Features
Issues Sri Lanka should take up with New Delhi
President Dissanayake’s forthcoming visit to India:
by Neville Ladduwahetty
It has been reported that President Anura Kumara Dissanayake is due to visit India during the latter part of December. He and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi are expected to have talks on grant assistance projects from India, debt restructuring, people centric digitisation (identity cards, for instance), finality of the Economic and Technological Co-operation Agreement (ECTA), housing projects from India, solar electrification of religious places, agricultural development, defence cooperation, infrastructure development in the North and collaboration in human resource development. President Dissanayake is expected to raise with Premier Modi the issue of Indian fishermen fishing in Sri Lanka’s territorial waters” (Sunday Times, December 1, 2024).
It is clear from the foregoing report that the scale and scope of India’s agenda overwhelmingly outweighs Sri Lanka’s agenda that is limited to a single issue, namely, “Indian fishermen fishing in Sri Lanka’s territorial waters”. Notwithstanding this serious imbalance, Sri Lanka could gain considerable mileage by expanding the scope of this single issue in its agenda to two issues that would make a significant impact not only to Sri Lanka’s security and its national interests but also to the wellbeing of the Sri Lankan fishing community.
The two issues are as follows:
1 Reparations for the damages inflicted on Sri Lanka’s marine resources by bottom trawling and the loss of revenue and wellbeing to Sri Lanka and its fishing community over decades.
2 The need to revisit existing maritime boundaries agreed to between India and Sri Lanka, which are based on historical practices and instead, establish fresh Maritime Boundaries based on International law recognized by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) relating to International Boundaries.
These two issues are interlinked because it is the determination of the international boundary, based on International Law, that becomes the basis to establish claims for Reparations. Therefore, it is only by establishing the location of the International Boundary, based on a judgment by the ICJ, that lawful assessment of the claim for Reparations could be established.
THE BACKGROUND
One of the issues that was of significant concern to Sri Lanka and India in the early 1970s was the “ownership” of the island of Katchativu since it was pivotal to the establishment of the maritime boundary between the two countries. This issue was resolved with the signing of the 1974 Agreement by the Prime Ministers of Sri Lanka and India and revised in 1976. However, since these Agreements are based on traditional practices of citizens in both countries and, therefore, had “no legal resolution of ownership” (MDD Peiris, November 24, 2024), at the operational level, adherence to the obligations in the Agreements are fluid. Consequently, the ceding of Katchativu by India to Sri Lanka as per the Agreements is considered by India to be an act of treachery; even Prime Minister Modi is of a similar view.
As long as such perspectives persist at the highest level in India, attempting to resolve these contentious issues through dialogue is a futile exercise even if the highest level is committed to policies such as “Neighbourhood First”. Therefore, the only option for Sri Lanka and India, as members of the UN Charter, is to jointly or separately refer the matter to the ICJ for a legal resolution of all issues involved, if there is to any justice under the policy of “Neighbourhood First”, for it to mean what it states and not India First in the neighbourhood.
REPARATIONS for VIOLATING SOVEREIGN RIGHTS
According to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (Article 56) the exploring, exploiting, conserving and managing living and non-living natural resources of a Coastal State within its Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) is a sovereign right. Despite this, thousands of trawlers from India enter Sri Lanka’s EEZ and not only exploit its resources but also destroy marine resources by resorting to bottom trawling, evidence of which abound.
In a United Nations-Nippon Foundation of Japan Fellowship Programme of 2016, Aruna Maheepala claims: “There are over 5,000 mechanised trawlers in Tamil Nadu and nearly 2,500 of them enter Sri Lankan waters on Mondays, Wednesdays and Saturdays and often coming at 500 m of the shoreline (emphasis added) … More than 50,000 marine fishers live in the Northern fisheries districts (Jaffna, Kiliinochchi, Mannar, Mulative), which is around one fourth of the marine fishers of the country. Before the commencement of the war (1982) around 40% of the fish production of the country came from Northern fishery districts (except Killinochchi). However, the contribution of the fish production in the Northern fishery district drastically dropped to 5% in the peak period of the war (2008) and gradually increased after 2009. Furthermore, livelihoods of Sri Lankan fishers’ have been drastically affected as a result of the Indian poaching”.
