Connect with us


Clive Inman recalls cricketing life in 2020 interview



Clive Clay Inman (born January 29, 1936 in Colombo died on December 7, 2022 in England). He was a former Ceylon cricketer, represented NCC in domestic Club Cricket and later played English County Cricket representing Leicestershire and Derbyshire. He captained his alma mater, St Peter’s College, Colombo 04 in 1954 and 1955 and won the Battle of the Saints Big match against St. Joseph’s College Colombo in 1955.

He comes from a family of cricketers. His father, Harry Inman, played for Ceylon teams as an allrounder. Clive had four brothers, all cricketers, of whom Roger played and captained S. Thomas’ College in 1952 (Clive played against him for St. Peter’s). Clive was a prolific left-hand batsman and also a right arm off break bowler who excelled during his school career, and later on, built a name for himself as an outstanding batsman for Ceylon and English County Leicestershire during the 60’s.

Call it a scoop, call it an exclusive interview, call it whatever you wish, but to this writer it was a scoop, a rare opportunity grabbed with both hands by Sujith Silva (Editor in Chief of Quadrangle), Brian Lawrence (also of Quadrangle) and myself (Algi Wijewickrema). The personality that Sujith, Brian and I had the extremely rare privilege of having this telephone interview was Clive Clay Inman, a much talked of cricketer in the 1950s and 60s.

Now in his 84th year, Clive — who represented Leicestershire from 1963 to 1971 as one of their top middle order batsmen– continues to live in England and we were able to contact him thanks to the modern day communication tools.

Born in 1936 to Harry and Edith Inman, Clive lived with his parents and siblings in Wellawatte. At the time he was to be admitted to school (possibly in 1941, he could not recall the exact year), he was expected to enter S. Thomas’ College (STC), Mt. Lavinia like his brothers, Earnest, Trevor and Roger. But fate decreed otherwise.

Said Clive, “The entrance exam at S. Thomas’ was a lengthy, two part ordeal commencing in the morning and running into the second session after a break for lunch; but by lunch time I had decided not to continue.” He had decided to join St. Peter’s despite his father’s desire to have him enrolled at STC. When his father had found out from the Thomian headmaster that he had not stayed for the entire exam, he had come home and asked Clive why. And Clive had told him that he wanted to join St. Peter’s College. “Father and mother then had a chat and father gave his consent and I joined St. Peter’s.”

Let me quote Clive on what he thought of his decision to join St. Peter’s, “I enjoyed being at St. Peter’s from the time I was admitted. The Rector then was Rev. Fr. Basil Wiratunga, who was a great man. I had no regrets whatsoever as I was looked after well”.

Clive’s cricket at St. Peter’s had begun at the age of 15 in 1950 as a left-handed batsman. He said: “I played as a batsman though I may have bowled a little, but I always preferred batting to bowling.” He continued “We had Herbert Wittachchi as our team coach, but my personal coach was Cyril Ekanayake. He (Cyril) had not been a cricketer of any standing but was an excellent coach and in my opinion no one could match him. He could not bowl but shied the ball from halfway down the wicket, getting me to hit it, 10 minutes of the forward defence and 10 minutes of backfoot defence and so on”.

With all three of his brothers playing cricket for STC, interestingly his brother Roger – the only one to captain STC – had captained STC in 1952 the year Clive played for St. Peter’s under H I K Fernando. Although the brothers were Thomian cricketers and he the only Peterite in the family, there had not been any arguments at home. Clive recalled “When I first played for St. Peter’s, my mother told Roger that if he was bowling when I came in to bat, he should allow me to get off the mark and Roger protested saying he couldn’t do that. But mother insisted saying he’d have her to answer to, if that did not happen. And that was the end of discussion”.

Recounted Clive “My mother was my greatest fan and never missed a match I played in. My father also attended matches that I played in but not all and was late for some. Once he came late for a match when I was batting and not long after he arrived I got out. At home that night my mother insisted that he either arrives for the match before the start or not show himself till I had got out; and that is exactly how it was with my father and his attendance at Peterite matches”.

