Features

When two Richards fought for Kelaniya in the 1956 elction

Published

2 years ago

2023/10/15

By Avishka Mario Senewiratne

Eight years after independence, Ceylon – relatively new to democracy and independent rule, though looking good on the global canvas – was on the verge of the humiliating defeat of its ruling government led by the United National Party (UNP). The vast masses of Ceylon had been disillusioned by the pro-elite UNP politics and were persuaded to vote for the Mahajana Eksath Peramuna (MEP) led by S. W. R. D. Bandaranaike, the leader of the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP). Though toxic for the future, the majority were inclined to see the implementation of the Sinhala Only Act, canvassed by the MEP in a favourable light.

Since the early 1940s, Junius Richard Jayewardene was known to be a highly accomplished and methodical politician. He served as the Minister of Finance in the Cabinet of D. S. Senanayake (1947-1952) and Dudley Senanayake (1952-53), and as Minister of Agriculture and Land (1953-56) in Sir John Kotelawala’s regime. Undoubtedly, he was second in line to be the leader of the UNP as well as to be Ceylon’s Prime Minister. However, in 1956, despite his excellent track record in politics, there was little he could do to retain his parliamentary seat in Kelaniya when Richard Gotabaya Senanayake challenged him.

Uncle and Nephews of the UNP

The story began with one man who did not live beyond 1901. This was Mudaliyar D. C. G. Attygalle, a father of four; three daughters and a son. The three daughters married John Kotelawala Sr. (father of Sir John), F. R. Senanayake (father of R. G. and brother of D. S.) and Col. T. G. Jayewardene (uncle of J. R.). When Ceylon received independence in 1948, the sons and nephews of all these esteemed gentlemen were prominent members of the United National Party, and in high office or eagerly waiting their entry.

The UNP was chartered in 1946 by D. S. Senanayake, who would be PM a year later. His successors were to be his son and nephew. Some high officials of the party were related to him, as well. For these obvious reasons, critics of the UNP ridiculed the party acronym as “Uncle-Nephew Party” and also pilloried it as “Unge Neyange Paksaya” – ‘their relations’ party’ (Weerawardana, p. 121).

The subjects of this essay, J. R. Jayewardene and R. G. Senanayake were thus related to each other and had a friendship since their childhood. When R. G. Senanayake entered politics in 1944, his friend J. R. was a well-established politician. Despite being a victim of polio and unable to be as active as he would wish, RG strived to serve his people with great charm, enthusiasm and sincerity. According to Prof. K. M. de Silva, RG hardly made an impact in the legislature, and if not for his being the son of F. R. Senanayake, many may have questioned his appointment as Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence and External Affairs in 1947 (de Silva and Wriggins, p. 266). This Ministry was under his uncle DS, the Prime Minister.

The two Richards in San Francisco

In September 1951, all was set for the Japanese Peace Treaty Conference in San Francisco. However, Prime Minister D. S. Senanayake declined to travel for the event despite being Minister of External Affairs as his knowledge of foreign affairs was limited to the sub-continent. He suggested that JR should represent Ceylon. At JR’s request, DS appointed RG to accompany him, along with a private secretary, R. Bodinagoda later Chairman of Lake House. The only other person on the entourage was JR’s wife, Elena Jayawardene.

Not only was this delegation small but it also was poorly equipped, given its lack of informed aides and stenographers unlike delegations of other countries at the San Francisco Conference. Nevertheless, for JR this was a great opportunity and the beginning of a long association with Japan. His 15-minute speech created a major impact on the conference stressing Japan’s right to be a free state. JR became an instant global celebrity and PM Yoshida of Japan shook his hand with tears of joy in his eyes.

This was an unexpected triumph for Ceylon and its future leader, JR. Young R. G. Senanayake received a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to watch how his senior colleague won over leaders of the world in San Francisco. JR and RG along with Sir Claude Corea, the Ambassador of Ceylon to the USA, travelled to various parts of the US visiting the Ceylonese diaspora in that country.

Two Richards, two foes

With the passing of time, RG developed ambitions for high office. However, the presence of his cousins in senior positions deprived him of the opportunity to quickly achieve his political goals. Though concealed by his charm and winning ways, there was little RG could do to prevent displayng his true goals and envy of his cousins. He believed that Prime Minister D. S. Senanayake had taken over his own father’s destiny (F. R. Senanayake died prematurely in 1926) of becoming Ceylon’s first prime minister, and that his cousin Dudley was in the position which would otherwise have been his (see de Silva and Wriggins, pp. 265-266).

Soon, however, a major rift between JR and RG began to appear and their lifelong friendship was over by early 1952. Apart from his political ambitions, the tension between JR and RG was aggravated by a family dispute over RG’s association with his future wife, Erin. The bitterness in their personal lives spilled over into the political field and soon they were enemies.