News 1st reported on 14 April 2021: “Indian fishing vessels illegally fishing in Sri Lankan waters pillage around Rs, 900 billion worth of valuable marine resources in the Northern seas of Sri Lanka” (Northern Province Fisheries Asso. Chief, M.V. Subramanium).
“Assessing reparation of environmental damage by the ICJ”, (Questions on International Law, QIL) cites the case of compensation for environmental damage in Nicaragua/Costa Rica, the ICJ’s Judgment was:
“To shed light on the case, the Court sought support in international law and decisions of arbitral tribunals. In 1927, the ICJ already underlined in its judgment related to the Factory of Chorzów that a breach involves an obligation to make a reparation ‘in an adequate form’. The Court recalled that it had in a previous judgment, in 2015, assigned sovereignty over the area to Costa Rica, and Nicaragua’s activities were, therefore, in breach of that sovereignty. As such, the obligation for Nicaragua to make reparation was no longer to be disputed. Reparation in the form of compensation, as applied in the present case, was determined by the judgment in 2015.
Before addressing the issue of compensation in itself, the Court deemed it appropriate to follow a two-fold approach. The Court first determined the existence and extent of the damage to environmental goods and services caused by Nicaragua’s wrongful activities, and then went on to assess the existence of a direct and certain causal link between such damage and Nicaragua’s activities. This section will successively examine the Court’s analysis of the points of contention, its choice of method, and the assessment of the damage as established by the Court”.
BASIS for MARITIME BOUNDARIES in INTERNATIONAL LAW
A meeting was held in 1921, between the Colonial Governments of India and Ceylon “in order to avoid over-exploitation of maritime resources and the possibility of competition between the fishermen of India and Sri Lanka in the same waters for their catch, the colonial Governments of Madras and Colombo agreed to delimit the waters in the Gulf of Mannar and the Palk Bay. The two parties met in Colombo on October 24, 1921. The Indian team was led by Mr. C. W. E. Cotton and the team representing the government of Ceylon was headed by Hon. B. Horsburg”.
“Both parties accepted the principle of equidistant and the median line could be the guiding factor”. However, since at Kachchathivu the principle of equidistant “would considerably narrow the area of operations for the Indian fishermen”, the Ceylon delegation proposed a line that was three miles west of the island “so that there would be an equitable apportionment in the fisheries domain for both Sri Lanka and India”. The proposal by the Ceylon delegation was based on the fact that “Sri Lanka’s sovereignty over Kachchathivu was never in question, was beyond any doubt and was not a matter for negotiation. He (Hon. B. Horsburg) quoted from the correspondence that the Survey Department and the Department of Public Works in Colombo had exchanged with the counterparts in India, in which the sovereignty of Sri Lanka over Kachchativu had been taken for granted by the Indian authorities… After discussion the delimitation line was fixed three miles west of Kachchativu” (Jayasinghe, p. 14,15).
Agreement between the two parties is reflected in the letter from the head of the Indian delegation, C. W. E. Cotton, in which he states: ” … we unanimously decided that the delimitation of the new jurisdiction for fishing purposes could be decided independently of the question of territoriality. The delimitation line was accordingly fixed, with our concurrence three miles west of Kachchativu and the Ceylon representatives thereupon agreed to a more orderly alignment south of the island than they had originally proposed…” (Ibid, p. 130).
What is relevant from all of the above is that regardless of the basis for establishing a boundary under colonial rule, such boundaries morph into territorial boundaries of independent states under the “Doctrine of UTI POSSIDETIS”.
DOCTRINE of UTI POSSIDETIS
Black’s Law Dictionary has defined the legal Doctrine of “Uti possidetis juris” as “the doctrine that old administrative boundaries will become international boundaries when a political subdivision achieves independence (Hansal & Allison, “The Colonial Legacy and Border Stability”, p. 2; quoting Garner 1999).
The principle behind this doctrine dates back to Roman times. The principle first emerged in the modern sense with the decolonization of Latin America when each former Spanish colony agreed to accept territories that were “presumed to be possessed by its colonial predecessors” (Ibid). The same doctrine was accepted by former colonies in the African continent. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has “argued for its relevance across the world” (Ibid).