Although his record score of 204 retired hurt in the Big Match (Joe-Pete) was when he first captained in 1954, he said “My most memorable match was the Josephian-Peterite encounter in 1955 which we won at the Colombo Oval that was packed with spectators on both days.” In that match the Joes had batted first and had been bowled out for a paltry 117 and the Petetites had rattled up 224 in the first inning. In their second inning the Joes had done better scoring 150 leaving the Petes 44 to win, which they had scored for the loss of 2 wickets (46/2).

This, no doubt, was memorable not only for Clive, but for all Peterites as it was a win earned after seven years but more importantly it was only their third win after the two consecutive victories under Dion Walles in 1946 and 1947.

Comparing the two Big Matches of 1954 and 1955 under his captaincy, Clive’s attitude was “Whether I scored a century or zero, what was important for me was whether we won or not.”

He recalled how he was detained once for talking in class and when in the detention class after school who walks in but Cyril Ekanayake. Upon learning from Clive why he was talking in class – which had been a discussion with Ken Duckworth about the next match – he had been allowed to go home.

Asked to recall some of the teammates who have stayed in his memory he recalled Luckshman Serasinghe, Kenneth and Russel Duckworth, Brian Seneviratne (wicket keeper), Brian and Maurice de Silva and Ranjith Jayasinghe. He singled out H I K Fernando as a top-notch wicket keeper and a great batsman. The only non-Peterite cricketer he could recall was ACM Lafir of St. Anthony’s College, Katugastota.

Apart from the two coaches, Herbert Wittachchi and Cyril Ekanayake, he remembered Rev. Fr. Rodrigo (he couldn’t recall the first name), who had been the Prefect of Games then and the groundsman Nomis. About Nomis he even recalled: “Nomis would say “Wish I could swim better” because I used to frequently hit the ball into the canal and he had to retrieve them.”

Speaking about the Rector, Fr. Basil Wiratunga, he reminisced “In 1955 before the Big Match Fr. Rector asked me what I wanted if St. Peter’s is to win. I told him we needed bats, gloves and pads for the players. I also requested that the cricketers should be excused from afternoon classes. He said “done”.

“Even Masters at College used to tell me that I had more influence over the Rector than anyone else. He backed me all the way and at no other school could this have been done. The Big Match win that year was as much a celebration for Fr. Rector as it was for me since it was the last Big Match for both of us”.

When Clive ended his cricketing career at St. Peter’s spanning five years (1951-1955) he had scored one double century, five centuries and 17 fifties and as captain in 1954 and 1955, earned four wins against one loss.

After leaving College, Clive had joined Colts Cricket Club as his uncle was there, but later in 1956 had moved to NCC for three reasons (1) he admired the then NCC Captain, (2) H I K Fernando his former Peterite captain playing for NCC at the time and (3) his friend Stanley Jayasinghe being in the NCC team.

Making his first-class debut in 1956, representing Ceylon against India at the Colombo Oval he had not been able to make an impression, but said that throughout his career he was happy batting and could not recall bowling at any match. However, records show that he has bowled in this match and a few other matches.

Clive represented Ceylon in the Gopalan Trophy matches against Madras, which was the only regular first class international cricket Ceylon had before gaining test status. Though Clive’s appearances for Ceylon were not regular he did represent Ceylon in 1956-57 and 1958-59 in the Gopalan Trophy and against the touring MCC in 1961-62. He toured Pakistan in 1966-67.

Speaking of being selected to play for Ceylon and not playing Clive reminisced “On one occasion Stanley Jayasinghe had written an article to a newspaper critical of the Board of Control for Cricket in Ceylon or against the South Africans and apartheid and had been omitted from the team to represent Ceylon. I was in England, but had been selected and received my contract.

“On going through the contract I found that Sanley’s name was not there. I called uncle Sara and asked him about it and said I would not come. He said “don’t be a fool” but I stood firm and told him Stanley is the best batsman in Ceylon and should be in the team. So, I refused to play for Ceylon on that occasion.”

