Features
US House of Representatives Res. 413 on Sri Lanka

by Neville Ladduwahetty
The bipartisan House Res. 413 introduced by Congresswoman Deborah Ross (for herself, Mr. Johnson of Ohio, Mr. Danny K. Davis of Illinois, Mr. Sherman, and Ms. Manning) on May 18, 2021 was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
The Preambular Paragraphs contain the background material from which the initiators of Res. 413 resolved on seven issues to be presented to the Foreign Affairs Committee.
These seven issues are presented below:
(1) acknowledges the 12th anniversary of the end of the war in Sri Lanka and offers its deepest condolences to all those affected by the conflict;
(2) honours the memory of those who died and reaffirms its solidarity with the people of all communities in Sri Lanka in their search for reconciliation, reconstruction, reparation, and reform;
(3) commends the United Nations Human Rights Council for prioritizing the collection and preservation of evidence related to human rights violations, a process that must not be interfered with by the Government of Sri Lanka;
(4) recognizes the bravery and commitment of advocates for justice across all communities in Sri Lanka, including the Tamil families of the disappeared, whose protests and demands for answers have at times been met with threats, intimidation, and harassment by government security forces;
(5) urges the international community to advocate for and protect the political rights and representation of the historically oppressed northeastern region of Sri Lanka and work towards a permanent political solution to address the underlying issues that led to ethnic conflict;
(6) recommends the United States explore investigations and prosecutions pursuant to the recommendations of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights; and
(7) urges the United States to work with the United Nations General Assembly, the United Nations Security Council, and the United Nations Human Rights Council to establish a credible and effective international mechanism for accountability for the grave crimes committed during the war in Sri Lanka.
The Comments presented below are in respect of Resolutions (2); (5); (6); and (7). Resolution (2) is to “honour the memory of those who died…”, Resolution (5) calls upon the international community to “work towards a permanent political solution to address the underlying issues that led to the conflict” and Resolutions (6) and (7) relate to issues of accountability.
RESOLUTION (2) – “memory of those who died”.
COMMENT:
While it is customary to honour the memory of those who died during to the armed conflict, it must be acknowledged that those who died are from all ethnic and religious communities. Therefore, it is natural that the practices adopted by different communities would be in keeping with their respective cultural traits. However, an issue that needs to be acknowledged is that it would be unlawful to publicly display symbols of the LTTE during memorialization procedures in member states that have proscribed the LTTE as a terrorist entity. To permit the display of such symbols is to violate their own provisions under which the LTTE was proscribed.
RESOLUTION (5)
– “work towards a permanent political solution…”.
COMMENT:
The permanent political solution introduced by Sri Lanka at the behest of India following the Indo-Lanka Accord in 1987 was the 13th Amendment. The fact that the conflict persisted for the next 22 years until May 2009, despite serious attempts to negotiate a permanent political solution within the framework of the 13th Amendment, demonstrates with absolute clarity that the political rights granted under the 13th Amendment fall far short of the expectations of the Tamil people. On the other hand, leaving aside the fact the people of Sri Lanka also opposed the 13th Amendment, fulfilling the aspirations of the Tamil people to the extent they aspire to, is NOT in India’s own national interests because India cannot accept a situation where the Tamil community in Sri Lanka enjoys political rights in excess of what is granted to the Tamil majority in Tamil Nadu. This being the case, India saw to it that a limit to political power to the Tamil people in Sri Lanka was recognized and accepted by the international community during the recently adopted UNHRC Resolution A/HRC/46/L.1/Rev.1 which stated: “Calls upon the government of Sri Lanka to fulfill its commitments on the devolution of political authority…and to ensure that all provincial councils, including northern and eastern provincial councils are able to operate effectively, in accordance with the thirteenth amendment to the Constitution of Sri Lanka”.
India’s External Affairs Minister Dr. S. Jaishankar is reported to have stated during his last visit to Sri Lanka that ‘Delhi insists on the importance of the 13th Amendment in fulfilling the expectations of the Tamil people for equality, justice, peace and dignity’ (The Island, January 7, 2021). Therefore, it could be concluded that as far as India is concerned the 13th Amendment is expected to be the upper limit beyond which a permanent political solution would be unacceptable to India. The rationale for this limit is because the “Stability, security, and prosperity of Sri Lanka is (not only) in India’s interest, but also in the interest of the entire Indian Ocean”, as stated by India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi during Sri Lanka’s Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa’s visit to India.