“This principle was stated most directly in the ICJ’s 1986 decision in the Frontier Dispute/Burkina Faso Republic of Mali case. The ICJ had been asked to settle the location of a disputed segment of the border between Mali and Burkina Faso, both of which had been part of French West Africa before independence. In their judgment over the merits of this Frontier Dispute case the ICJ emphasized the legal principle of uti possidetis juris”:
“The ICJ judgment in the Mali-Burkina Faso Dispute case also argued that the principle of uti possidetis should apply in any decolonization situation regardless of the legal or political status of the entities on each side of the border”:
“The territorial boundaries which have to be respected may also derive from international frontiers which previously divided a colony of one State from a colony of another, or indeed a colonial territory from the territory of another independent State…There is no doubt that the obligation to respect pre-existing international frontiers in the event of State succession derives from a general rule of international law, whether or not the rule is expressed in the formula of uti possidetis” (ICJ 1986, Ibid).
Based on the ICJ Judgment, the Maritime Boundary between India and Sri Lanka should be what existed during Colonial times and continue as the International Maritime Boundary when India and Sri Lanka gained independence. The fact that Sri Lanka failed to use the provision of Uti Possidetis has cost Sri Lanka’s economy dearly and continues to do so in terms of treasure and human suffering.
CONCLUSION
The issue of Indian fishermen fishing in Sri Lanka’s territorial waters was resolved in 1921, when the Colonial Government of India and then Ceylon unanimously agreed on what the Maritime Boundary was to be. Accordingly, the island of Kachchativu was to be part of Sri Lanka’s sovereign territory as it had been before Ceylon was colonized. Following independence of both countries, the boundaries that were recognized while under colonial rule should have been recognised as the boundaries of independent India and Sri Lanka in keeping with the internationally recognized doctrine of UTI POSSIDETIS cited above.
Instead of staking Sri Lanka’s claim on the principle that colonial boundaries transform into international boundaries upon gaining independence, Sri Lanka opted to base their claim on traditional and historical practices and agreements were signed by the Prime Ministers of India and Sri Lanka.in 1974 and revised in 1976. The opportunity to stake Sri Lanka’s claim on the basis of international law was lost, perhaps due to unfamiliarity with related legal provisions.
While sovereign countries are free to forge agreements between themselves, their durability is dependent on varying personal political agendas of political actors in each country. Consequently, what is acceptable today may be unacceptable tomorrow. Since these agreements are not based on international law, Indian political leaders, such as Prime Minister Modi, refuse to accept them. These perspectives have emboldened Indian fishermen to violate Maritime Boundaries and destroy marine resources by resorting to bottom trawling. Furthermore, the numerous discussions between the two governments have failed to resolve substantive issues and have resulted ONLY in the India government’s focus being on the release of arrested Indian fishermen and their vessels.
Therefore, since the issue of maritime boundaries has a direct bearing on illegal entry into Sri Lanka’s sovereign territory and destruction of marine resources, the ONLY durable way to resolve this contentious issue is to seek the assistance of the ICJ to rule on a legal determination as to the location of maritime boundaries based on the principle of UTI POSSIDETIS, on which depends claims for reparations for damages to maritime resources inflicted over decades. In this regard, Sri Lanka should be encouraged by the ICJ determination in the case of Nicaragua and Costa Rica in 2015 cited above.
The opportunity presented by the forthcoming visit of President Dissanayake to India should NOT be missed by the new government because all previous governments and their advisors have failed to address this all-important issue, either because of their timidity or ignorance of relevant International Laws. If Dissanayake fails to inform India that Sri Lanka has no option but to seek the assistance of the ICJ to resolve the issue of maritime boundaries, Sri Lanka will have to accept the bitter prospect of the plunder of its resources and the sovereign rights of the People and the Nation forever.
Features
Trump promises a new “golden age” – for American oligarchs, white supremacists?
All 1600+ January 6 insurrectionists, including over 600 violent criminals who attacked, murdered Capitol police officers, pardoned by Trump
by Vijaya Chandrasoma
The inauguration of the 47th President of the United States was completed with all the traditional trappings of the nation’s most momentous political occasion. The constitutional transition of presidential power at its most peaceful, a tradition conspicuous in its absence during the near-coup of 2021.
Due to freezing temperatures and high winds, the 2025 Inauguration ceremony of President-elect Trump was held inside the United States Capitol Rotunda in Washington DC, the scene of one of the most shameful days in US history.
On January 6, 2021, thousands of rioters, incited by then twice-impeached, defeated, disgraced President Trump, stormed the Capitol in a failed attempt at a violent coup to prevent the peaceful transfer of power. On January 21, 2025, these same violent rioters were granted unconditional pardons by the same, but amazingly victorious President Trump.