Yankee Dicky Vs China Dicky

Despite the obvious signs of the careerist in RG, when Dudley was made Premier upon the untimely death of his father, he appointed his cousin RG as Minister of Trade and Commerce, while Jayewardene was re-appointed as Minister of Finance. In this capacity, RG built a formidable name for himself when he convinced the Government of Ceylon to sign the Rubber-Rice Pact with China in 1952. This was the crowning achievement of RG’s political career and it won him the name “China Dicky”.

Realising the demand for rubber in China and his country’s need for rice at the cheapest possible price, RG urged his government to forget their political differences with China and reach a Rubber – Rice Agreement. Though PM Dudley and his Cabinet strongly backed RG’s strategy, the Minister of Finance, now labelled “Yankee Dicky”, was not in favour of the Pact and vehemently opposed it. This was well reported in the Times of Ceylon. Dudley Senanayake believed that the Pact would solve Ceylon’s food shortage and boost the economy to a great extent as well as help find opportunities to seek new markets (see Amarasingam, where ??? p. 3).

JR was critical of the Pact for two reasons. One was that the USA would be (they later were) concerned and critical of Ceylon’s association with China. At a time when Ceylon was seeking entry to the UN, how would other nations perceive such a stance? The other was how China might influence the economy of Ceylon as they were to have a monopoly on the purchase of Ceylon’s rubber.

Nevertheless, the Pact was a great success and, after being renewed every five years, remained in effect till 1982. The supply of rice to Ceylon by China at prices below the world market resulted in a net benefit of about Rs. 92 million in 1953 alone. RG’s popularity was secured in comparison to that of the Minister of Finance. Consequently, the bitterness and envy between the two Richards further deepened.

RG leaves the Cabinet

A year later in 1953, with the infamous Hartal, the sensitive Dudley Senanayake resigned from his office as Prime Minister and thus Sir John Kotelawala – who had been expected to succeed DS in 1952 – was made Ceylon’s third PM. While R. G. Senanayake was re-appointed as Minister of Trade, J. R. Jayewardene was given a new portfolio; that of Minister of Agriculture and Land. JR was Sir John’s most trusted lieutenant and the new PM held him in high esteem and confidence.

On the other hand, Sir John’s relationship with his cousin RG deteriorated by 1954 when the latter opposed the Premier’s contemplated visit to the USA. RG had feared that Sir John would reach a deal with the Americans and break away from Ceylon’s policy of remaining neutral in foreign affairs. Furthermore, RG was critical of the appointment of Sir Oliver Goonetilleke as Governor-General, as well as Sir John’s attempts to seek a solution to the problems of the Indians in Ceylon’s polity.

Partly for these reasons, RG resigned from the Cabinet. However, it was well known that the real reason for his resignation was his opposition to JR whom he severely disliked. Deeply embarrassed by RG’s actions, Sir John later wrote the following in his memoirs: “The good God gave me friends, but the devil gave me my relations. It is an irony of fate that at critical stages of my public career some of my relations, instead of rallying around me, have caused me the most embarrassment and trouble.” (An Asian Prime Minister’s Story, p. 130)

An early election in 1956

1956 was a key year in the annals of Ceylon’s history as the majority of Buddhists were preparing to celebrate the 2500^th Buddha Jayanthi. The Buddhist clergy had asked the government to keep the year free of political agitation. On the other hand, the movement to do away with English as the State language and implement Sinhala Only was making strong headway. The leader of the SLFP, S. W. R. D. Bandaranaike was clamouring for it along with his large coalition of parties (the MEP).

The feudal-style UNP regime had lost much of its credibility with the public as the government failed to cater to their demands despite being a stable regime with much promise. Influenced by the advice of Sir Oliver Goonetilleke, Sir John was keen to hold the elections as early as April 1956. Being neutral on the language policy, on the insistence of many of his aides including JR, Sir John decided to give into Sinhala Only in early 1956.

By doing this last-minute volte-face, Sir John expected the UNP to score a comfortable win. However, he had gravely misread the trends of the day. The majority of Sinhalese had reposed much faith in the MEP while most of the Tamils were angered by Sir John’s last-minute policy shift on the language issue and refused to join forces with him at the election.

JR realised that his party was about to face an inevitable defeat. Furthermore, Sir John Kotelawala’s comments in the press on various social issues made him and his regime even more unpopular. It was in such a milieu that Parliament was dissolved in February 1956 although it could go on until January 1958. Accordingly, nominations were to be handed in by March 8 and the election was to be held on three days – April 5, 7 and 10.

The Kelaniya Electorate

J. R. Jayewardene first entered the State Council through a by-election held in the Kelaniya constituency in 1943. The previous holder of that seat was the most revered Sir Don Baron Jayatilaka who retired from politics and asked JR to succeed him. JR, however, had an opponent in the person of E. W. Perera, the famous freedom fighter. However, the poll favoured of JR as he amassed 21,765 votes against Perera’s 11,570 (Ceylon Daily News, 19.11.1943). Winning this historic election by over 10,000 votes was a great boon in the political life of JR. Through his grandmother (Helena Wijewardene’s) benevolent services to the famous temple of Kelaniya, this constituency was by all means related to JR. Kelaniya was a rural but growing electorate and consisted predominantly of Sinhala Buddhists.