The observations of a former President of India, Pranab Mukherjee in his autobiography is of extreme importance. He opined that bilateral ties between India and Sri Lanka had been “greatly influenced by Tamil politics in India, particularly with the emergence of a strong Dravidian party (DMK) in Tamil Nadu since the mid-60s”. Continuing, the report also states “on the concept of Tamil Eelam the former President observed that it was raised by ‘the Tamil population residing on both sides of the Palk Strait…” (Daily News, January 11, 2021).
The perspective presented by the Tamil diaspora is that a political solution based on a federal arrangement with the right of self-determination, is realistically achievable. The hard reality is that such an arrangement is unacceptable not only to the people of Sri Lanka but also to Delhi because any political arrangement beyond the 13th Amendment would impact on the security and territorial integrity of both States. Now that the DMK who supported the aspirations of the Tamils in Sri Lanka is back with a majority in the State Assembly of Tamil Nadu, not only Sri Lanka but also Delhi is deeply concerned that the initiative taken by Res. 413 for a political solution to meet Tamil expectations in Sri Lanka would impact seriously on the security and stability in respect of India’s territorial integrity and that of Sri Lanka as well. Hence, the insistence by Delhi of the importance of the 13th Amendment. Furthermore, any arrangement beyond the 13th Amendment that would have serious implications on the territorial integrity of India would impact on the ability of India to be play an effective role as a member of the Quad that is intended to partner with the US in the security of the Indo-Pacific.
RESOLUTION (6) – “US to explore investigations and prosecutions pursuant to the recommendations of the UN
High Commissioner for Human Rights”.
COMMENT:
Since the Res. 413 is influenced by the recommendations of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, it is pertinent that the Resolution pays particular attention to recommendations in Paragraphs 182 and 183 in the Report of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on Sri Lanka (OISL).
Paragraph 182 states: “Article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions relating to conflict not of an international character is applicable to the situation in Sri Lanka” AND Paragraph 183 states: “In addition, the Government and armed groups that are parties to the conflict are bound alike by relevant rules of customary international law applicable to non-international armed conflict”.
Since Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions have been expanded and incorporated as Additional Protocol II of 1977 applicable to Non-International Armed Conflict and ratified by 168 Member States as of 2020, the conduct of the conflict in Sri Lanka should be evaluated in the context of an Armed Conflict under provisions of Additional Protocol II of 1977. Thus Additional Protocol II should be included within the body of Customary International Law, and any investigations and prosecutions the US intends to explore, should follow the guidelines in Additional Protocol II.
RESOLUTION (7) – The US to work with the UNGA, Security Council and UNHRC to establish an international mechanism to address accountability.
COMMENT:
For the US to work with three organs of the UN namely the General Assembly, the Security Council and the UNHRC is a direct violation of Article 2 (7) of the Charter of the United Nations .
Article 2 (7) states: “Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter…”
The need for Resolution (7) is perhaps because of the prejudice against the domestic mechanism established by the Government of Sri Lanka. In order to convey its credibility key provisions of the mandate of the Presidential Commission of Inquiry as per Gazette No. 2211/55 of 21, January, 2021 is presented below.
“Whereas the decision taken by the Government of Sri Lanka to withdraw from co-sponsorship of 40/1 Resolution on March 2019 on Reconciliation, Accountability and Promotion of Human Rights in Sri Lanka and its preceding resolution 30/1 of October 2015 and 34/1 of March 2017 has been announced at the 43rd session of the United Nations Human Rights Council on 26th and 27th of February 2020″…
“appoint you Hon A. H. M. D. Nawaz Esq, Judge of the Supreme Court; Chandra Fernando Esquire, Retired Inspector-General of Police; Nimal Abeysiri, Retired District Secretary, to be my Commissioners to investigate and inquire and take necessary action to report on the following matters, namely –
(a) Find out whether preceding Commissions of Inquiry and Commissions which had been appointed to investigate into human rights violations have revealed any human rights violations, serious violations of the international humanitarian law and other such serious offences;
(b) Identify what are the findings of the said Commissions and Committees related to the serious violations of human rights, serious violations of international humanitarian law and other such offences and whether recommendations have been made on how to deal with the said facts;
(c) Manner in which those recommendations have been implemented so far in terms of the existing laws and what steps need to be taken to implement those recommendations further in line with the present Government policy;
(d) Overseen of whether action is being taken according to (b) and (c) above”.