Before the inauguration, President-elect Trump said that he would pardon the January 6 insurrectionist on a case-by-case basis, and pardon only those who were “peaceful protesters”.
Another lie. At least 600 of these murderous felons, convicted of assaulting Capitol police officers, murdering one and wounding hundreds in the defense of the Capitol, were also among those pardoned immediately after his inauguration by Trump, a fellow convicted felon.
In his first televised interview of his second term with Sean Hannity of Fox News last Wednesday, he described the violent attacks on the police officers at the Capitol on January 6, 2021 as “very minor incidents”, in an attempt to justify his pardon of these violent criminals.
None of these pardoned criminals have shown any remorse for their violence. On the contrary, they have expressed their intention to seek retribution against those judges and law enforcement officers who had prosecuted them for their televised acts of sedition. A few of these pardoned “patriots” made some interesting public comments which indicate they feel they would be free to commit future acts of violence against perceived enemies of their Fuhrer, with no consequences.
Capitol rioter, Jacob Chansley, aka the “QAnon Shaman”, said he’s going to “buy some motha f….ing guns” after being pardoned by President Trump.
The newly freed Proud Boys leader, Enrique Tarrio, who had been found guilty and sentenced to 22 years’ imprisonment, made no secret of his intentions of retribution against the prosecutors of the January 6 insurrection, saying, “The people who did this, they need to feel the heat. They need to be put behind bars”. It does not need much imagination to understand what these murderers mean by the phrase, “feel the heat”.
Stewart Rhodes, leader of the Oathkeepers, who had been sentenced to 18 years’ imprisonment, has been advocating political violence against the government for over a decade. He said, in a recording four days after January 6, 2021 played at his trial, that “his only regret is that they should have brought rifles” and that he would “hang f…ing Pelosi from the lamppost”. Presumably after he had hanged Mike Pence from the gallows they had constructed at the Capitol for the purpose. Rhodes is now free to commit these crimes.
Trump and his supporters are trying to defend these indefensible actions in an effort to rewrite history, that January 6 was just a peaceful protest against a rigged election. Rather than the violent insurrection resulting in murder and wounding hundreds of law enforcement officers, bravely defending the lawmakers of the nation carrying out their constitutional duties, which we all saw unfolding before our eyes. And the next four years will see pro-Trump criminals acting violently against democratic principles with impunity, with no consequences. In fact, they will be praised, like the January 6 murderers, as “patriots”.
Outgoing President Biden also issued a series of pre-emptive pardons for several persons, including members of his family, on the final day of his presidency. Clemency for Trump’s Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark Milley, who had served the country with honor but had committed the capital crime of criticizing Trump; and for Dr. Anthony Fauci, one of the world’s leading epidemiologists who had questioned Trump’s ridiculous remedies for the Covid epidemic during his first term. They were both on the list of Trump’s targets for prosecutorial retribution, as were Liz Cheney and members of the Special Congressional Committee who had investigated and reported on Trump’s acts of sedition on January 6, 2021.
Biden, in his statement, stated that these pardons did not denote guilt.
“The issuance of these pardons should not be mistaken as an acknowledgement that any individual engaged in any wrongdoing, nor should acceptance be misconstrued as an admission of guilt for any offense. Our nation owes these public servants a debt of gratitude for their tireless commitment to our country”.
Ominously, Trump stated at the aforementioned Fox interview that Joe Biden should have pardoned himself, a clear threat that he intends to prosecute what he calls the “Biden Crime Family”.
Ironically, Taylor Budwich, Trump’s Deputy Chief of Staff said “that Biden’s pardons will go down as the greatest attack on America’s justice system in history”.
The double standard is incredible. Biden pardons people innocent of any crimes bar being disloyal to or critical of Trump, only for fear they will surely be victimized by Trump’s weaponized Department of Justice, headed by Trump loyalists, Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel. While Trump pardons, with total impunity, 1,600+ convicted, violent insurrectionists who followed his instructions to carry out a violent coup, a crime tantamount to treason.
All the traditional, symbolic traditions for the inauguration of the President-elect, followed by every other president except Donald Trump in 2021, were honored by outgoing President Joe Biden, to signify a peaceful transfer of power.
President Biden and First Lady Jill Biden invited the Trumps and the Vances to the White House for tea and coffee on the morning of January 20, after which they drove together to the Rotunda for the Inauguration ceremony in the presidential limo.