In the subsequent election of 1947, JR once again ran at Kelaniya, under the banner of the newly formed UNP. This time he had a comfortable victory against Bodhipala Waidyasekera of the LSSP by over 7,000 votes (The Parliament of Ceylon 1947, p. 31). At the 1952 General Election, JR’s opponents were his aunt Wimala Wijewardene contesting from the SLFP and Vivienne Goonawardene of the LSSP. Based on this election result, JR reckoned that Kelaniya was not a safe seat for him any more as his majority against these two female candidates was less than 2,000. This was not a good record for JR as 1952 was a year the UNP was at its zenith. Therefore, he calculated that contesting again in Kelaniya was a risk, quite apart from the other troubles the UNP faced in 1956.

RG declares war on JR

R. G. Senanayake who was a Parliamentarian since 1947, had run at Dambadeniya successfully. He won both the 1947 and 1952 elections under the UNP banner with overwhelming majorities. He was expected to contest in the same seat again as he had won great respect and acceptance in this electorate. RG, unlike JR, was more of a people’s man, who rallied around the village folk and listened to their grievances. Wimala Wijewardene, a formidable opponent in the last election, had changed her seat to Mirigama and was expecting a comfortable win. However, until late 1955 there was no idea of whom to nominate for Kelaniya under the SLFP banner or that of any other party.

It was then that R. G. Senanayake declared that he would contest the Kelaniya electorate as an Independent candidate. He would also contest Dambadeniya as an Independent. This came as a great surprise to both JR and the MEP. Everyone knew that this move was to settle a personal vendetta against JR, and the MEP was initially reluctant to support RG, knowing his intentions and temperament. Senior journalist K. K. S. Perera once related to the writer that RG had at once said that he was coming to Kelaniya to remove a bad tooth from the next parliament!

It was clear that there was no other opponent in the calibre of RG who would defeat the all-powerful JR, the second in command in the UNP. For this reason, the MEP backed RG in Kelaniya. They would have good reason to remove JR from Parliament for they knew what a capable, methodical and shrewd politician he was. RG’s popularity under his father’s legacy, as well as the success he gained through the Rubber-Rice Pact, were well noted by the common men and women throughout the country. Another opponent JR had to face in Kelaniya was Ven. Mapitigama Buddharakkita Thera, who was not only the head of the Kelani Temple but also a leader of the Eksath Bikku Peramuna. He too supported RG to force JR’s exit from Kelaniya.

Times of Ceylon, January 28, 1956

JR’s unenthusiastic campaign and fate

After parliament was dissolved, JR holidayed for three days in Wilpattu and returned to Colombo with a much-relaxed mind but well aware of the apprehensions of the UNP. He had few doubts that he would lose his seat. However, he realised he did not have the time to campaign for the UNP in other parts of the country, even though his party needed his support now more than ever. Within a week or two into the campaign, JR fathomed that the UNP and his seat were doomed. Sir John’s blunders and controversial remarks made him unwittingly the MEP’s best campaigner (see de Silva and Wriggins, pp. 307-308). Visiting his own constituency, JR realised that his support had eroded.

He did attract crowds at his meetings in Kelaniya, but nothing similar to RG’s. Soon there were many jeers at these meetings, and stones were being thrown at JR’s car. What was more disappointing to him was to see Mrs. Robert Senanayake, Dudley’s sister-in-law (who was RG’s sister) campaigning against JR. This gave the notion that the Senanayakes were disillusioned with the UNP (see Dissanayaka, p. 40). Though Sir John visited Kelaniya on February 28, few were convinced that JR was winning. Day by day, attendance at JR’s meetings seemed to be diminishing in number.

The election was held on three separate days. The UNP selected those electorates where they were strongest to be held on the first two days. If they had done well on those two dates, it was possible that this would help change the electoral mood in constituenceis they were weak in. JR’s election was scheduled for the third day. However, the rout was clear when the UNP won only eight seats on the first day. The next two days brought the UNP no wins. The MEP, at this election, secured 51 seats with 40.7% of the vote.

The LSSP and the Federal Party won 14 and 10 seats each with vote percentages of 10.2% and 5.4%, respectively. The UNP, though holding 27.3% of the total vote, won just eight seats. Almost all its powerful Ministers, including JR, were defeated. Sir John comfortably won Dodangaslanda and M.D. Banda were among the eight UNPers to win their seats. Eight Independents and three members of the Communist Party were also elected. It was the worst defeat the UNP faced in the 20^th century.