Once he had moved to England and joined his friend from Ceylon, Stanley Jayasinghe, in his first appearance for Leicestershire in 1961, Clive had played against the touring Australian side contributing 30 and 45 not out. However, he had represented Leicestershire in the County Championships for the first time only in 1963 after completing the mandatory two-year residential qualification period. His maiden first class century for the county had been in his first county championship year in 1963 against the University of Cambridge.

Asked to comment about his Guinness Record of 50 runs in eight minutes for Leicestershire, Clive said the record lost its glow when in the next match he got a 50 and helped Leicester to win. But recalling that match, he said he regretted he was not able to hit a six to land in the river beyond the boundary and the fact that Stanley Jayasinghe (another Sri Lankan cricketer of repute), also playing for Leicestershire, being run out for 99 in that match.

Of playing against famous international teams Clive said that he had played against West Indies, Australia, India and Pakistan when they played against his County, Leicestershire. Continuing to speak of cricket against international teams and the bowling he had faced, Clive said “Wes Hall, Charlie Griffith of the West Indies and Dennis Lillee of Australia are some of the overseas cricketers I have batted against.

“Also while playing county cricket, I have played against some of the great English bowlers such as Fred Trueman, Brain Statham and Frank Tyson. The greatest all rounder for me is Sir Garfield Sobers”. Asked to comment on how he played such great bowlers of his time he said “I just played each ball on its merits”.

I couldn’t resist asking him if he would be able to visit St. Peter’s for its centenary celebrations in 2022, but with regrets in his voice he said “No, my traveling days finished 10–12 years ago when I broke both my ankles. I can walk now but with great difficulty and not long distances. But give my best regards to all at St. Peter’s College”.

Of his family, his wife Josephine has passed away 14 years ago and apart from a son who died when he was small, he had lost another son a few years ago and the only surviving son, Andrew, lives in Australia.Asked to comment about good Sri Lankan cricketers in Sri Lanka (current and recent), Clive picked Kumar Sangakkara and Mahela Jayawardena as exceptional cricketers.

Coming towards the end of our telephone interview Clive said “I refused to be involved with English cricket and always wanted to play for Ceylon (now Sri Lanka), which I still call home and moreover, I ask what could I have done if I was selected to play for England and England was playing against Ceylon”.

Asked for any advice for young cricketers his advice was “You can’t play without practice. So, practice, practice and practice for that is how you can improve”.

On that note of good advice from a brilliant cricketer of yesteryear, we concluded “The Scoop”.

Our sincere appreciation to Old Peterite Mr. Brian Ratnayake (England) for his efforts to get us in touch with Clive Inman and Mr. Andrew Inman (Australia) son of Clive Inman for sharing valuable images of his father. ……. Image credits; courtesy of Leicestershire County Cricket Club, Stanley Jayasinghe and Andrew Inman. (

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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


What JVP-NPP needs to do to win



A JVP protest


A young academic at the Open University writing on a popular website has recently defined the NPP project as ‘Left populist’, a term which is very familiar to us at least from the writings of Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe. He also mentions several parallels and precursors internationally.

As one who has been advocating a ‘left populist’ project for years, I am disinclined to nit-pick about whether or not the JVP-NPP fits the bill. At the moment and in its current incarnation, it is indeed the closest we have to a ‘left populist’ project. Its competitor the SJB, which its founder-leader identifies as social democratic, would be as approximate –and as loose– a fit for the labels ‘progressive populist’, ‘moderate populist’ or ‘populist centrist’, as the JVP-NPP is for ‘left populist’. But that’s the deck of cards we have.

The points I seek to make are different, and may be said to boil down to a single theme or problematique.

Distorted Left Populism

My argument is that the JVP-NPP is as distant from ‘left populism’ globally as it was from ‘left revolutionism’ globally in an earlier incarnation. In both avatars, it is unique in its leftism but not in a positive or helpful way for its cause at any given time.