Trump did not even attend the inauguration of President Biden in 2021, breaking a tradition which had endured for 152 years.
Trump’s Inauguration was attended by all past presidents and their spouses, except for Michele Obama. She gave no elaboration for her absence, which served to illustrate her customary good taste and dignity.
The Trump family, Elon Musk and the richest men in the world were given prominent seats at the Rotunda. Congressmen of both parties, even Trump’s former Vice-President, Mike Pence attended the ceremony, confident that this time, there would be no danger to their lives.
Trump’s inaugural speech was more like a campaign rally rant, with his usual claim, ridiculous for someone who has broken more Commandments than listed in the Bible, that he was chosen by God. He whined that he was “tested and challenged more than any president in our 250-year history”. Tested, challenged and convicted in the nation’s courts of 91 felonies, including obstruction of justice, sedition and espionage.
He proclaimed the beginning of a new “golden era”, and made some extravagant announcements, which were reminiscent of his first term promise of building that famous Southern border wall of 3,000 miles for which Mexico would pay. He barely did 50 miles in four years, and the former Mexican President, Vicente Fox jeered and said “Mexico is not going to pay for that f….ing wall!”
His intention to take over the Panama Canal, the property of the sovereign nation of Panama, will no doubt elicit the same reaction of derisive laughter from Panamanian President Mulino.
He sang his eternal tune of “Drill, Baby, Drill”, to exploit the “liquid gold under their feet”, ignorant of the billions of dollars and incalculable loss to life and property that will be caused by further natural disasters unleashed on the planet by the continued pollution caused by the abuse of fossil fuels.
But he will unilaterally rename the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America, and plant the American flag on Mars, actions which he assured his devoted followers will keep grocery prices and inflation down. Perhaps our own President Dissanayake could follow Trump’s example and solve Sri Lanka’s problems by unilaterally renaming the Indian Ocean as the Sri Lankan Ocean.
Trump didn’t talk about his intentions to acquire Greenland or break away from NATO. But he has withdrawn the USA from the Paris Climate Accords and the World Health Organization. The former because he is a moron who believes that climate change is a hoax; the latter because he would not need the aid of WHO in the event of another epidemic. After all, he managed Covid 19 with great efficiency, presiding over the avoidable deaths of a mere million Americans and “managing” the US economy to near recession.
He did not keep his promise to stop the Russian-Ukraine war even before his inauguration. However, he expressed a desire to meet with his mentor, Russian President Putin. Probably to end the war by forcing the Ukrainians to cede their sovereign territory that the Russians have already annexed illegally. A deal unacceptable to both parties. Putin will continue to manipulate Trump as he has been doing since 2016.
Trump stated that the USA is a nation of two sexes, a man and a woman. His dad, God had proclaimed that He had created only two genders in the human race, when he commanded Noah, “You shall bring two of every kind into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female”. (Genesis 6:19)
There are 1.4 million people in the USA who do not conform to the genders they were assigned at birth. They have the bodies of one sex with the genitalia of the other. Were they created by a lesser, non-Christian God?
As part of his immigration reforms, Trump intends to end birthright citizenship, rescinding the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside”. Presidents do not have the power to overturn Amendments to the constitution by Executive Order.
The Executive Order he has signed authorizing the use of the military to implement the mass deportation of illegal immigrants is also against the constitution and will be contested in the courts; as well as the actions his minions have started, replacing with Trump loyalists all known Democrats and DEI (Diversity, Equity and Inclusion) federal employees, who in Republican eyes are black, brown and leftist hires.
There is one flaw about Trump’s great Project 2025 plan which was highlighted with a direct appeal to him at a prayer service at St. John’s Church, at Lafayette Square, Washington DC, held to honor his inauguration.
The Episcopal bishop of Washington, the Right Rev. Mariann Budde, during her 15-minute sermon, cited Trump’s belief about being saved by God from assassination:
“You have felt the hand of a loving God. In the name of our God, I ask you to have mercy upon people in the country who are scared now. There are gay, lesbian and transgender children in Democratic, Republican and Independent families across the country who fear for their lives”.
Budde also made a plea for immigrants, a group targeted for deportation by the Trump administration. “They pick our crops, look after our children and parents, work the night shifts in our hospitals, keep our schools clean. They may not have the proper documentation, but the vast majority are not criminals but rather are good neighbors”.