The results in Kelaniya were equally humiliating. As expected, RG topped Kelaniya with 37,023 votes (76%) whereas JR received only 14,187 (24%) votes (The Parliament of 1956, p. 21). JR was badly defeated and RG had accomplished his goal also winning Dambadeniya as an Independent with 94% of the votes against the hapless UNP candidate. This was the first time a single MP was represented two seats in Parliament. JR, knowing his fate, arrived at the Colombo Kachcheri where the votes were counted leaving the place after the results were declared amidst insults and jeers.

His car was hit with stones and rotten fruits as it left the premises. Escorted by the police, JR arrived at Braemar, his home in Ward Place. His driver was in tears and so was his younger brother, H. W. Jayewardene. However, JR remained calm and collected retaining his normal composure despite the humiliating defeat. He retired to his room in silence. A few days later, the man was seen back to normal with his spirits up, interacting with his family and, of course, planning his next election!

Aftermath

JR spoke very little of this episode, but nearly 40 years later in the preface to his memoir, Men and Memories, referred to the 1956 election as an “Electoral Holocaust”. He went on to say, “I had done much for the electorate but was defeated by an intruder in April 1956” (p. ix). With the defeat, one depressing outcome that emerged was that many of his close friends and relatives stayed away from him.

However, with much free time at his disposal, he went into serious reading, especially the six volumes of Winston Churchill’s History of the Second World War. It was through this book that he derived the motto, “In Defeat, Defiance”. JR used his defeat to focus on himself and opted to partner his old friend Dudley Senanayake to rebuild the UNP. Fortunes were such that the defiant JR would go on to become Sri Lanka’s first Executive President in 1978.

RG, on the other hand, was reappointed to the portfolio which he had previously relinquished. He worked closely with the new PM, S. W. R. D. Bandaranaike. Though being asked to resign from one of his two parliamentary seats by the new PM, and also by the press, RG refused to do so (Manor, p. 264). It was once said that during parliamentary votes RG used to raise both hands as he represented both Kelaniya and Dambadeniya!

However, after Bandaranaike’s untimely assassination, RG never came to prominence as a Cabinet Minister in any of the future regimes of 1960 or 1965. Despite being ill, he once again contested in two electorates in 1970 (Dambadeniya and Trincomalee) losing both badly. He passed away prematurely aged 59 in December 1970. He was widely respected for his integrity and sincere care for the common people he represented.

“Defeat is never fatal. Victory is never final. It’s courage that counts.” – Sir Winston Churchill

References

Amarasingam, S. P., (1953), Rice and Rubber: The Story of China-Ceylon Trade, Ceylon Economic Research Association

De Silva, K. M. and Wriggins, H., (1988), J.R. Jayewardene of Sri Lanka, Volume 1, Anthony Blonde/Quartet

Dissanayake, T. D. S. A., (1975), Dudley Senanayake of Sri Lanka, Swasthika

Fernando, J. L., (1963), Three Prime Ministers of Ceylon: An Inside Story, M. D. Gunasena

Jayewardene, J. R., (1992), Men and Memories: Autobiographical Recollections and Reflections, Vikas

Kotelawala, Sir J., (1956), An Asian Prime Minister’s Story, George Harrop & Co.

Manor, J., (1989), The Expedient Utopian: Bandaranaike and Ceylon, Cambridge

The Parliament of 1947,

The Ceylon Daily News

The Parliament of 1956,

The Ceylon Daily News

Times of Ceylon,

January 28, 1956

Weerawardana, I. D. S., (1960), Ceylon General Election

All News Advertisement

Up Next

WILDLIFE AND WILDERNESS IN THE NORTH

Don't Miss

Russia, Asia, Civilizations & Multipolarity: The Valdai View

Click to comment

Features

US-CHINA RIVALRY: Maintaining Sri Lanka’s autonomy

Published

19 hours ago

2025/12/19

Thilina Walpola

During a discussion at the Regional Center for Strategic Studies (RCSS) in Sri Lanka on 9 December, Dr. Neil DeVotta, Professor at Wake Forest University, North Carolina, USA commented on the “gravity of a geopolitical contest that has already reshaped global politics and will continue to mould the future. For Sri Lanka – positioned at the heart of the Indian Ocean, economically fragile, and diplomatically exposed- his analysis was neither distant nor abstract. It was a warning of the world taking shape around us” (Ceylon Today, December 14, 2025).

Sri Lanka is known for ignoring warnings as it did with the recent cyclone or security lapses in the past that resulted in terrorist attacks. Professor De Votta’s warning too would most likely be ignored considering the unshakable adherence to Non-Alignment held by past and present experts who have walked the halls of the Foreign Ministry, notwithstanding the global reshaping taking place around us almost daily. In contrast, Professor DeVotta “argued that nonalignment is largely a historical notion. Few countries today are truly non-aligned. Most States claiming neutrality are in practice economically or militarily dependent on one of the great powers. Sri Lanka provides a clear example while it pursues the rhetoric of non-alignment, its reliance on Chinese investments for infrastructure projects has effectively been aligned to Beijing. Non-alignment today is more about perceptions than reality. He stressed that smaller nations must carefully manage perceptions while negotiating real strategic dependencies to maintain flexibility in an increasingly polarised world.” (Ibid).