Mine is not intended as a damning indictment of the JVP-NPP. It is intended as a constructive criticism of a rectifiable error, the rectification of which is utterly urgent given the deadly threat posed by the Wickremesinghe administration and its project of dependent dictatorship.

The JVP-NPP has a structural absence that no ‘left populist’ enterprise, especially in Latin America, has ever had. It is an absence that has marked the JVP from its inception and has been carried over into the present NPP project.

It is not an absence unique to the JVP but figures more in Sri Lanka than it has almost anywhere else. I say this because the same ‘absence’ characterised the LTTE as well. In short, that factor or its radical absence has marred the anti-systemic forces of South and North on the island.

The homeland of left populism has been Latin America while its second home has been Southern Europe. With the exception of Greece, it may be said that ‘left populism’ has an Ibero-American or culturally Hispanic character, which some might trace to the ‘romanticism’ of that culture. But such considerations need not detain us here.

‘Left populism’ has had several identifiable sources and points of departure: the former guerrilla movements of the 1960s and 1970s; the non-guerrilla movements of resistance to dictatorships; parties and split-offs from parties of the Marxist left; left-oriented split-offs or the leftwing of broad flexible even centrist populist formations; leftwing experiments from within the militaries etc.

Populism, Pluralism & Unity

Despite this diversity, all experiments of a Left populist character in Latin America and Europe, have had one thing in common: various forms of unity – e.g., united fronts, blocs etc.—of political parties. I would take up far too much space if I were to list them, starting with the Frente Amplio (which means precisely ‘Broad Front’) initiated by the Tupamaros-MLN of Uruguay and containing the Uruguayan Communist party and headed by a military man, General Liber Seregni, in 1970. The Frente Amplio lasted through the decades of the darkest civil-military dictatorship up to the presidential electoral victories of Tabaré Vasquez and Mujica respectively. Another example would be El Salvador’s FMLN, which brought together several Marxist guerrilla movements into a single front under the stern insistence of Fidel Castro.

Though the roots of unity were back in the 1970s, the formula has only been strengthened in the 1990s and 21st century projects of Left populism. There is a theoretical-strategic logic for this. The polarisation of ‘us vs them’, the 99% vs. the 1%, the many not the few—in socioeconomic terms—is of course a hallmark of populism. But pro-NPP academics and ideologues are unaware of or omit its corollary everywhere from Uruguay to Greece and Spain. Namely, that socioeconomic ‘majoritarianism’ is not possible with a single party as agency.

When the JVP and the NPP have the same leader, and the JVP leader was the founder of the NPP, I cannot regard it as a truly autonomous project, but a party project. Left populism globally, from its inception right up to Lula last year, is predicated on the admission of political, not just social plurality, and the fact that socioeconomic, i.e., popular majoritarianism is possible only as a pluri-party united front, platform or bloc.

This recognition of the imperative of unity as necessitating a convergence of political fractions and currents; that unity is impossible as a function of a single political party; that authentic majoritarianism i.e., “us” is possible only if “we” converge and combine as an ensemble of our organic political agencies, is a structural feature of Left Populism.

It is radically absent in the JVP-NPP and has been so from the JVP’s founding in 1965. It was also true of the LTTE.

It is this insistence on political unipolarity (to put it diplomatically) or political monopoly (to put it bluntly) is a genetic defect of the JVP which has been carried over into the NPP project.

I do not say this to contest the leading role and the main role that the JVP has earned in any left populist project. I say it to draw the Gramscian distinction between ‘leadership’ and ‘domination’. Only ‘leadership’ can create consensus and popular consent; domination through monopoly cannot.

The simple truth is that however ‘left populist’ you think you are; no single party can be said to represent the people or even a majority – as distinct from a mere plurality– of the people. Furthermore, the people are not a unitary subject, and therefore cannot have a unitary leadership. This is the importance of Fidel Castro’s insistence to the Latin American Left of a ‘united command’ which brings together the diverse segments of the left by reflecting plurality.