Further, I do hereby authorize and empower you, the said Commissioner, to cause or cause the conduct of necessary investigations and inquiries and require you to transmit to me Interim Reports where necessary and the final Report within six months of the date hereof…”
CONCLUSION
The key intentions of US House Res. 413 are to work towards a permanent political solution to address underlying issues that led to the conflict (Resolution 5) and to address issues relating to accountability (Resolutions (6) and (7).
In the background of India insisting on the importance of the 13th Amendment as the means to address concerns of the Tamil people, the attempt by the US to explore fresh political arrangements is to engage in efforts that run counter to the geopolitical and strategic interests of one of the key partners of the security alliance of Quad. Furthermore, this attempt by the US ignores the rationale for India to initiate the Indo-Lanka Accord judging from the statement made by Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi. He stated that the Accord had “Prevented the island nation from coming into the orbit of some superpower trying to tighten their hold in Sri Lanka on the pretext of helping to find a solution to the four year old ethnic conflict” (Kodikara, p.147, Indo-Sri Lanka Agreement). As far as India is concerned US Res.413 is nothing but an attempt to get a “hold in Sri Lanka” as warned by a former Prime Minister, even though India is with the Quad security alliance.
As for addressing issues relating to Accountability, any intended action should be cognizant of the fact that from February 2002 until May 2009 the conflict was a non-international armed conflict and therefore applicable provisions of Additional Protocol II that are based on Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions should govern any investigations and prosecutions; a fact endorsed by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OISL).
The attempt by the US to work with UN and its Agencies to establish international mechanism to address accountability is not only a violation of Article 2 (7) of the UN Charter because the UN and its Agencies are not authorized to intervene “in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any member state….”, but also to question the credibility of the domestic mechanism established by Sri Lanka.
In summary, House Res. 413 appears to be more of an attempt to please its promoters, and in the process the drafters of the Resolution have failed to recognize broader geopolitical ramifications of their proposals and have even gone to the extent of ignoring the fundamentals such as violating the provisions of the UN Charter itself.
Features
Could Trump be King in a Parliamentary System?

by Rajan Philips
Donald Trump is sucking almost all of the world’s political oxygen. Daily he is stealing the headline thunder in all of the western media. The coverage in other countries may not be as extensive but would still be significant. There is universal curiosity over the systemic chaos that Trump is unleashing in America. There is also the no less universal apprehension about what Trump’s disruptive tariffs will do to the lives of people in reciprocal countries. There are legitimate fears of a madman-made recession not only in America but in all the countries of the world. There is even a warning from a respected source of a potential repeat of the Great Depression of the 1930s.
The question of this article obviously shows its Sri Lankan bias. For there is no country in the world that has been so much preoccupied, for so long, on so constitutional a matter – as the pros and cons of a parliamentary system as opposed to a presidential system. And only in Sri Lanka will such a question – whether Trump could be a king in a parliamentary system – makes sense or find some resonance, any resonance. Insofar as the current NPP government is committed to reverting back to its old parliamentary system from the current presidential system, the government could use all Trump and his presidential antics as one of the justifications for the long awaited constitutional change.
A Historical Irony
It is not that every presidential system is inherently prone to being turned into an upstart monarchy. The historical irony here is that America’s founding fathers decided on a presidential system at a time when there was no constitutional model or prototype available in the world. In fact, the American system became the world’s first constitutional prototype. The founding fathers had all the experiential reason to be wary of the parliamentary system in England because it was associated with the King who was reviled in the colonies. Yet the founding fathers were alert to the risks involved. James Maddison reminded that “If men were angels, no government would be necessary;” and John Adams warned that man’s “Avarice, Ambition, Revenge or Gallantry, would break the strongest Cords of our Constitution as a Whale goes through a Net.”
But for over 200 years, no American president tried to break the country’s political constitutional system for reasons of avarice, anger and revenge, as Trump is doing now. Presidents in other countries with far less traditions of checks and balances have been dealt with both politically and legally for their excesses and trespasses. In Brazil, the system was turned against both the current President Lula and his previous successor Dilma Rousseff. In between them, Jair Bolsonaro imitated Trump in Brazil and even tried to launch a coup after his re-election defeat in 2022, emulating Trump’s insurrection in Washington, in January 2021. But in Brazil, Bolsonaro has been accused of and charged for his crime, while in America its Supreme Court let Trump walk away with immunity and to be back as president for another round.
In Philippines, the current government of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. has turned over its former President Rodrigo Duterte to stand trial at the International Criminal Court in The Hague, on charges of crimes against humanity for his allegedly ordering the killing of as many as 30,000 people as part of his campaign against drug users and dealers. In Sri Lanka, Mahinda Rajapaksa tried to be king, unsuccessfully sought a third term, and set up the system for family succession. But the people have spurned the Rajapaksas and questions as to whether they have been given undue protection from prosecution keep swirling. To wit, the contentious Al Jazeera interview of former President Ranil Wickremesinghe.