The latest twist to non-alignment is Balancing. Advocates of such policies are under the delusion that the parties who are being “Balanced” are not perceptive enough to realise that what is going on in reality is that they are being used. Furthermore, if as Professor DeVotta says, it is “more about perception than reality”, would not Balancing strain friendly relationships by its hypocrisy? Instead, the hope for a country like Sri Lanka whose significance of its Strategic Location outweighs its size and uniqueness, is to demonstrate by its acts and deeds that Sri Lanka is perceived globally as being Neutral without partiality to any major powers if it is to maintain its autonomy and ensure its security.

DECLARATION OF NEUTRALITY AS A POLICY

Neutrality as a Foreign Policy was first publicly announced by President Gotabaya Rajapaksa during his acceptance speech in the holy city of Anuradhapura and later during his inauguration of the 8th Parliament on January 3, 2020. Since then Sri Lanka’s Political Establishment has accepted Neutrality as its Foreign Policy judging from statements made by former President Ranil Wickremesinghe, Prime Minister Dinesh Gunawardena and Foreign Ministers up to the present when President Dissanayake declared during his maiden speech at the UN General Assembly and captured by the Head Line of Daily Mirror of October 1, 2025: “AKD’s neutral, not nonaligned, stance at UNGA”

The front page of the Daily FT (Oct.9, 2024) carries a report titled “Sri Lanka reaffirms neutral diplomacy” The report states: “The Cabinet Spokesman and Foreign Minister Vijitha Herath yesterday assured that Sri Lanka maintains balanced diplomatic relations with all countries, reaffirming its policy of friends of all and enemy of none”. Quoting the Foreign Minister, the report states: “There is no favouritism. We do not consider any country to be special. Whether it is big or small, Sri Lanka maintains diplomatic relations with all countries – China, India, the US, Russia, Cuba, or Vietnam. We have no bias in our approach, he said…”

NEUTRALITY in OPERATION

“Those who are unaware of the full scope and dynamics of the Foreign Policy of Neutrality perceive it as being too weak and lacking in substance to serve the interests of Sri Lanka. In contrast, those who are ardent advocates of Non-Alignment do not realize that its concepts are a collection of principles formulated and adopted only by a group of like-minded States to meet perceived challenges in the context of a bi-polar world. In the absence of such a world order the principles formulated have lost their relevance” (https://island.lk/relevance-of-a neutral-foreign-policy).

“On the other hand, ICRC Publication on Neutrality is recognized Internationally “The sources of the international law of neutrality are customary international law and, for certain questions, international treaties, in particular the Paris Declaration of 1856, the 1907 Hague Convention No. V respecting the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers and Persons in Case of War on Land, the 1907 Hague Convention No. XIII concerning the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers in Naval War, the four 1949 Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol I of 1977 (June 2022)” (Ibid).

“A few Key issues addressed in this Publication are: “THE PRINCIPLE OF INVOILABILITY of a Neutral State and THE DUTIES OF NEUTRAL STATES.

“In the process of reaffirming the concept of Neutrality, Foreign Minister Vijitha Herath stated that the Policy of Neutrality would operate in practice in the following manner: “There is no favoritism. We do not consider any country to be special. Whether it is big or small, Sri Lanka maintains diplomatic relations with all countries – China, India, the US, Russia, Cuba or Vietnam. We have no bias in our approach” (The Daily FT, Oct, 9, 2024).

“Essential features of Neutrality, such as inviolability of territory and to be free of the hegemony of power blocks were conveyed by former Foreign Minister Ali Sabry at a forum in Singapore when he stated: “We have always been clear that we are not interested in being an ally of any of these camps. We will be an independent country and work with everyone, but there are conditions. Our land and sea will not be used to threaten anyone else’s security concerns. We will not allow military bases to be built here. We will not be a pawn in their game. We do not want geopolitical games playing out in our neighbourhood, and affecting us. We are very interested in de-escalating tensions. What we could do is have strategic autonomy, negotiate with everyone as sovereign equals, strategically use completion to our advantage” (the daily morning, July 17, 2024)

In addition to the concepts and expectations of a Neutral State cited above, “the Principle of Inviolability of territory and formal position taken by a State as an integral part of ‘Principles and Duties of a Neutral State’ which is not participating in an armed conflict or which does not want to become involved” enabled Sri Lanka not to get involved in the recent Military exchanges between India and Pakistan.