Anyone who knows the history of Syriza and Podemos knows that they are not outcrops of some single party of long-standing but the result of an organic process of convergences of factions.

Had the JVP had a policy of united fronts – within the Southern left and with the Northern left– it would not have been as decisively defeated as it was in its two insurrections, and might have even succeeded in its second attempt. Though it has formed the NPP which has brought some significant success, it is still POLITICALLY sectarian in that it has no political alliances, partnerships, i.e., NO POLITICAL RELATIONSHIPS outside of itself.

I must emphasize that here I am not speaking of a bloc with the SJB, though it is most desirable, to be recommended, and if this were Latin America would definitely be on the agenda of discussion.

Post-Aragalaya Left

Let us speak frankly. The most important phenomenon of recent times (since the victorious end of the war) was the Aragalaya of last year. The JVP, especially its student front the SYU, participated in that massive uprising which dislodged President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, but it played a less decisive role in the Aragalaya than did the FSP and the IUSF which is close to it. This is by no means to say that the FSP led the Aragalaya, but to point out that it played a more decisive role – which included some mistakes– than did the JVP.

How then does one remain blind to the fact that the JVP-NPP’s ‘left populism’ does not include the FSP and by extension the IUSF? How can there be a ‘popular bloc’ – a key element of left populism—without the IUSF?

Given that Pubudu Jayagoda, Duminda Nagamuwa, Lahiru Weerasekara and Wasantha Mudalige are among the most successful public communicators today (especially on the left), what kind of ‘left’ is a ‘left populism’ devoid of their presence, participation and contribution?

What does it take to recognise that unity of some sort of these two streams of the Left could result in a most useful division of labour and a quantum leap in the hopes and morale of the increasingly left-oriented post-Aragalaya populace, especially the youth?

Surely the very sight of a platform with the leaders of the JVP-NPP and the FSP-IUSF (AKD and Kumar Gunaratnam, Eranga Gunasekara and Wasantha Mudalige, Wasantha Samarasinghe and Duminda Nagamuwa, Bimal Ratnayake and Pubudu Jayagoda) will take the Left populist project to the next level?

As a party the JVP from its birth, and by extension, the NPP today, have set aside one of the main weapons of leftist theory, strategy and political practice: the United Front. Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Dimitrov, Gramsci, Togliatti, Ho Chi Minh, Mao Zedong and Fidel Castro have founded and enriched this strategic concept.

It is difficult to accept that Rohana Wijeweera and Anura Kumara Dissanayake knew/know better than these giants, and that the JVP-NPP can dispense with this political sword and shield and yet prevail–or even survive the coming storm.

The JVP must present a LEFT option in the leadership of which is the major shareholder; not merely a JVP option or para-JVP option, which is what the NPP is. A credible, viable Left alternative cannot be reduced to a single party and its front/auxiliary; it cannot but be a United Left – a Left Front– alternative.


[Dr Dayan Jayatilleka is author of The Great Gramsci: Imagining an Alt-Left Project, in ‘On Public Imagination: A Political & Ethical Imperative’ eds Richard Falk et al, Routledge, New York, 2019.]

Continue Reading


Obtaining fresh mandate unavoidable requirement



Protesters demanding local goverment elections

by Jehan Perera

The government’s plans for reviving the economy show signs of working out for the time being. The long-awaited IMF loan is about to be granted. This would enable the government to access other loans to tide over the current economic difficulties. The challenge will be to ensure that both the old loans and new ones will be repayable. To this end the government has begun to implement its new tax policy which increases the tax burden significantly on income earners who can barely make ends meet, even without the taxes, in the aftermath of the rise in price levels. The government is also giving signals that it plans to downsize the government bureaucracy and loss-making state enterprises. These are reforms that may be necessary to balance the budget, but they are not likely to gain the government the favour of the affected people. The World Bank has warned that many are at risk of falling back into poverty, with 40 percent of the population living on less than 225 rupees per person per day.

