao’s closing lunacy notwithstanding, Stalinist Eastern Europe and Vietnam right now, are societies where current consumption was or is limited for future gain. In contrast to these valiant examples what is being demanded of us is less painful. Videos of families without food on Tik-Tok are heartrending; bunker-busting will have to be accompanied by emergency relief only for the most needy.

Medium-term programme

Busting the bunker must dovetail into a medium-term strategy. The invariable ingredients everyone talks of in summary are again: Export, FDI, technology, services and manufacture, get domestic capitalists to invest, encourage SMEs, reform state-enterprises, let professionals and technocrats run the Administration etc. Everything is in this mishmash without order or prioritisation. I don’t want to jump the gun and say too much so early, prior even to the bunker-busting first innings. My intention is to think aloud and dare a different angle from the glut of all-liberal agendas showcased in smart TV interviews.

The state (not only political dolts but professionals and peoples’ rep societies) in some formal consultative assembly convened every so-many-years must lay down a direction. I can hear half my readers tear their hair screaming “Central Planner! Stalinist! Market-Hater!” Sorry, somebody has to defy the pack and say it; it’s this way or you have no option but to trust the invisible hand of laissez fair. I know that with best intentions Sajith’s team (Eran, Harsha and Kabir) as well as self-interested businesses people, think that the wild and feral licence of the free-market is the way to go. Ok, buddy, see you on Galle Face Green.

Yes, I am saying that a state/peoples’ agency must within limits choose winners and losers in the sense of trade-offs between types of say agricultural priorities, types of investment projects and the implications of trade agreements which by their nature are very complicated. For example, how much emphasis to put on electronic device assembly, chips, laser-device assembly as opposed to say heavier manufacturing (neither can be done without overseas investment, technical support and product marketing partners) is a trade-off of national concern.

The broader the category the more important the role of public policy. Banking policy pushed through the Central Bank can for example gently coax direction without the need for direct hands-on state involvement. Also, I agree that domestic capitalists need better inducements to invest; but careful we are getting close to shades of grey; laissez fair cannot be permitted carte blanche. Conversely the more specific and ground level a management issue, the more imperative that Ministers and such morons keep their grubby fingers out.

I have said a great deal more than I intended to in this last subsection of the essay. I would like to retreat a bit and declare that it is not specific steps that I am pushing but a way of thinking. It would be nice to have concrete proposals from others too to discuss apart from the anodyne offerings of liberal intellectuals.

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