Connect with us


Mayhem starts in Mirihana! Where will it go? How will it end?



by Rajan Philips

Thursday/Friday (March 31/April 1)

6:00 PM

– Protesters gather at the Jubilee Post in their “tens of thousands”.

7:30 PM

– March towards Pengiriwatte Road leading to the President’s private residence.

8:39 PM

– “Several hundreds” protest at Pengiriwatte Road, chanting “Gota, Go Home.”

9:48 PM

– Tense situation as protesters try to the break police barricades.

10:27 PM

– Tear gas and water cannons fired as protesters break through barricades.

11:51 PM

– Sri Lankan Army bus and jeep set on fire. Vehicles overturned.

12:30 AM

– Kandy-Colombo Road blocked by protesters at the Bulugaha junction.

12:32 AM

– Injured people admitted to hospitals in Colombo and Kalubowila.

12:43 AM

– Police curfew imposed in Colombo and Nugegoda Police Divisions.

05:59 AM

– Police curfew lifted.

Online media registered the above timeline as Thursday night and Friday morning as protests unfolded near the private residence of President Rajapaksa in Mirihana. Sri Lankans at home and abroad, from Colombo to California, saw live reporting of the events. Over 30 people, including journalists, have been admitted to hospitals with injuries. Over 40 people have been arrested. The Presidential Media Division (PMD) has called Thursday’s events “unrest” and “riot” and blamed them on an unnamed “extremist group.”

While social media has been telling everyone about a major protest planned for Sunday, April 3, there has been little or no public intimation about the Mirihana protests, except for reported warning by state intelligence sources. On Friday morning, The Daily Mirror reported continuing “public outrage against President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa and Sports Minister Namal Rajapaksa” on social media. And public demonstrations are reportedly expected to continue on Saturday with a ‘white cloth’ campaign outside the Nelum Pokuna theater. Candlelight protests have been going on in several parts of the country as it plunged into darkness with extensive power cuts.

There is no clear information about the organization of the protest planned for Sunday. A Whatsapp message sent out by a social media group has been asking people to come out to protest on Sunday morning. Political parties have denied involvement and a number of them have called on their members not to participate in the protest on Sunday.

The Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB) is being accused of having it both ways – encouraging the protest but disclaiming involvement. “People are suffering in darkness, they don’t have gas, food. We have tolerated the government enough. It’s time to act therefore join us and take to the streets on April 3,” Leader of Opposition Sajith Premadasa reportedly posted on his Facebook page. The post triggered “harsh criticisms” against Mr. Premadasa and calls to political parties “to stay out of it.”

The UNP, whose leader Ranil Wickremesinghe attended the All Party Conference convened by President Rajapaksa, has indicated that it will not participate in the protest on Sunday. In a twitter statement, the UNP said “the United National Party will not be joining any protest organized by anonymous groups. We are committed to conducting our Sathyagraha Campaign around the country. The next Sathyagraha will  be held at Matara on April 6, 2022 .”

The JVP has also “cautioned against protest campaigns that cannot be traced back to a recognizable and accountable organiser or group.” While acknowledging “the people’s right to organize their own protests against Sri Lanka’s worsening economic crisis,” the JVP has warned of “dangers lurking in a protest movement that has no accountability.”

Last week on this page, I referred to a statement by David Beasley, the executive director of the UN Word Food Programme (WFP), that the food situation in many countries today is worse than the 2011 crisis of rising food prices that triggered the Arab Spring uprisings in Egypt and across North Africa. I went on to comment that in Sri Lanka “no one can predict how the public mood will change and what it will precipitate if the current shortages and high prices continue to worsen and the government fails to provide relief to the people.”

Mirihana is now evidence as to what the public mood is. Howsoever it came to pass, the Mirihana protest summed up the mood of the people and their boiling anger at the government’s utter ineptitude and its heartless insensitivity. For the first time, public anger directly targeted the highest in the land. Once public anger is breached, it is hard to predict what course it will take. The perception of inaction by opposition parties is also opening up space for seemingly spontaneous protests to fill in.

Before Thursday night it seemed that India was ready to do some heavy lifting to protect the Rajapaksa presidency. Now, all of India’s lines of credit in cash and kind may not be enough to either prevent Humpty Dumpty from his great fall, or patching him up after the fall. But India has no permanent interest in Gotabaya Rajapaksa or any other Sri Lankan political leader, for that matter. If Gota is gone, as he is being asked to go, India will look for the next best bet among aspiring contenders. But is there any way that Gota can stay?