Trump, enraged at God’s words, of which his only knowledge is through selling Bibles, demanded an apology from Budde and clergy of the Episcopal Church for politicizing God’s Word, calling them “Radical left hard line Trump haters”.
As most true Christians are. No apology is required for the truth.
Features
Hidden dangers in pencils: A call for vigilance to protect children’s health
Colorful fancy pencils, a staple in every child’s school bag, may be hiding a silent threat. Recent revelations have raised concerns about the safety of low-quality pencils and stationery, which may contain harmful chemicals and heavy metals, posing serious health risks to children. Experts and activists are now urging parents, educators, and authorities to take immediate action to safeguard children from these hidden dangers.
Dr. Mahinda Wickramarachchi, Head of the Quality Control Unit at Lady Ridgeway Hospital for Children (LRH), highlighted the risks associated with substandard pencils. “Imported pencils and coloring pencils, especially those without any without any proper information about the brand and manufacturer, often fail to meet international safety standards. These products may contain heavy metals like lead, cadmium, and arsenic, which can enter a child’s body through chewing or prolonged use,” he warned.
The European Committee of Standardization (CEN) has introduced the EN 71 standard to ensure the safety of children’s products, including pencils and stationery. This standard mandates rigorous testing to detect harmful substances. For instance, pencils are immersed in a stomach acid-like solution for two hours to check for the release of toxic chemicals. However, Dr. Wickramarachchi noted that most of the pencils in the Sri Lankan market do not comply with these standards.
A school teacher, who wished to remain anonymous due to administrative regulations, shared her concerns. “Children often chew on pencils or put them in their mouths. If these pencils contain harmful substances, it could lead to serious health issues like allergies, infections, or even long-term illnesses such as kidney problems and cognitive impairments,” she said.
Ranjith Vithanage, Chairman of the National Movement for Consumer Rights Protection, echoed these concerns. “The market is flooded with low-quality imported pencils and stationery, particularly from countries like China. These products are sold at high profits but pose significant risks to children’s health,” he said. Vithanage criticized the lack of regulatory oversight, stating that the authorities have failed to introduce adequate standards for school equipment.
Joseph Stalin, Secretary of the Ceylon Teachers’ Union (CTU), emphasized the need for immediate action. “The authorities has a responsibility to ensure the safety of these products. We plan to investigate this issue and take legal action against those responsible for importing and selling substandard school items,” he said.
Despite these warnings, the market continues to be dominated by cheap, low-quality products. Vithanage urged parents to be vigilant. “When schools issue book lists, parents must pay attention to the quality of the items they purchase. Saving a few rupees now could cost your child’s health in the long run,” he said.
The call for action is clear. Parents, teachers, and authorities must work together to ensure that children are not exposed to harmful substances. By prioritizing safety standards and demanding better regulation, we can protect our children from the hidden dangers lurking in their school supplies.
As the anonymous teacher aptly put it, “Every pencil in a child’s hand should be a tool for learning, not a threat to their health.” Let’s ensure that our children’s creativity and education are nurtured in a safe and healthy environment.
Features
Chaos and Pattern – Memoirs of Godfrey Goonetilleke
Reviewed by Leelananda De Silva
Godfrey Goonetilleke is one of the outstanding personalities in the public life of Ceylon/Sri Lanka in the latter half of the 20th century. As a brilliant scholar in English at the university in the late 1940s, he was one of the best known members of the Ceylon Civil Service, after Independence. Leaving the public service in 1972, he had a major role in establishing the Marga Institute. From that time onwards, he worked with many UN agencies especially in Geneva. He came to be considered a leading intellectual on socio-economic development issues.
Godfrey now in his late 90s, has written his Memoirs – “Chaos and Pattern” in three volumes running into over 1,000 pages. The first volume deals with his early life at home and in school, mainly in a rural setting, his university life, and marriage to Bella. The second volume is concerned with his career in the Ceylon Civil Service, from 1950 – 1972. The third volume deals with the founding of the Marga Institute and his emergence as a leading Asian intellectual. At this time, he was associated with various UN agencies in developing, social, and economic policies. At the end, was his key role in setting up the Gamani Corea Foundation.