However, there is a strong possibility for the US–China Rivalry to manifest itself engulfing India as well regarding resources in Sri Lanka’s Exclusive Economic Zone. While China has already made attempts to conduct research activities in and around Sri Lanka, objections raised by India have caused Sri Lanka to adopt measures to curtail Chinese activities presumably for the present. The report that the US and India are interested in conducting hydrographic surveys is bound to revive Chinese interests. In the light of such developments it is best that Sri Lanka conveys well in advance that its Policy of Neutrality requires Sri Lanka to prevent Exploration or Exploitation within its Exclusive Economic Zone under the principle of the Inviolability of territory by any country.

Another sphere where Sri Lanka’s Policy of Neutrality would be compromised is associated with Infrastructure Development. Such developments are invariably associated with unsolicited offers such as the reported $3.5 Billion offer for a 200,000 Barrels a day Refinery at Hambantota. Such a Project would fortify its presence at Hambantota as part of its Belt and Road Initiative. Such offers if entertained would prompt other Global Powers to submit similar proposals for other locations. Permitting such developments on grounds of “Balancing” would encourage rivalry and seriously threaten Sri Lanka’s independence to exercise its autonomy over its national interests.

What Sri Lanka should explore instead, is to adopt a fresh approach to develop the Infrastructure it needs. This is to first identify the Infrastructure projects it needs, then formulate its broad scope and then call for Expressions of Interest globally and Finance it with Part of the Remittances that Sri Lanka receives annually from its own citizens. In fact, considering the unabated debt that Sri Lanka is in, it is time that Sri Lanka sets up a Development Fund specifically to implement Infrastructure Projects by syphoning part of the Foreign Remittances it receives annually from its citizens . Such an approach means that it would enable Sri Lanka to exercise its autonomy free of debt.

CONCLUSION

The adherents of Non-Alignment as Sri Lanka’s Foreign Policy would not have been pleased to hear Dr. DeVotta argue that “non-alignment is largely a historical notion” during his presentation at the Regional Center for Strategic Studies in Colombo. What is encouraging though is that, despite such “historical notions”, the political establishment, starting with President Gotabaya Rajapaksa and other Presidents, Prime Ministers and Ministers of Foreign Affairs extending up to President AKD at the UNGA and Foreign Affairs Minister, Vijitha Herath, have accepted and endorsed neutrality as its foreign policy. However, this lack of congruence between the experts, some of whom are associated with Government institutions, and the Political Establishment, is detrimental to Sri Lanka’s interests.

If as Professor DeVotta warns, the future Global Order would be fashioned by US – China Rivalry, Sri Lanka has to prepare itself if it is not to become a victim of this escalating Rivalry. Since this Rivalry would engulf India a well when it comes to Sri Lanka’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEC), Sri Lanka should declare well in advance that no Exploration or Exploitation would be permitted within its EEC on the principle of inviolability of territory under provisions of Neutrality and the UN adoption of the Indian Ocean as a Zone of Peace.

As a measure of preparedness serious consideration should be given to the recommendation cited above which is to set up a development fund by allocating part of the annual dollar remittances to finance Sri Lanka’s development without depending on foreign direct investments, export-driven strategies or the need to be flexible to negotiate dependencies; A strategy that is in keeping with Sri Lanka’s civilisational values of self-reliance. Judging from the unprecedented devastation recently experienced by Sri Lanka due to lack of preparedness and unheeded warnings, the lesson for the political establishment is to rely on the wisdom and relevance of Self-Reliance to equip Sri Lanka to face the consequences of the US–China rivalry.

by Neville Ladduwahetty ✍️

Features

1132nd RO Water purification plant opened at Mahinda MV, Kauduluwewa

Published

19 hours ago

2025/12/19

Thilina Walpola

Sponsors (senior management from M/S Perera and Sons), Principal and SLN officials at Opening of RO Plant

A project sponsored by Perera and Sons (P&S) Company and built by Sri Lanka Navy

Petroleum Terminals Ltd
Former Managing Director Ceylon Petroleum Corporation
Former High Commissioner to Pakistan

When the 1132nd RO plant built by the Navy with funds generously provided by M/S Perera and Sons, Sri Lanka’s iconic, century-old bakery and food service chain, established in 1902, known for its network of outlets, numbering 235, in Sri Lanka. This company, established in 1902 by Philanthropist K. A. Charles Perera, well known for their efforts to help the needy and humble people. Helping people gain access to drinking water is a project launched with the help of this esteemed company.

The opening of an RO plant

The Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) started spreading like a wildfire mainly in North Central, North Western and Eastern provinces. Medical experts are of the view that the main cause of the disease is the use of unsafe water for drinking and cooking. The map shows how the CKD is spreading in Sri Lanka.

School where 1132nd RO plants established by SLN

In 2015, when I was the Commander of the Navy, with our Research and Development Unit of SLN led by a brilliant Marine Engineer who with his expertise and innovative skills brought LTTE Sea Tigers Wing to their knees. The famous remote-controlled explosive-laden Arrow boats to fight LTTE SEA TIGER SUCIDE BOATS menace was his innovation!). Then Captain MCP Dissanayake (2015), came up with the idea of manufacturing low- cost Reverse Osmosis Water Purification Plants. The SLN Research and development team manufactured those plants at a cost of one-tenth of an imported plant.