In the US, Trump is nonstick and remains untouched. Unlike the prime minister in a parliamentary system, an American president has no presence in the legislature except for the ceremonial State of the Union address. And unlike no other president before him, Trump has created the theatre of daily press conferences, rather chats, before an increasingly hand picked group of journalists. There he turns lies into ex cathedra pronouncements, and signs executive orders like a king issuing edicts. No one questions him instantly, his base hears what he wants them to hear, and by the time professional fact checkers come up with their red lines, Trump and his followers have moved on to another topic. This has become the daily parody of the Trump second term.
No prime minister in any parliament can get away with this nonsense. Every contentious statement will be instantly challenged and refuted if necessary. Parliamentary question periods are the pulse of the political order especially in crisis times. After being in the House of Commons gallery during a visit to England, President Richard Nixon was astonished at the barrage of questions that Prime Minister Harold Wilson had to face and provide answers to. These are minor differences that are hardly noticed in normal times. But the Trump presidency is magnifying even the minor shortcomings of a major political system.
Trump’s cabinet is another instance where the American system is falling apart. The President’s cabinet in America is based on unelected officials approved by the Senate. Until cabinet secretaries or ministers have generally been well equipped academics or professionals and were selected by successive presidents based on their known political leanings. Their ties to corporate America were well known but that was always somewhat qualified by the clear motivation to excel by providing exceptional service to the country.
Trump’s second term cabinet comprises a cabal of self-serving ‘yes’ men with no stellar background in the academia or the professions. They are all there to do Trump’s bidding and to disrupt the orderly functioning of government. Their ineffectiveness is now daily manifested in the drama over Trump’s decisions on tariffs which vary by the time of day and his mood of the moment. The reciprocal countries do not know what to expect, but they have learnt that any agreement that they reach with Trump’s ministers means nothing and that there will be nothing certain until Trump makes his next announcement.
Americans, and others, will have to go through this for the next four years, but in a parliamentary system there could be quicker remedies. A prime minister cannot erratically hold on to power for a full term, and as British parliamentary experience has recurrently shown prime ministers are brought down by cabinet ministers when they have outlived their usefulness to the government and the country. There is no such recourse available in the US. The device of impeachment is simply inoperable in a divided legislature and Trump has demonstrated this twice in one term.
Growing Pushback
Yet after the initial weeks of shock and awe, push-back to Trump is now growing and is slowly becoming significant. Within America the resistance is mostly in the courts, especially the lower federal courts, where the judges are ordering against the stoppage of USAID contract payments, the manifestly illegal firing of government employees, indiscriminate accessing of government data by Musk and his DOGE boys, and the barring by executive order of a law firm that had once represented Hillary Clinton from doing business with the federal government.
Also, in the highly watched case against the deportation order served on the Columbia University student Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian with Green Card status and married to a fellow Palestinian who is a US citizen, the courts have ordered the government to stop the deportation process until the case is resolved. Mr. Khalil was a prominent leader of the student protests at Columbia against the Israeli devastation of Gaza, and the District Judge ordering the temporary ban on deportation is Jesse Furman, an exceptionally qualified American Jew who was appointed by President Obama and was once touted as a potential Supreme Court judge.
The wider push-back is mostly overseas and is predicated on retaliatory tariffs by countries that Trump is imposing tariffs against. In different ways and for different reasons, China and Canada are aggressively pushing back. Mexico is resorting to both flattery and firmness. And the EU is launching a systematic response. Other countries will be forced into the fray if Trump lives up to imposing the much anticipated reciprocal tariffs against all countries that now charge tariffs on imports from the US.
Even without tariffs their uncertainty has been enough to roil markets with stock indices plunging dramatically from the heights reached soon after the November election and the much promised regime of monumental tax cuts. One of the worst stock slumps has been that of Elon Musk’s Tesla. In what is being considered to be the worst such slide in the history of the auto industry, Tesla has lost all of the 90% increase in value it achieved after the presidential election and now gone lower than its pre-election value. Between December 2024 and March 2025, Tesla’s dollar worth fell from $1.54 trillion to $777 billion, a near 50% drop.