Protests and Options

One way would be to emulate what President Lyndon Johnson did when he stunningly announced at the end of a televised address on 31 March 1968: “I shall not seek, and I will not accept, the nomination of my party for another term as your president.” After becoming President in 1963, following Kennedy’s assassination, and his landslide victory in the 64 election, Johnson was hugely successful on the domestic front with truly historic achievements in civil rights, social welfare and social justice. But he was undone by the Vietnam war which started dividing America and destroying his presidency. Lyndon Johnson opted to take himself out of office and out of politics for the sake of the country.

Short of resignation, the best that the Sri Lankan President can do is to announce that he will not seek a second term but will use the remainder of his single term to work with all the political leaders and parties in parliament to make sure that Sri Lanka avoids mass starvation and that its derailed economy is put back on track. He should also commit to dissolving parliament at the earliest constitutional opportunity in March 2023. Beyond the current term, the President and the family should forget about any more extended terms in office. They should consider themselves lucky to get through with what they have now.

For the country, getting rid of Gotabaya Rajapaksa over the weekend is not going to solve the country’s foreign exchange crisis and its chronic shortages. Deposing the regime is not going to bring shiploads of food and fuel next week. As the constitution provides, if the President were to resign, the Prime Minister, Mahinda Rajapaksa, will become the acting President until Parliament elects, by majority vote, an interim President from one of its MPs to serve out the remaining term of the resigning President. Let us not mention impeachment.

In a situation where Gotabaya Rajapaksa finds no alternative but to resign, Mahinda Rajapaksa cannot conceivably continue as acting President. He too will have to reign, and Parliament will have to find a way to elect some other MP as President, who will then appoint another MP as Prime Minister and still others as cabinet ministers. In the same breath, Parliament can pass a resolution calling for its dissolution, which the new acting/interim President will have to duly comply with.

All of this can happen and can be even fun if the country were in normal times. But it will not be fun for parliament to become theatre when people are running out of food and the country has already run out of fuel and electricity. On the other hand, allowing the incumbent President to continue, but on a tight leash from parliament, will avoid disrupting the pressing tasks of keeping essential supplies flowing to avoid mass starvation and endless dark nights. For this scenario, it cannot be business as usual for President Rajapaksa and for the rest of the Rajapaksa family.

The President will have to find a way to engage all the parties in parliament and forming a new cabinet focused on immediate relief measures and negotiations with the IMF. On Friday, Harsha de Silva posted an article entitled, “The Government cannot go on this way,” in which he draws attention to the collapse of public and investor confidence in the government and calls for “the complete overhaul of the monetary board of the Central Bank of Sri Lanka (CBSL),” whose decisions are the main cause for the current crisis. The President has no option but to do this if he is to stay in office, and along with overhauling the monetary board, the President should also surround himself with a new team of advisors who will recommend Sri Lanka’s negotiating team for the IMF. It cannot include GL Pieris, Ali Sabri, Nivard Cabraal and S.R. Attygalle.

If the SJB or the JVP have other alternatives they should let the country know what they are. The SJB and the JVP have been flogging the dissolution horse for a while, but they do not have the votes in parliament to ride the poor animal home. Udaya Gamanpilla is now threatening that he and Weerawansa would be able to muster enough votes from both sides of the aisle to force an immediate election. Why would anyone from the opposition join these two discredited weathervanes who want a new election to get a new Finance Minister?

If parliament can muster a majority resolution to dissolve itself, so be it. But it would be ill-advised to do so in the current circumstances. It will leave the Executive President in total control until a new parliament returns. Worse, it will be a disruptive diversion from the more pressing tasks now – to scour for foreign exchange, streamline supplies, and restore electricity. Even if an election were to be held this year, it would still be a ‘hung parliament’ under the proportional representation system. How would it make it easier to get things done than it is now?

One would like to see the lifting of the curfew within five hours on Friday morning as a positive sign that no one in the government or the family is thinking Rathupaswala (August 1, 2013). There are legitimate fears that the government may use the current protests to clamp down militarily. But any clampdown will only worsen the situation of food shortages and foreign exchange crisis. The sanction-happy West will impose itself with vigour and will make the IMF inaccessible. All the currently assured cash and kind lines of credit from India will cease. China alone cannot feed all Sri Lankans, and it will likely not even try. There are better options.

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