The problem for the government is that the economic policies, required to stabilize the economy, are not popular ones. They are also politically difficult ones. The failure to analyse the past does not help us to ascertain reasons for our failures and also avoids taking action against those who had misused, or damaged, the system unfairly. The costs of this economic restructuring, to make the country financially viable, is falling heavily, if not disproportionately, on those who are middle class and below. Fixed income earners are particularly affected as they bear a double burden in being taxed at higher levels, at a time when the cost of living has soared. Unlike those in the business sector, and independent professionals, who can pass on cost increases to their clients, those in fixed incomes find it impossible to make ends meet. Emigration statistics show that over 1.2 million people, or five percent of the population, left the country, for foreign employment, last year.

The economic hardships, experienced by the people, has led to the mobilization of traditional trade unions and professionals’ organisations. They are all up in arms against the government’s income generation, at their expense. Last week’s strike, described as a token strike, was successful in that it evoked a conciliatory response from the government. Many workers did not keep away from work, perhaps due to the apprehension that they might not only lose their jobs, but also their properties, as threatened by one government member, who is close to the President. There was a precedent for this in 1981 when the government warned striking workers that they would be sacked. The government carried out its threat and over 40,000 government officials lost their jobs. They and their families were condemned to a long time in penury. The rest of society went along with the repression as the government was one with an overwhelming mandate from the people.


The striking unions have explained their decision to temporarily discontinue their strike action due to President Ranil Wickremesinghe’s willingness to reconsider their economic grievances. More than 40 trade unions, in several sectors, joined the strike. They explained they had been compelled to resort to strike action as there was no positive response from the government to their demands. Due to the strike, services such as health, posts, and railways were affected. Workers in other sectors, including education, port, power, water supply, petroleum, road development, and banking services, also joined the strike. The striking unions have said they would take up the President’s offer to discuss their concerns with the government and temporarily called a halt to their strike action. This would give the government an opportunity to rethink its strategy. Unlike the government in 1981 this one has no popular mandate. In the aftermath of the protest movement, it has only a legal mandate.

So far, the government has been unyielding in the face of public discontent. Public protests have been suppressed. Protest leaders have been arrested and price and tax hikes have gone ahead as planned. The government has been justifying the rigid positions it has been taking on the basis of its prioritization of economic recovery for which both political stability and financial resources are necessary. However, by refusing to heed public opinion the government has been putting itself on a course of confrontation with organized forces, be they trade unions or political parties. The severity of the economic burden, placed on the larger section of society, even as other sectors of society appear to be relatively unaffected, creates a perception of injustice that needs to be mitigated. Engaging in discussion with the trade unions and reconsidering its approach to those who have been involved in public protests could be peace making gestures in the current situation.

On the other hand, exacerbating the political crisis is the government’s continuing refusal to hold the local government elections, as scheduled, on two occasions now by the Elections Commission and demanded by law. The government’s stance is even in contradiction to the Supreme Court’s directives that the government should release the financial resources necessary for the purpose leading to an ever-widening opposition to it. The government’s determination to thwart the local government elections stems from its pragmatic concerns regarding its ability to fare well at them. Public opinion polls show the government parties obtaining much lower support than the opposition parties. Except for the President, the rest of the government consists of the same political parties and government members that faced the wrath of the people’s movement a year ago and had to resign in ignominy.


The government’s response to the pressures it is under has been to repress the protest movement through police action that is especially intolerant of street protests. It has also put pressure on state institutions to conform to its will, regardless of the law. The decisions of the Election Commission to set dates for the local government elections have been disregarded once, and the elections now appear to have to be postponed yet again. The government is also defying summons upon its ministers by the Human Rights Commission which has been acting independently to hold the government to account to the best extent it can. The government’s refusal to abide by the judicial decision not to block financial resources for election purposes is a blow to the rule of law that will be to the longer-term detriment of the country. These are all negative trends that are recipes for future strife and lawlessness. These would have long term and unexpected implications not to the best for the development of the country or its values.

