Connect with us


The Indrasaramaya in Aruggoda



By Uditha Devapriya

In his book on the rock and wall paintings of Sri Lanka, Senake Bandaranayake questions whether the southern tradition of Buddhist temple art was derived from or inspired by the Kandyan tradition. Though displaying an entirely different character from Kandyan art, low country temple paintings nevertheless shared certain affinities, in particular its depiction of Gautama Buddha and his disciples. Yet such affinities intersected with certain unique traits, such as its depictions of the underworld.

Though we know very little about the culture in the Maritime Provinces in the 18th century, we know that with British annexation of the low country and later the Kandyan kingdom, Buddhist art underwent a pivotal transformation. This accompanied what Bandaranayake notes as “the transmission of Buddhist leadership” to the low country.

Such transformations had a profound impact even on temples in the Maritime Provinces linked to the monastic chapters of Kandy. Yet though connected to Kandy, their association with the latter chapters did not erode their independent character. As Kitsiri Malalgoda has noted, geography played as much a role in the formation of different Buddhist sects as did caste, which is how high caste laymen in the South felt inclined to offer alms to Salagama-affiliated Amarapura Nikaya rather than the Govigama-affiliated Siam Nikaya.

A similar disruption transpired in the mid-19th century when a breakaway faction in Kotte threatened the monopoly of the Malwatte and Asgiriya Chapters in the Siam Nikaya. Not surprisingly, certain low country played a significant role in these developments. Malalgoda notes several of these temples, including one rather unlikely Viharaya situated in the border between the Colombo and Kalutara districts, in Aruggoda.

The Rajavaliya refers to Aruggoda as Arakshagoda. After Alakeshwara, a Minister in the reign of Vikramabahu III of Gampola, destroyed a fleet of ships belonging to Arya Chakravarthi in Panadura, it is said that he stationed his troops at Arakshagoda to ensure the protection of the Raigam Kingdom. This was reputedly the highest point in the region.

Local folklore has it that Arakshagoda changed throughout the years and decades, from Arakgoda, Arukgoda, Aruggodawila, and finally to Aruggoda. We can never be sure, but what we can be sure of is that Parakramabahu VI of Kotte turned the region into a viharagam.

Although Aruggoda doesn’t contain a significant Catholic population, along the Panadura-Ratnapura road it begins with a Christian cross: a kurusa handiya between Pamunugama and Alubomulla. The entire area, which borders on the Bolgoda Lake, is linked to Panadura through Hirana. In the 19th century the Buddhists of Panadura had agitated for a viharaya in their vicinity; the Rankot Vehera had not yet been built. The temple, the Indrasararamaya, would be built in the vicinity and quickly became pivotal to the spread of Buddhism in the surrounding areas and beyond, though it took a cool half a century to be complete.

With the ordination of a new Buddhist order under Welivita Saranankara during Kirti Sri Rajasinghe’s reign, the links between various temples and pirivenas gained strength. Among Saranankara’s pupils was Dehigaspe Atthadissi, who the records say was quite close to Kirti Sri Rajasinghe and who took up his teacher’s work. He sought shelter at the Muthugala Viharaya in Dambulla, from where he oversaw the restoration of the Kelaniya Temple. Given his influence several disciples gathered around him; to one of them, Sangharakkitha, he devolved the responsibility for the welfare of the others, before passing away at Kithaladeniya Viharaya.

One of Sangharakkitha’s disciples was Waththawe Indrasara. As with his teachers, Indrasara had committed himself to the restoration of temples that had been destroyed by the colonial powers, particularly in that interlude when Buddhism was flourishing after the fall of the Dutch.

Given the enormity of his task Waththawe Indrasara Thera regularly sojourned from one place to another. It so happened that one day, on a pilgrimage from his abode at Mathugala to Galle, he passed Aruggoda. The inhabitants there had been planning on building a temple; the site proposed was to be on the same higher ground that Alakeshwara had reputedly stationed his troops at in Maha Aruggoda.

The problem was that the village lacked a Chief Prelate. Upon seeing Indrasara Thera, a group of residents at the Panadura courts prevailed on him to take up the position. After listening to their pleas, the monk agreed, and agreed to the site they had selected.

From then for over four decades, the villagers worked hard to complete the temple. It wasn’t easy, not least because the most typically used material for the construction of such sites included pol leli and meti (much more formidable than gadol), the latter of which had to be transported from Kandy. Nevertheless, at the time of the monk’s passing away in 1852, the temple had been built; through his will Indrasara Thera transferred the surrounding areas to the viharaya. By then he had, moreover, a retinue of 18 disciples, all of whom would, through their own disciples, provide the impetus for the building of temples in adjacent areas.

