Connect with us

Features

Petrodollar and US hegemony Putin-NATO-Zelenskyy Catastrophe

Published

on

by Kumar David

This essay surveys two topics which have come into blinding spotlight in recent weeks; the petrodollar, its likely eviction from the cosmos and hence demise of US global hegemony, and second the pluperfect cock-up by Putin and NATO-West, and the humiliation of, not as pokerfaced as Putin, nor as dour as never-smile Xi, perpetual clown Vladimir Zelenskyy (VZ), but more profoundly the misery of the Ukrainian people.

The rise of the almighty petrodollar and the end of its supremacy

The first part of this essay does not discuss the folly of the invasion (I have done that previously many times) but focuses on a collateral issue. The transition from a British Empire on which the sun was loath to set to the American Century commenced before the 1914-18 Great War for the division of the colonial world between European powers and to a degree America. However, WW1 signposts the sunset. Thereafter the upsurge of American hegemony was inexorable. The Great Depression of the 1930s was a setback but the New Deal, and more important WW2 released the full force of capitalism and US Imperialism.

Capitalism displays its greatest surges after war and devastation lay waste to nations and continents and subsequently investment opportunities flourish. American glory was unchecked from the end of WW2 in a 30-year boom – give or take usual cyclical recessions – till an external factor (in economist-speak) screwed the carnival. The blasted Arabs decided they were going to grab and retain a great portion of the profits of oil – extending even to an embargo in October 1973 – and so began what Americans, the West and economists call the second oil-price crisis.

The United States suffered its longest and most severe post-war recession in 1973. Measures to overcome this led to stagflation – simultaneous stagnation and inflation, which mantras in the then prevailing text-books of capitalist economic theory said was impossible: an oxymoron. But that was after the point of intervention of today’s topic. Ever resourceful American power sorted out the post-1973 oil-price crisis (I won’t go through intermediate stages) by establishing the petrodollar in March 1974. The master stroke was that America and Saudi Arabia agreed to price oil only in US dollars in exchange for which the US would guarantee the Saudi State against all comers internationally and secure its stability against internal dissent. The Americans strong-armed European buyers and oil producers the world over to follow this pricing rule. So, when Venezuela sells oil to Timbuktu the contract is priced in dollars, the transaction cleared through banks which deal in US dollars and cleared through agencies or networks based mainly in New York or London. Thus, was born the petrodollar.

Soon it was not only oil; all commodities and trades were dominantly or indirectly included. The dollar and US securities now underpin 80% of global trade, are the stuff of government reserves worldwide, and the essential intermediary in big investments. When Basil grovels in Delhi begging bowl in hand Modi gives him dollars, when the IMF throws Gota a lifeline it is in dollars and Russia is stuck because most of its $650 billion reserves are in Western banks that exist in fealty to America.

The power of US financial hegemony is apparent when Europe kowtows on sanctions against Russia. Whether Russia deserves punishment is tangential; the surprise is that Europe obediently falls in line without a murmer; “independent” Swiss bankers who wash laundry-loads of dirty money are obedient. I do not believe all Europe obeyed out of fear of America or for protection of its nuclear umbrella only. The reason for docility is that Washington can crack the whip of financial dominion and impose secondary sanctions on any who disobey. Antony Blinken, hawkish US Secretary of State, openly threatened China and surprisingly the Lords of the Middle Kingdom who usually bristle did not even say “It’s unhelpful”. Dollar hegemony is the sword in America’s armoury that keeps friend and foe in place.

China saw it years ago and slowly, now clearly far too slowly, started building an alternative global payments system and pushed the digital Yuan. Russia has been brought to its knees by the might of the glorious dollar, not by any other sanction. Sanctions on energy are hurting Europe and Asia badly and will get worse unless the fight ends. Restrictions on nickel, palladium and metals where Russia is the main or one of the biggest suppliers have industries the world over scrambling and a recession is looming; supply chains are snapping. Shortfall of wheat, barley and corn shipments from breadbaskets Russia and Ukraine and discontinuing potash and fertiliser making inputs have frightening consequences. Even the ultra-reactionary Economist shudders and predicts food riots in the Maghreb, Sub-Saharan Africa and South and Central America as grain prices triple by years end unless supplies resume. Recession seems inevitable and social instability a knock-on. Fertile ground to sow Yuan-Rial, Yuan-Ruble and Ruble-Indian Rupee trade and non-dollar petroleum transactions. If petrodollar supremacy erodes it will take US hegemony down with it.