Tesla’s misfortune is a schadenfreude moment for those who abhor Musk for his political trespasses. Political aversion is certainly a factor in Tesla’s misfortunes and declining sales, but materially not the main one. Other factors that are more significant are issues with the brand products and stiff EV competition from China. But political distractions catch the eye, and protesters have been turning up at the Tesla dealers in the US. Trump called them the lunatic left and to boost his buddy’s products he even stage managed a sales pitch for Tesla vehicles at the White House driveway. And this is after executively rescinding all of Biden’s initiatives to boost the production and use of Electric Vehicles. What better way to make America great again?
Fighting Oligarchy
Political commentaries in the West are preoccupied with speculations over how, when and where all of Trump’s orders and initiatives will impact people’s lives and their politics in America. One comforting constant is the presidential term limit that will stop Trump’s presidency in January 2029, although Trump will never stop musing about a third term in office. Just like annexing Canada, purchasing Greenland and expropriating Gaza. Mercifully, he has not made any claim to immortality.
The elusive variable is the response of the people. So far, Trump has been able to maintain his hold over his base and he is pulling a tight leash on the Republicans in Congress to toe the line given their narrow margins in both the House and the Senate. The base is indicating support to all his madman initiatives even though Trump has fallen back to his usual negative approval rating (more people disapprove than approve of him) in popular opinion polls. What is not clear is when the public will turn on the president if he actually imposes tariffs on consumer goods, keeps firing government employees, and keeps eroding social welfare.
Trump won the election promising to bring down the prices and cost of living instantly, but everything he is doing now is driving up the costs and people will start registering their dissatisfaction. Unlike in Britain there is no tradition to cheer the monarch and damn the government. Sooner or later, Americans will have nothing to cheer their king for, but everything to damn him, because this ersatz king is also their government.
There are scattered protests in many parts of America, with people showing up at local town hall meetings organized by Republican congressmen. But the protest against the deportation of Columbia University student Mahmoud Khalil is likely to gather traction and is already drawing a spectrum of supporters including progressive Jewish and other American citizens. A Jewish organization called Jewish Voice for Peace has organized a sit in protest in support of Khalil in the lobby of Trump Tower in New York. Other high rise buildings may be targeted.
More resoundingly, Senator Bernie Sanders has launched a national tour for “Fighting Oligarchy” and drew a crowd of ten thousand people at his first stop in Michigan. The tour will be a teaser to the Democratic Party leadership that is currently stuck in its tracks like a hare caught in Trump’s headlights. The Party is going by the calendar and waiting for its turn at the next mid-term elections in 2026, and the full election year in 2028 to elect the next president. The old campaign heavyweight James Carville has publicly advised the party to “play dead” until Trump’s systemic chaos turns the people against the Administration. Not everyone is prepared to be so patient.
New York Congress woman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) is not prepared to “completely roll over and give up on protecting the Constitution.” She wants immediate and consistent opposition to Trump and not to play the waiting game according to the electoral calendar. Trump for one does not wait for anything and breaks every rule to advance his indeterminate agenda. Among the Democrats, AOC has the most extensive social media base, and many Democrats are encouraging her to take the next step and announce her candidacy for New York’s Senate seat. She is a shrewd politician and is well positioned to open another front against Trump, paralleling the national tour that Bernie Sanders has launched.
Features
The Royal-Thomian and its Timeless Charm

By Anura Gunasekera
Big matches come and go; today they are numerous but the Royal-Thomian, the first of its kind in this country, stands apart as an eternal metaphor for tradition, style, charm, excitement and unpredictability. No other sporting encounter in the country, not even an international event, generates the passionate rivalry, the limitless appeal, the widespread social enthusiasm, the Bacchic revelry or the fervent anticipation, as does the battle between these two tribes. This writer does not mean any offence to other schools or to other sporting encounters, but does not see the need to entertain a dissenting view.
The match ceased to be a mere sporting event many decades ago. It has become a microcosm of the passage of life, mirroring the broader human experience. Over the decades it has shaped a generational continuity, with a new group stepping in to continue the tradition, an honoured legacy, as one generation exits. It fosters growth and change, whilst remaining anchored to a revered tradition rooted, albeit, in a colonial past. As much as individuals inherit legacies, values and expectations from their families and communities, the match has fostered a tradition which has remained a constant for one-and-a-half centuries.
The fact that its original spirit is still very much alive, despite the social and national changes which have evolved around it, and that its founding concept has been embraced and emulated by so many other schools, is testament to its relevance to life today, notwithstanding its antiquity, and its genesis in a British-imposed elitism and exclusivity- the latter an accusation frequently levelled against the event and the institutions which generate it. The Sri Lanka of today is unrecognizably different from the colonial Ceylon which birthed the Royal-Thomian, but that encounter remains the same, as it was 146 years ago. The actors, the locations , the institutions and the scope of the event have changed, but the founding spirit is untouched.
