ව්යවස්ථා සභාව, උයන්ගොඩ හා විග්නේෂ්වරම්
The Jathika Hela Urumaya objects to Jayadeva Uyangoda’s nomination to the Constitutional
Council because he once served a twelve-year sentence, and the prime minister to C.V.
Wigneswaran’s. Ivan answers that the 1977 government repealed the law Uyangoda was sentenced
under and gazetted that it should not follow him, that Gandhi, Mandela and D.S. Senanayake
were all imprisoned men, and that being Tamil does not make a retired Supreme Court judge a
separatist. The deeper fault, he argues, is a constitution written to place the president
above itself.
රටේ දේශපාලන නායකත්වය පිළිබඳ ගැටලුව
A Sunday Times survey of 519 people for the sixtieth anniversary asked which post-independence leader had most capacity to take the country forward. No leader had won the confidence of a majority; D.S. Senanayake came first and even he scored low; Chandrika Kumaratunga drew one per cent. Ivan reads the result as a verdict on what the office does to whoever holds it.
නිසරු නායකයින් නිසා වැනසෙන රටක්
Prompted by commemorations of J.R. Jayewardene, S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike and Sirimavo Bandaranaike, Ivan sets out what makes a great leader and assesses every head of government since independence, from D.S. Senanayake to Chandrika Kumaratunga, finding none who qualifies. Contrasting Nehru, Mahathir Mohamad, Chandrababu Naidu and Lee Kuan Yew, who wrote books setting out their vision, he blames the lack of internal party democracy, family dominance and the belief that a leader must be Sinhala, Buddhist and Govigama.
නිදහසේ උභතෝකෝටිකය
On the 54th Independence Day, Ivan laments that freedom won without struggle left Sri Lanka without the attitudes or institutions to hold its communities together. Contrasting its record with Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia and India, he cites negative growth, 15 per cent inflation, war costs and some 100,000 deaths, and argues that no leader since 1948, Sinhala or Tamil, has won the respect of all communities.
ලැබූ නිදහසේ ඇති නොගැලපුම
On the anniversary of Independence, Ivan argues that because Ceylon won freedom without struggle, its communities never forged a real national unity. Citing Lord Soulbury’s foreword to B.H. Farmer’s Ceylon: A Divided Nation, he notes that Section 29 did not stop the citizenship laws or the Sinhala Only Act, and that minority representation fell short of expectations. A new constitution alone will not solve the ethnic problem; Sinhala and Tamil democratic aspirations must be joined in a common movement.
Fifty three years of incomplete freedom
The fifty-third anniversary of independence falls today. The country was moving from feudalism to capitalism, and what was expected of independence was not freedom from colonialism — colonialism had produced only a modern nationalist state. National integration was the condition of real independence, and it was never met.
සුළු ජාතීන් පිළිබඳ ගැටලුව හා යෝජිතස්වාධීන කොමිෂන් හතර
Answering TULF secretary R. Sampanthan, who said the four commissions cannot secure democracy without constitutional change for minorities, Ivan argues that the south’s democratic demands and the north’s minority rights are two sides of one crisis, rooted in a democracy received from the British without a unifying freedom struggle. He praises the Jaffna Youth Congress, Sri Nissanka and Wilmot Perera, and recalls how the citizenship laws and Sinhala Only overrode Soulbury safeguards while Chelvanayakam lost before a dependent judiciary. He urges Tamils and Muslims to back the commissions.
Self interest in making constitutions
As a nation we are on the edge of a great abyss, and the leaders behave like crabs dancing in water until it boils — so blinded by hunger for power that they cannot see the danger to themselves, let alone the danger to the country.