The writer with his PSO’s daughter

Gaurawa Sasthrawedi Panditha Venerable Devahuwe Wimaladhamma TheroP/Saraswathi Devi Primary School, Ashokarama Maha Viharaya, Navanagara, Medirigiriya

The Navy established FIRST such plant at Kadawatha-Rambawa in Madawachiya Divisional Secretariat area, where the CKD patients were the highest. The Plant was opened on 09 December 2015, on the 65th Anniversary of SLN. It was an extremely proud achievement by SLN

Areas where the RO plants are located

First, the plants were sponsored by officers and sailors of the Sri Lanka Navy, from a Social Responsibility Fund established, with officers and sailors contributing Rs 30 each from their salaries every month. This money Rs 30 X 50,000 Naval personnel provided us sufficient funds to build one plant every month.

Observing great work done by SLN, then President Maithripala Sirisena established a Presidential Task Force on eradicating CKD and funding was no issue to the SLN. We developed a factory line at our R and D unit at Welisara and established RO plants at double-quick time. Various companies/ organisations and individuals also funded the project. Project has been on for the last ten years under six Navy Commanders after me, namely Admiral Travis Sinniah, Admiral Sirimevan Ranasinghe, Admiral Piyal de Silva, Admiral Nishantha Ulugetenna, Admiral Priyantha Perera and present Navy Commander Vice Admiral Kanchana Banagoda.

Each plant is capable of producing up to 10,000 litres of clean drinking water a day. This means a staggering 11.32 million litres of clean drinking water every day!

The map indicates the locations of these 1132 plants.

Well done, Navy!

On the occasion of its 75th Anniversary celebrations, which fell on 09 December 2025, the Navy received the biggest honour. Venerable Thero (Venerable Dewahuwe Wimalarathana Thero, Principal of Saraswathi Devi Primary Pirivena in Medirigiriya) who delivered the sermons during opening of 1132nd RO plant, said, “Ten years ago, out of 100 funerals I attended; more than 80 were of those who died of CKD! Today, thanks to the RO plants established by the Navy, including one at my temple also, hardly any death happens in our village due to CKD! Could there be a greater honour?

Features

Poltergeist of Universities Act

Published

19 hours ago

2025/12/19

Thilina Walpola

The Universities Act is back in the news – this time with the present government’s attempt to reform it through a proposed amendment (November 2025) presented by the Minister of Education, Higher Education and Vocational Education, Harini Amarasuriya, who herself is a former academic and trade unionist. The first reading of the proposed amendment has already taken place with little debate and without much attention either from the public or the university community. By all counts, the parliament and powers across political divisions seem nonchalant about the relative silence in which this amendment is making its way through the process, indicative of how low higher education has fallen among its stakeholders.

The Universities Act No. 16 of 1978 under which Sri Lankan universities are managed has generated debate, though not always loud, ever since its empowerment. Increasing politicisation of decision making in and about universities due to the deterioration of the conduct of the University Grants Commission (UGC) has been a central concern of those within the university system and without. This politicisation has been particularly acute in recent decades either as a direct result of some of the provisions in the Universities Act or the problematic interpretation of these. There has never been any doubt that the Act needs serious reform – if not a complete overhaul – to make universities more open, reflective, and productive spaces while also becoming the conscience of the nation rather than timid wastelands typified by the state of some universities and some programs.

But given the Minister’s background in what is often called progressive politics in Sri Lanka, why are many colleagues in the university system, including her own former colleagues and friends, so agitated by the present proposed amendment? The anxiety expressed by academics stem from two sources. The first concern is the presentation of the proposed amendment to parliament with no prior consultative process with academics or representative bodies on its content, and the possible urgency with which it will get pushed through parliament (if a second reading takes place as per the regular procedure) in the midst of a national crisis. The second is the content itself.

Appointment of Deans

Let me take the second point first. When it comes to the selection of deans, the existing Act states that a dean will be selected from among a faculty’s own who are heads of department. The provision was crafted this way based on the logic that a serving head of department would have administrative experience and connections that would help run a faculty in an efficient manner. Irrespective of how this worked in practice, the idea behind has merit.

By contrast, the proposed amendment suggests that a dean will be elected by the faculty from among its senior professors, professors, associate professors and senior lecturers (Grade I). In other words, a person no longer needs to be a head of department to be considered for election as a dean. While in a sense, this marks a more democratised approach to the selection, it also allows people lacking in experience to be elected by manoeuvring the electoral process within faculties.