Almighty chaos

The US-NATO-West incited and cheered-on affable VZ as the poster boy of global democracy and brave champion of freedom’ They lauded the Ukrainian people as civilisations standard bearers of liberty. Then what happened? When the enraged bull showed no signs of backing off, when it became an eyeball to eyeball standoff, they hung poor VZ and Ukraine out to dry and found rational arguments why their comfortable lives, orderly cities, bank accounts and warm conjugal embraces should not be disrupted by atom bombs. Love, liberty, freedom and a warm liberal lifestyle hit a wall.

“We will give you refuge and succour (and that’s wonderful; by no means should one sneer) says Europe, but militarily NATO is posturing at a safe distance from the snorting, god-knows-what-he-will-do-next, bull. Desperate, VZ screams WW3 will come if you don’t intervene; but poor lost soul, NATO is deaf. He and his country are expendable real-estate. Frankly I no longer take NATO’s “An attack on one is an attack on all” credo seriously. Do you think if some sliver of remote Baltic coast, thousands of miles from the US-European heartland is overrun by bears, NATO will come roaring, atoms in hand, stealth bombers in the sky? Bollocks, new NATO members please learn this lesson in realpolitik. After the USSR went up in smoke NATO bloated into a flatulent, militarily bulbous globule. It refuses suffer nuclear Armageddon for lumps of excess fat.

The second lesson that hardnosed analysts can take away from these events is that Putin is a world class cock-up champion. True human-rights violations, devastation and civilian deaths in Iraq post-2003 thanks to Moron Bush and Poodle Blair were much worse than Russian war-crimes in Ukraine to date. Civilians slain by the US and UK exceed 10,000, cities were devastated and Iraq reduced to rubble and penury from which who knows when it will recover. When the Americans departed, it left behind a fractured country of Shias and Sunnis at each other’s throats with no prospect of national unification. However, comparatively less carnage apart, in the end what will Putin have to show for his onslaught; not military victory which now seems assured but a criminal assault on civilians.

Less than nothing! And an interminable unwinnable civil war. Moscow has not learnt from Afghanistan (1979-85) nor others indicted in parenthesis from Korea (US and allies), Algeria (France), Vietnam (France and US), IPKF (India), Iraq (US and UK), Libya (US), Yemen (Saudi) and Afghanistan (dear god the US again). Let’s recapitulate lesson two: It’s not easy in modern times to militarily occupy and tame even a small foreign country unless powerful internal partners are in situ and a big portion of the population buys in. Examples of this counter-case are CIA engineered military-gorilla coups in Central and South America where powerful military and business-class interests were on-side, of course Bangladesh and some recent French peace-keeping interventions in the Sahel.

The third matter I must touch on is an extension of part one of this essay but of stand-alone significance. We have reached a turning point in the global financial order. Russia’s Central Bank Reserves have been frozen by the West and it has nowhere to turn but to Yuan facilities and bilateral Yuan denominated trade. Let that sink in, savour its significance! Central Bank holdings of about 10 countries are frozen by the US; international brigandage possible because of dollar domination as reserve, trading and investment vehicle. About 25 countries are sanctioned by the US as political opponents and the West kowtows. Among them Cuba, Syria, Iran, North Korea, Afghanistan, Belarus, Central African Republic, DRC, Ethiopia, Hong Kong, Lebanon, Libya, Mali, Nicaragua, Somalia, Sudan, South Sudan, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, and now Russia. But China is the largest trading partner of more countries than any other! Why on earth should it trade in a third-party money? The not yet finalised China-Saudi oil deal has been in the works for years. Pressure for restructuring the global financial system is inexorable. The dollar is not going away anywhere soon, nor did Rome fall in a day, but transition to a multi-currency world is unstoppable.

For the Yuan to be global China’s capital markets will have to open and banking become transparent. Government control and regulation must diminish and state protection of provincial banking decline. These changes may drive China towards more liberalism and greater use of market mechanisms than all that Jack & Jill Mas, property tycoons and stock markets will ever be able to do. Wonder what Marx would have made of unification of world finances on a rational platform? Written a Volume IV? The Dragon Emperor Quin Shi Huang (Terracotta Army chap) of the Qin Dynasty abolished primitive proto-feudalism in about 230 BC (feudalism proper never took root in China) and created a centralised state with 36 administrative units directly controlled from the Centre by powerful Mandarin officials – a bureaucracy. A fabulous 150-foot-long Song Dynasty (960-1270) mural depicts a bustling market-place, commerce, thriving trade and a fluid political-economy – marvellous! I have seen it.



Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Features

Thomians triumph in Sydney 

Published

on

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

Features

Marked stress on Asia in US foreign policy

Published

on

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

Features

A Majoritarian Constitution

Published

on

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

Trending