Despite being a stronghold, however, the Viharaya’s reputation seems to have gradually diminished in later years. It had been run as an outfit of the Asgiriya Chapter, and in keeping with the practice of the time had admitted only those of the higher castes (though low castes had been allowed the lesser privilege of the upasampadawa). Later it became the centre from which the Kotte fraternity of the Asigiriya Chapter operated, overseeing a network of 18 temples. The Indrasararamaya at one point took precedence within that network, so much so that it was at Aruggoda where the upasampadawa and ordination ceremonies for laymen in the region was carried out.

However, in keeping with the recurring cycle of unification and fragmentation in the Buddhist order after the capitulation of the Dutch, it had also been a witness to the rise of rebel sects. Around the time of Indrasara Thera’s passing away a new schism had emerged in the Siyam Nikaya, owing to a proposal made by a monk called Bentara Aththadissi that a low country (high caste) faction be constituted. The monks of the Siyam Nikaya, which included Hikkaduwe Sri Sumangala, had wholeheartedly disagreed; nevertheless in June 1855, despite the prohibition on them laid by the Malvatta Chapter, Bentara Aththadissi’s clan met at the Kotte temple (the Chief Incumbent of which was Aththadissi’s pupil) and decided to call themselves the Kalyani Fraternity. Among the monks who were allied with this splinter group had been Panadure Sumangala, one of Indrasara Thera’s pupils.

The support extended to the Kalyani monks by the Indrasaramaya didn’t end there. Malamulle Vijitha, another of Indrasara Thera’s pupils, had donated several kos trees belonging to the temple to the construction of a building for the fraternity, particularly after the priests of the Kelani Temple had refused to throw their support behind it. The rifts between the conservatives, the rebels, and the loyalists in the low country would continue for a long, long time, and during this period, the sympathies of the Aruggoda temple remained steadfastly with the rebels. From a historical perspective, it illustrates the waning power of the Kandyan chapter of the Siyam Nikaya, and the rise of a low country priesthood in the post-Kandyan Convention era.

Over the decades the Indrasaramaya gained much despite these alignments. We are told that in 1906 a ganta kulunak (bell tower) was constructed with the help of a Tamil builder called Kurupaiyyar, and that during the Korean War Manamulle Vijitha Thera suggested the setting up of a rubber plantation near the premises. Given the boom in rubber, the revenue the temple earned had ushered in new improvements, including the installation of a generator which, from six to 10 at night, would illuminate the site. The viharaya had been besieged by destruction too: in 1983, when repair work was underway, the structure supporting the makara thorana had come off. Residents hadn’t rebuilt it for fear of compelling the collapse of the rest of the Budu Madura, which explains the vacant spaces adjoining the statues of the deities today.

Presently the reputation of the temple has somewhat diminished. Kitsiri Malalgoda skirts around it in his book Buddhism in Sinhalese Society, while virtually no proper study of the temple, let alone the places around the temple, has been done despite references to Aruggoda in various old texts. There is no doubt that Aruggoda served as a viharagam at the time of Parakramabahu VI, along with other villages such as Medimala and Kuda Weligama; D. B. Jayatilake lists it among the four villages donated to the Pepiliyana Viharaya in 1454 AD. The history of the Indrasaramaya obviously predates its construction in 1806.

Leaving aside its history, what can we say of its architecture, its paintings, and its statues? The latter, it has been observed elsewhere, bear little to no resemblance to their counterparts in the temples of Kandy; they lack what is called the “bhayankara vilashaya” in the viharas of the hill country. The Buddha images are perhaps among the most prominent here: locals tell me that the reclining statue is the largest in the low country, though this remains doubtful at best.

Located a good 90 minutes from Colombo, Aruggoda is certainly fast developing: property prices are on the rise, and its proximity to Bandaragama, Panadura, Piliyanda, and also the Bolgoda Lake has served to accentuate its historical prominence. It was doubtless a place of learning and scholarship in ancient times: Vidagama, from where Vidagama Maithri Thera emerged, is not far away, and Panadura, to be the centre of the Buddhist revival, is its neighbour. The state to which the Indrasaramaya has, depending on how you view it, matured or receded tells us a lot about how places of worship are bonded to the places they occupy, in more ways than one.

The writer can be reached at

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