In the existing Act, this appointment is made by the vice chancellor once a dean is elected by a given faculty. In the proposed amendment, this responsibility will shift to the university’s governing council. In the existing Act, if a dean is indisposed for a number of reasons, the vice chancellor can appoint an existing head of department to act for the necessary period of time, following on the logic outlined earlier. The new amendment would empower the vice chancellor to appoint another senior professor, professor, associate professor or senior lecturer (Grade I) from the concerned faculty in an acting capacity. Again, this appears to be a positive development.

Appointing Heads of Department

Under the current Act heads of department have been appointed from among professors, associate professors, senior lecturers or lecturers appointed by the Council upon the recommendation of the vice chancellor. The proposed amendment states the head of department should be a senior professor appointed by the Council upon the recommendation of the vice chancellor, and in the absence of a senior professor, other members of the department are to be considered. In the proposed scheme, a head of department can be removed by the Council. According to the existing Act, an acting head of department appointment can be made by the vice chancellor, while the proposed amendment shifts this responsibility to the Council, based upon the recommendation of the vice chancellor.

The amendment further states that no person should be appointed as the head of the same department for more than one term unless all other eligible people have already completed their responsibilities as heads of department. This is actually a positive development given that some individuals have managed to hang on to the head of department post for years, thereby depriving opportunities to other competent colleagues to serve in the post.

Process of amending the Universities Act

The question is, if some of the contents of the proposed amendment are positive developments, as they appear to be, why are academics anxious about its passing in parliament? This brings me to my first point, that is the way in which this amendment is being rushed through by the government. This has been clearly articulated by the Arts Faculty Teachers Association of University of Colombo. In a letter to the Minister of Education dated 9 December 2025, the Association makes two points, which have merit. First, “the bill has been drafted and tabled in Parliament for first reading without a consultative process with academics in state universities, who are this bill’s main stakeholders. We note that while the academic community may agree with its contents, the process is flawed because it is undemocratic and not transparent. There has not been adequate time for deliberation and discussion of details that may make the amendment stronger, especially in the face of the disaster situation of the country.”

Second, “AFTA’s membership also questions the urgency with which the bill is tabled in Parliament, and the subsequent unethical conduct of the UGC in requesting the postponement of dean selections and heads of department appointments in state universities in expectation of the bill’s passing in Parliament.”

These are serious concerns. No one would question the fact that the Universities Act needs to be amended. However, this must necessarily be based on a comprehensive review process. The haste to change only sections pertaining to the selection of deans and heads of department is strange, to say the least, and that too in the midst of dealing with the worst natural calamity the country has faced in living memory. To compound matters, the process also has been fast-tracked thereby compromising on the time made available to academics to make their views be known.

Similarly, the issuing of a letter by the UGC freezing all appointments of deans and heads of department, even though elections and other formalities have been carried out, is a telling instance of the government’s problematic haste and patently undemocratic process. Notably, this action comes from a government whose members, including the Education Minister herself, have stood steadfastly for sensible university reforms, before coming to power. The present process is manoeuvred in such a manner, that the proposed amendment would soon become law in the way the government requires, including all future appointments being made under this new law. Hence, the attempt to halt appointments, which were already in the pipeline, in the interim period.

It is evident that rather than undertake serious university sector reforms, the government is aiming to control universities and thereby their further politicization amenable to the present dispensation. The ostensible democratis0…..ation of the qualified pool of applicants for deanships opens up the possibilities for people lacking experience, but are proximate to the present powers that be, to hold influential positions within the university. The transfer of appointing powers to the Councils indicates the same trend. After all, Councils are partly made up of outsiders to the university, and such individuals, without exception, are political appointees. The likelihood of them adhering to the interests of the government would be very similar to the manner in which some vice chancellors appointed by the President of the country feel obligated to act.

All things considered, particularly the rushed and non-transparent process adopted thus far by the government does not show sincerity towards genuine and much needed university sector reforms. By contrast, it shows a crude intent to control universities at any cost. It is extremely regrettable that the universities in general have not taken a more proactive and principled position towards the content and the process of the proposed amendment. As I have said many times before, whatever ills that have befallen universities so far is the disastrous fallout of compromises of those within made for personal gain and greed, or the abject silence and disinterest of those within. These culprits have abandoned broader institutional development. This appears to be yet another instance of that sad process.

In this context, I have admiration for my former colleagues in the Faculty of Arts at the University of Colombo for having the ethical courage to indicate clearly the fault lines of the proposed amendment and the problems of its process. What they have asked is a postponement of the process giving them time to engage. In this context, it is indeed disappointing to see the needlessly conciliatory tone of the letter to the Education Minister by the Federation of University Teachers Association dated December 5, 2025, which sends the wrong signal.

If this government still believes it is a people’s government, the least it can do is give these academics time to engage with the proposed amendment. After all, many within the academic community helped bring the government to power. If not and if this amendment is rushed through parliament in needless haste, it will create a precedent that signals the way in which the government intends to do business in the future, abusing its parliamentary majority and denting its credibility for good.