This iconic encounter has come to symbolize healthy competition, nourishing rivalry, the value of determination, preparation and team-work and the will-to-win, but all within an inviolable framework of fair play and sportsmanship. It respects history whilst enriching it with each successive encounter, finding ways, through exceptional individual and team performances , to contribute to and enhance an ongoing fable. It fosters a sense of belonging and pride, not just for individuals but for the larger community. It is no longer the exclusive property of the Royal-Thomian tribesmen but has embraced a massive extended family of supporters, aficionados, enthusiasts and well-wishers. It has become an inclusive feast.
The encounter teaches that despite differences and challenges, unity and collaboration from both competing parties are essential for success and growth. As in life, for both teams there is immense pressure to perform and to succeed in what is a high-stakes encounter, to meet the expectations of a society which has grown around it, and formed special identities linked to the competition- family, school, culture and country.
The match, in essence, is a cauldron which shapes triumph and failure, the joy of victory and the anguish of defeat, and the ability to accept both with grace and equanimity, coupled with the determination to make amends at the next encounter. It reflects the eternal truths of the human experience, that life is not always kind, that nature is not always fair, that despite your best efforts the other side will sometimes do better, even if it is not the best equipped or the more fancied. To use a highly over-used cliché, ” the race is not always to the swift”, and cricket proves it time and time again.
The 146th edition of this celebrated encounter reflected, in a multitude of ways, all the contradictions and commonalities described above.
STC, after winning the toss, sent Royal, the pre-match favourites, in to bat, on what appeared to be a typically friendly and placid SSC wicket. After an initial stutter which seemed to justify a risky decision by STC, Royal settled down and went on to post an imposing 319/7. Rehan Pieris crafted a majestic 158, watched reflectively, from the comfort of the “Mustangs” enclosure, by Ronald Reid, a batting genius of a different era, who compiled the identical score for STC in 1956. In doing so he erased the previous Royal-Thomian batting record of 151 by Norman Siebel of STC, established in 1936.
The writer, who, as a ten year old Thomian watched the Reid enterprise, can now claim the privilege of having seen two brilliant performances, separated from each other by a distance of 69 years; the quality in both so similar, despite the first being an elegant left-hander and the recent edition from an aggressive right-hander, that it was like being in a time-warp.
STC, undeterred by the mountain of runs confronting them, produced a decent response of their own. Dineth Goonewardene, with an excellent century- the first by a Thomian since 2016- scored at a brisk rate, made a major contribution. Royal, in their second essay , seemed very much in control with all features pointing to a comfortable draw, when the unpredictability of cricket reared its menacing head; out of the humid and burning-hot ether, Darien Diego, bowling a steady, but unthreatening line and length all afternoon, suddenly produced the feared hat-trick; according to statisticians only the third by a Thomian in the history of the series. Royal, perhaps compelled, and perhaps slightly befuddled, by the unexpected reversal of fortune, made what was a challenging but sporting declaration, throwing down the gauntlet, as it were.
The target of 233 in 42 overs was daunting but given some measured adventurism, not unattainable. STC did exactly that, achieving it with an over to spare. Jaden Amaraweera and Mithila Charles provided early stability at the top with calculated but quick accumulation and Sadev Soysa, in the middle, with a short but fiery knock, reduced a demanding run-rate to manageable proportions.
One outstanding feature of the Thomian victory was the nerveless batting of 15 year old newcomer, Reshon Solomon, a somewhat disputed inclusion in the team, at the expense of coloursman Abeeth Paranawidana. Solomon, despite having had only two previous outings and both in friendly matches, justified his selection for the big stage with a brilliant half-century, scored alongside the first innings centurion, Goonewardane, matching the latter shot-for-shot. The pair batted with such composure that a seemingly elusive target soon became a certainty.
Irrespective of the reasons which prompted it, the early declaration by Royal made a decision possible. One must not forget that losing three batsmen in three deliveries and with two wickets left, they could have, quite justifiably, opted for the safer option of batting till the end and closing down the game. Royal obviously declared with a different result in mind but cricket is capricious, which is also a feature of its allure.