He was born in 1926, to a rural middle-class bilingual (English and Sinhalese) family. His early education was in several schools in the Kandy region. Godfrey ended up at St. Joseph’s College, Colombo when Fr. Peter Pillai was its rector. Even in those very early years he was developing an interest in English literature. Godfrey mentions that his grandfather established one of the earliest Sinhalese newspapers in the 1880s. This makes me realize that no history of Sri Lankan journalism, English, Sinhalese and Tamil, has yet been written. This is something the local press institutions should consider.
In the late 1940s, Ivor Jennings was the Vice-Chancellor of the university. Godfrey opted to read English under E.F.C. Ludowyk, Professor of English. He relates his university career at some length and his many concerns and interests especially of a philosophical and religious nature. He was undergoing a spiritual and moral crisis and he describes these at length. It was during this period that he met his future wife, Bella. And through this Memoir the loving and lasting relationship with Bella comes out clearly.
Godfrey describes the English Department under Ludowyk, from which he was destined to obtain a first class. One of his contemporaries, Upali Amarasinghe was also a brilliant scholar in English. Godfrey describes the politics of the English Dept at that time, especially concerning the possible appointment of either he or Upali Amarasinghe as a new Asst. lecturer. This was to be followed by either one of them proceeding to Cambridge, on a scholarship to do their PhDs. Ultimately Upali went on that scholarship. Godfrey opted to join the Ceylon Civil Service having passed the CCS Exam. in 1950.
In Volume-2, Godfrey describes his life as a member of the CCS for the next 22 years. He started his career in 1950 and retired in 1972. He had many appointments and handled varied tasks especially in Colombo. Godfrey was not one of those civil servants who served in district administration. He had a short spell in Anuradhapura in the Land Development Department that was not part of the district administration. During these 22 years, he had a variety of tasks to perform and many interests to pursue. Let us look at them briefly.
One of his earliest assignments was to serve as Asst. Secretary to Sri Lanka’s first Prime Minister, D.S. Senanayake. When he was appointed to serve in that office, N.W. Athukorale was the Secretary to the Prime Minister. He was not a member of the CCS. Godfrey’s Civil Service colleagues raised many an eyebrow at this situation. The CCS at that time thought they were superior and that they should not serve under a non-CCS public servant. However, he served in that post to the great satisfaction of Athukorale and himself.
There is a fascinating episode which Godfrey relates. Godfrey had passed on information unwittingly to a university friend, a young woman who was now a journalist. She spoke of that material which concerned another Lake House journalist. The Prime Minister was visibly upset and wanted to know who had released this information. Godfrey admitted talking to Jeanne Pinto. The Prime Minister was courteous, and had a chat with Godfrey, asking him to stay for tea.
He warned Godfrey about talking to journalists. The Prime Minister knew more about Jeanne Pinto than Godfrey. He told Godfrey that she was having an affair with a businessman, Sardha Ratnaweera. Only later did Godfrey know that this was true. The Prime Minister was well known those days for reading police reports which he said was his favourite reading material. Godfrey is the last surviving public servant to have worked with Prime Minister, D.S. Senanayake.
In 1962, the country was shocked by the news that various Army, Navy and Police personnel had attempted to overthrow the government. One of the masterminds behind the coup, was alleged to have been Douglas Liyanage, a member of the CCS, and a close friend of Godfrey. Godfrey’s description of the coup is worth reading. He had the courage to go and meet his friend Douglas Liyanage in remand jail with a couple of his friends like Milton Aponso.
In 1965, the Dudley Senanayake government came to power. One of the Prime Minister’s first tasks was to establish a new Ministry of Planning and Economic Affairs under him. Gamani Corea was appointed as the new Permanent Secretary. Godfrey was brought in to work with him as Director of Plan Implementation. Godfrey’s task was largely to manage the capital budget of the government which was earlier a function of the Ministry of Finance. It was Godfrey’s task, in consultation with others, to decide on the priorities for public investment, and projects to be taken up.
Godfrey relates the difficulties the Ministry faced with other leading government politicians in attaching priorities for public investment. It is the rational development of these priorities that led the government of Dudley Senanayake to achieve an average annual 5% GDP growth rate in the five years between 1965-1970. This part of Godfrey’s Memoirs is essential reading for the new generation of public servants who determine public investment priorities.