There are indications that President Wickremesinghe is cognizant of the precariousness of the situation. The accumulation of pressures needs to be avoided, be it for gas at homes or issues in the country. As an experienced political leader, student of international politics, he would be aware of the dangers posed by precipitating a clash involving the three branches of government. A confrontation with the judiciary, or a negation of its decisions, would erode the confidence in the entire legal system. It would damage the confidence of investors and the international community alike in the stability of the polity and its commitment to the rule of law. The public exhortations of the US ambassador with regard to the need to conduct the local government elections would have driven this point home.

It is also likely that the US position on the importance of holding elections on time is also held by the other Western countries and Japan. Sri Lanka is dependent on these countries, still the wealthiest in the world, for its economic sustenance, trade and aid, in the form of concessional financing and benefits, such as the GSP Plus tariff concession. Therefore, the pressures coming from both the ground level in the country and the international community, may push the government in the direction of elections and seeking a mandate from the people. Strengthening the legitimacy of the government to govern effectively and engage in problem solving in the national interest requires an electoral mandate. The mandate sought may not be at the local government level, where public opinion polls show the government at its weakest, but at the national level which the President can exercise at his discretion.

Continue Reading


Sing-along… Down Memory Lane



Sing-alongs have turned out to be hugely popular, in the local showbiz scene, and, I would say, it’s mainly because they are family events, and also the opportunity given to guests to shine, in the vocal spotlight, for a minute, or two!

I first experienced a sing-along when I was invited to check out the famous Rhythm World Dance School sing-along evening.

It was, indeed, something different, with Sohan & The X-Periments doing the needful, and, today, Sohan and his outfit are considered the No.1 band for sing-along events.

Melantha Perera: President of Moratuwa Arts Forum

I’m told that the first ever sing-along concert, in Sri Lanka, was held on 27th April, 1997, and it was called Down Memory Lane (DML), presented by the Moratuwa Arts Forum (MAF),

The year 2023 is a landmark year for the MAF and, I’m informed, they will be celebrating their Silver Jubilee with a memorable concert, on 29th April, 2023, at the Grand Bolgoda Resort, Moratuwa.

Due to the Covid pandemic, their sing-along series had to be cancelled, as well as their planned concert for 2019. However, the organisers say the delayed 25th Jubilee Celebration concert is poised to be a thriller, scheduled to be held on 29th April, 2023.

During the past 25 years, 18 DML concerts had been held, and the 25th Jubilee Celebration concert will be the 19th in the series.

Famous, and much-loved, ‘golden oldies’, will be sung by the audience of music lovers, at this two and a half hours programme.

Down Memory Lane was the brainchild of musician Priya Peiris, (of ‘Cock-a-Doodle-Do’ fame) and the MAF became the pioneers of sing-along concerts in Sri Lanka.

The repertoire of songs for the 25th Jubilee Celebration concert will include a vast selection of international favourites, Cowboy and old American Plantation hits, Calypsos, Negro Spirituals, everybody’s favourites, from the ’60s and ’70s era, Sinhala evergreens, etc.

Down Memory Lane


Fun time for the audience Down Memory Lane

Singers from the Moratuwa Arts Forum will be on stage to urge the audience to sing. The band Echo Steel will provide the musical accompaniment for the audience to join in the singing, supported by Brian Coorey, the left handed electric bass guitarist, and Ramany Soysa on grand piano.

The organisers say that every participant will get a free songbook. There would also be a raffle draw, with several prizes to be won,

Arun Dias Bandaranaike will be the master of ceremonies.

President of the Moratuwa Arts Forum, Melantha Perera, back from Australia, after a successful tour, says: “All music lovers, especially Golden Oldies enthusiasts, are cordially invited to come with their families, and friends, to have an enjoyable evening, and to experience heartwarming fellowship and bonhomie.”

Further details could be obtained from MAF Treasurer, Laksiri Fernando (077 376 22 75).

Continue Reading