This writer first attended the Royal-Thomian in 1955, and has witnessed all the matches since, barring a brief hiatus in the early 19-seventies. Memories of individual matches, however exciting, are now vague though, the details lost in the fog of excessive merriment, generated in exclusive but boisterous enclosures like the “Colts”, “Stallions” and, latterly, the more sedate “Mustangs”. However, one Thomian victory which still remains indelible in memory is that of 1964, when STC, under the late Premalal Goonesekera, clinched victory in a nail-biting finish, providing a decision after ten consecutive drawn matches ( ’54-’63). That match is also remembered for Sarath Seneviratne’s brilliant 96, breaking Thomian hearts by falling short of a century, a tragedy he re-enacted in the very next Royal-Thomian as well, losing his wicket at 97. In a parody of fame, Sarath is recalled more often by Thomians for the centuries that he failed to score, than are other batsmen who actually did.
The 2025 Thomian victory too will similarly remain in the writer’s memory, for the much shorter lease of life now left to him. But more than the Thomian win, which will eventually become a statistic, the unforgettable feature of the game was the generous spirit, the fierce but fair competition, and the genuine respect which the competitors displayed towards each other. Those are life-lessons, far more important than the end-result, for all to take away, emulate and cherish.
Features
Oscars recognizing talent, overlooking skin colour and racial origins

The 97th Academy Awards ceremony presented by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS), took place on March 2 at the Dolby Theater in Hollywood, LA. A total 23 awards popularly named Oscars were presented to selected actors and films of those released in 2024. Doubt existed about holding the ceremony live or on-line since forest fires were into Hollywood itself and calling for stars to vacate their homes.
An article on Merle Oberon sent me finding facts about a notion I had that the Academy came in for criticism as being racist; only white stars were nominated for awards ignoring Black Americans and actors of other races like Indian. In the early years of Hollywood, actors who had foreign blood flowing in their arteries hid this fact assiduously. If even suspected, they would be suspended from stardom.
Merle Oberon (1911-1979, born Estella Merle O’Brian Thompson) was an acclaimed star in Hollywood from 1934, starting her acting career in silent films and moving on with great effort and painstaking training to look like and speak like an American. She used bleach heavily to lighten her skin. After her origins were known, she was recognized as Hollywood’s first South Asian star. Sri Lanka or rather Ceylon has a claim here, since Merle’s grandmother was born in Ceylon, a Burgher, it is said.
Charlotte Selby, born in Ceylon, moved to Bombay and married an Anglo-Irish tea plantation foreman. Her daughter, Constance Selby, was raped by her stepfather, the foreman, when just 14 and gave birth to a child – Merle – who was brought up by her grandmother Charlotte Selby. Her biological mother was to the world her older sister. When the child was three, the family moved to Calcutta. There Merle won a scholarship to an upper grade private school.
It was known she was of mixed racial birth – an Anglo-Indian – looked down upon by both the British and Indians. Merle was unhappy and took refuge in watching movies. In 1939, an English jockey she was in a relationship with, offered her the opportunity to migrate to England; thus on the pretext of being married to him, Merle moved to London. There she met Hungarian film person Alexander Korda, who promoted her entry into acting. She married him later.
A rising star, she moved to the US in 1934. Samuel Goldwyn spotted and promoted her.
She was nominated for an Oscar the next year for her stellar role in The Dark Angel but lost to Bette Davies. The racial prejudice was worse in Hollywood than in Britain, so Merle had to be extra watchful and diligent in hiding her South Asian origins. Apart from central government rules against immigration and bias against migrants, Hollywood followed the Hays Code which declared inter-racial marriage, sex as crimes. Merle invented she was born in Tasmania and thus untainted white.
Doubts and rumours surfaced about her non-whiteness in spite of her face appearing white with heavy bleaching; her learning to speak Americanese and cameras specially designed to film her which showed her skin to be fairer, she felt under threat until conditions eased. The truth about her parents was revealed publicly with the publication of Charles Higham and Roy Moseley’s 1983 biography Princess Merle. Earlier when her nephew, Samuel Korda,
wanted to write her biography, she threatened to sue him and cut him out of her will. She died of a stroke at age 68 with her secret not publicly punctured.
All white Oscars invaded by colour
Even after the likes of Merle Oberon, racial prejudice was severe. The first coloured actor to win an Oscar was Hattie McDaniel for her portrayal of the loyal nanny in the O’Hara family who tightened daughter Scarlett’s corset strings to near-non-breathing tightness in the 1940 film Gone with the Wind. There was uproar and objection to an African American, then called Black, winning an Academy Award alongside Vivien Leigh and Clark Gable.