Godfrey was engaged in many other tasks in the Planning Ministry. After the change of government in 1970, he continued to work with the new Permanent Secretary, H.A.de S. Gunasekera for another two years. He was engaged in the preparation of a new Five-Year Plan. This five-year plan remained only a publication and was never implemented. In terms of its policies and priorities, it was a far cry from the earlier government’s methodical approach to public investment. I have always wondered how Godfrey could be involved in this kind of so-called socialist policies which had hardly any place for the private sector.
A few months before he left the public service, one of his last tasks was to handle the Dudley Seers Mission to Colombo, to advice on social and economic issues. Dudley Seers was the head of the Institute of Development Studies in Sussex, England. Seers and a team of 20 others was commissioned by the World Employment Programme of the ILO in Geneva, to undertake this study.
When the initial request was made for this inquiry, the Ministry of Planning was under Dr. Gamani Corea, and by the time the mission came in 1971, there was a new government which was not over-excited by this mission. The Five-Year Plan which was being drafted by the government did not take much notice of the Seers Report.
Volume-3 of Godfrey’s Memoirs is arguably the most interesting of the three volumes. Godfrey left the public service in 1972. He and Gamani Corea got actively engaged in the establishment of a brand-new research institute in Sri Lanka. The two of them were the founding fathers of the Marga Institute. Several leading ministers of the government which was a left of centre alliance (the SLFP, the LSSP and the CP) was unhappy with the establishment of Marga.
Felix Dias Bandaranaike, who was the Minister of Public Administration sent out a circular prohibiting public servants of having any dealings with Marga. Dr. Colvin R. De Silva who was a leading LSSP minister and even Bernard Soysa, a leading LSSP figure had reservations about Marga. They believed that socio-economic research should be done with a government institution, and not with an independent body. The more pragmatic, Mrs. Sirimavo Bandaranaike, the Prime Minister was quite happy to go along with the establishment of Marga.
From now on Godfrey had several occupational strands in his life. Apart from building Marga, he was employed by many UN agencies as a consultant. In 1973, Gamani Corea was appointed Secretary General of UNCTAD in Geneva. Godfrey was to work with him closely on trade, commodities, finance and technological transfer issues over the next decade with UNCTAD.
Godfrey had another important strand to his consultancy work. He was also engaged by the World Employment Programme (WEP) based within the ILO in Geneva. The WEP was headed by a notable development scholar Louise Emmerij, and Godfrey worked closely with him. He was also working with UNICEF, the UN Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD), based in Geneva, with UNDP and UNICEF. He spent a considerable amount of time in Geneva.
He was also involved with the Third World Forum in Geneva, which included some of the leading social scientists of the time. It is obvious that Godfrey came to be a highly regarded member of the top intellectual elite engaged in third world development issues. Godfrey’s combination of leading a research institute of his country and being an advisor to UN bodies to develop their social, economic policies and programmes, made him a leading personality in international development.
Godfrey mentions in his memoirs that he wanted Marga to be closely involved in Sri Lanka’s social, economic and political development, and play an important role in resolving the political issues that were then emerging. His chapters relating to the communal crisis and relations with India are essential reading to present day policy makers. It is clear from Godfrey’s memoirs that the mismanagement of the relationship with India, was a crucial factor in Sri Lanka’s political crisis.
To end on a personal note. In March 1972 the ILO organized a meeting in Geneva to review the three reports of their missions to Ceylon (the Dudley Seers Mission), Columbia and Kenya. Godfrey was invited by the ILO in his personal capacity. I represented the Government of Ceylon. Gamani Corea, then Ceylon’s ambassador in Brussels, was brought in to chair the meeting. This was the first visit for Godfrey and me to Geneva. The next year in 1973, Gamani became Secretary General of UNCTAD and spent the next 11 years in Geneva. Godfrey was a long stay visitor to Geneva during that time. I spent over 12 years n Geneva from 1978 to 1990. This was our Geneva connection.
There is much in this 1,000-page Memoir which cannot be absorbed in a short article.
-
Business6 days ago
Customer service to new heights with Digitalized Contact Centre for Union Bank
-
Business4 days ago
Member, National Council for Road Safety
-
Features3 days ago
Hambantota oil refinery – From fairy tale to reality?
-
Editorial5 days ago
Cost-cutting and hypocrisy
-
Editorial6 days ago
Comrades see red
-
Editorial7 days ago
Hobson’s choice, swings and roundabouts
-
Sports3 days ago
Mr. Neil Perera passes away at 95
-
Latest News3 days ago
2024 Grade 5 Scholarship Exam results released