By Veeragathy Thanabalasingham
Professor G.L. Peiris, who headed the Government delegation during the various rounds of Norwegian-mediated peace talks between the Government of Sri Lanka and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) in the early part of this century, recently released a book titled ‘The Sri Lanka Peace Process: An Inside View’.
While we may hold distinct opinions regarding the sincerity with which the Government pursued the peace process at that time, Prof. Peiris’s book warrants widespread attention as he participated as the Government’s Chief Negotiator.
In the very first paragraph of the first chapter, his observations regarding the origin of the idea of power-sharing in Sri Lanka are essential for the younger generation of all communities to understand, especially in the current context where all Tamil nationalist political parties are insisting on a permanent solution to the national ethnic issue based on a federal system.
Writing that the themes of power-sharing, devolution, and federalism explored in his book do not have their origins in ethnicity-related issues, Prof. Peiris reminds us that federalism was proposed as a suitable governance structure for Sri Lanka in an entirely different context.
He notes that, initially, the federal proposal was not linked to Tamil aspirations, but rather to the aspirations of the Kandyan Sinhalese.
Bandaranaike’s advocacy of federalism
There is a fitting – though perhaps coincidental – relevance to the Professor mentioning this now, as this year marks exactly one century since former Prime Minister S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike first called for a federal system of government in Sri Lanka.
D.B.S. Jeyaraj, a veteran Sri Lankan journalist and political analyst living in Canada, recently authored an English article titled ‘100 years after S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike’s clarion call for federalism’.
Jeyaraj begins his article by quoting constitutional expert Dr. Rohan Edirisinghe’s piece, ‘Federalism: Myths and Realities’. Edirisinghe noted that long before Tamil political leaders advocated for federalism, a young Bandaranaike in the early 1920s and Kandyan Sinhalese representatives before the Donoughmore Commission in the late 1920s campaigned for it. The Kandyan Sinhalese even proposed a federal Sri Lanka consisting of three provinces, including one for the north and east.
Jeyaraj writes: “[…] S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike, the greatest intellectual among Sinhala political leaders of that era […] advocated some form of federalism as the only solution as far back as 1926. Kandyan Sinhalese leaders recommended a federal arrangement of two units for low- and up-country Sinhalese and one unit comprising the north-east for Tamils in 1927.
“Ironically the Sri Lankan Tamils rejected federalism when recommended by the Sinhalese. If Sri Lankan Tamil political leaders had availed themselves of the opportunity and demanded that the British grant federalism for the Tamils of the north and east, there was every chance that the request might have been acceded to.
“The Sri Lankan Tamil political leaders did not demand federalism or even a separate state while the British were ruling. Instead these demands were raised by Tamil leaders only after the British left our shores.”
A 100 years ago, Bandaranaike wrote six letters to the Ceylon Morning Leader newspaper arguing that federalism was best for Sri Lanka. On 26 July 1926, he travelled to Jaffna to deliver the Jaffna Lecture to convince the Tamils. Speaking on the topic ‘Federation as the Only Solution to Our Political Problems,’ he argued that regional autonomy was the correct way to address ethnic differences.
However, the Tamils rejected his plea to join the advocacy for federalism. The Jaffna Students’ Congress (later renamed the Jaffna Youth Congress) opposed the federal proposal.
Blueprints for a federal system
After returning to the country in 1925 following a brilliant education at Oxford University, Bandaranaike was a member of the Ceylon National Congress while also founding the Progressive National Party to achieve political autonomy. The Constitution of that party included a blueprint for the federal system Bandaranaike had in mind.
Identifying the low-country Sinhalese, Kandyan Sinhalese, and Tamils as the primary groups of the country, this Constitution insisted on a structure based on nine provinces, each possessing complete autonomy.
Jeyaraj notes that all members of the Progressive National Party supported Bandaranaike’s idea, except for his close friend, scholar James T. Rutnam. At that time, the proposal for federalism did not incite communal feelings or opposition from the Sinhalese; the harshest opposition came not from a Sinhalese, but from a Tamil.
It is also noteworthy that Leonard Woolf, a famous British Civil Service officer in Sri Lanka during the colonial era, suggested in the late 1930s that the Swiss canton system was most suitable for Sri Lanka.
In a 1938 report to the British Government, Woolf suggested creating five cantons: a low-country Sinhalese province, a Kandyan Sinhalese province, a northern Tamil province, an eastern Tamil province, and a fifth canton encompassing the tea plantation areas where hill-country Tamils of Indian origin were the majority.
As far as we know, Woolf was the only person to recommend a separate canton for the plantation workers to protect their national interests.
Anticipating the argument that Sri Lanka was too small for a canton system, he pointed out that the country covered an area 10,000 square miles larger than Switzerland’s. Regarding ethnic populations, he compared the German speakers of Switzerland to the Sinhalese, French speakers to the Tamils, and Italian speakers to the Muslims.
These were suggestions made by a progressive Englishman who lived in Sri Lanka for seven years as a colonial administrator and understood its people intimately.
Had the Tamil leaders of the time joined Bandaranaike in campaigning for federalism, the political history of Sri Lanka would certainly have been different.
However, following the introduction of universal franchise and territorial representation through the Donoughmore Constitution in 1931, Bandaranaike’s political outlook began to change. We shall look at the subsequent political developments in the next part of this article.
(The writer is a senior journalist based in Colombo)
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the official position of this publication.
Leave a comment