McDaniel was a singer and film and theatre actor who suffered intense racial discrimination throughout her career. Atlanta held the premier of the film since its author Margaret Mitchel lived and wrote in Atlanta. Hattie was debarred from attending the all-white premier. At the Oscars ceremony in LA, she had to sit at a segregated table at the side of the room. She gave her reason for suffering these indignities: “I can be a maid for $7 a week. Or I can play a maid for $700 a week.”
She faced discrimination even within the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) whose leader, Walter Francis White, looked down on her and other actors as “Playing the clown before the camera.” However it did force Hollywood to give more opportunities to African Americans in film roles. More help was given, probably, by outstanding stars of the likes of Sydney Poitier.
In 2016, after another all-white set of acting nominations, the #OscarsSoWhite protest movement gained global attention. Yet, the next two years also saw all Oscars being awarded to white actors. Things improved after that: more non-whites winning acting awards but also for other sections like Best Director. Mira Nair was nominated for her direction of the films Namesake and Mississippi Masala and won the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language film Salaam Bombay in 1989.
Non-White stars
Plenty in this category and increasing. I will however write about two of them.
Sir Ben Kingsley
was born in Snainton near Scarborough in Yorkshire to a Gujerati father from Jamnagar and an English mother, in 1943, and named Krishna Pandit Bhanji. Within five decades of his acting career he received accolades and awards including Oscars, Bafta, Golden Globe, Grammy and Primetime Emmy. He won one Academy Award and was nominated for three more and the Britannia Award in 2013. He was honoured by the Queen by being appointed Knight Bachelor in 2002 for his service to the British film industry.
Kingsley began his acting career by joining the Royal Shakespeare Company in 1967 and continued in it for the next 15 years. The year he joined he acted in As You Like It and subsequently acted in many Shakespeare plays He was also into television roles.
The role he is best known for is Mahatma Gandhi in Richard Attenborough’s feature film Gandhi (1982). Those who saw it were suitably stunned by the close resemblance between the real Gandhi and Ben Kingsley portraying him. What I remember best are the actor’s eyes, deep and shiny showing great kindness, humility and determination too.
The film won eight Oscars including Best Actor; Best Director, Best Picture, Art Direction, Cinematography, Costume Design and Best Screenplay. It was also named by the British Film Institute the 34th greatest British film in the 20th century.
Incidentally the highest number of Oscars won in a year – 11 – are shared by three films: Ben Hur 1959; The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King 2003; Titanic 1997. West Side Story 1961 won ten Oscars. Two films won nine each: The Last Emperor 1987 and The English Patient 1996. Five films that won eight Oscars each are Slumdog Millionniare, My Fair Lady, Gandhi, From Here to Eternity, Cabaret.
Moving to the now, I include among Indian stars who have made their mark worldwide – Frieda Selena Pinto. Born in 1984 to Catholic parents from Mangalore, Karnataka, she was raised in Mumbai and schooled at St Xaviers’. Her mother was the principal of a school in West Mumbai and her father a senior branch manager for the Bank of Vadga in Bandra, West Bengal. Frieda was determined from a young age to be an actor. She turned model for two and a half years and appeared in many TV ads for products like Wrigley’s Chewing Gum. Promoted to Television producer, she visited many countries. Then she got the boost she needed to fulfill her dream: acting. She was selected to play the female lead role in the 2008 production of Slumdog Millionaire opposite Dev Patel who was selected in Britain as he was already in films. Slumdog … was directed by Danny Boyle and filmed in India, much of it in the Juhu slums which is its backdrop. It swept the awards board: Oscar, Bafta et al.
In 2020 Frieda starred as Usha Bala Chilakuri, Stanford law student and special girl friend of JD Vance, the film being about his life until he enters politics. I watched Hillbilly Elegy (2020), much about the Vice President’s mother’s battle with addiction to drugs and was struck by how closely Frieda resembled the young Mrs Vance; notwithstanding film make-up. Frieda is still very much in films, seeking roles in both Hollywood and Bollywood.
-
Foreign News24 hours ago
Search continues in Dominican Republic for missing student Sudiksha Konanki
-
News4 days ago
Alfred Duraiappa’s relative killed in Canada shooting
-
Opinion6 days ago
Insulting SL armed forces
-
Features3 days ago
Richard de Zoysa at 67
-
Editorial5 days ago
Ghosts refusing to fade away
-
Features3 days ago
SL Navy helping save kidneys
-
Features5 days ago
The Gypsies…one year at a time
-
Midweek Review4 days ago
Ranil in Head-to-Head controversy