One cannot but agree fully with Jayawickreme “that subsequent events – both tragic and destructive – is now history” So very true. Then why blame Prabhakran for everything under the sun for the country’s evils? Minorities – and Tamils in particular – were ready to go along with the 1946 arrangements in the solemn assurance minority rights will not be desecrated by the Sinhala majority leadership.

Jayawickreme speculates the British Govt would not have agreed for Independence to Ceylon otherwise. Well! the Brits knew what the coming colours will be if the Sinhalese reneged on these guarantees. Why Colvin did not structure his Constitution maintaining these features suggests nothing but mischief and infamy.

Jayawickreme blames a Senior Minister for imposing the Unitary State and the Ministry of Justice for the Privy Council issue. As to conferring a special Status on Buddhism he observes – something with which many then and today agree on if “Buddhism survived in the hearts and minds of the people for over five centuries” and despite such Conquistadoras as the Portugese and to a lesser extent the Dutch and the British “a Constitutional edict for its protection was not necessary” The truth is it only helped in rubbing deep an already festering would on the faithful and apprehensive followers of other religions.

Mrs Sirimavo B was never known to be a great thinker and it is not surprising to learn from Jayawickrema she insisted 1956 was a Social Revolution and not a political one. In situations such as this one is reminded of the irrepressible Oscar Wilde and his sensational comment “Those who cannot learn take to teaching”.

That 1956 was more a political than a social revolution is now universally accepted. If Colvin was the true democrat many believed he was, on seeing the dissappointmnent of the TUF MP’s then – all distinguished and learned Lawyers – in the way the Constituent Assembly was trampling on the rights of the Tamils resulting in their walking out of the deliberations he could have advised the anti-Tamil PM Sirimavo and many of the learned Ministers then an alternative to include the wishes of the Tamil MPs should be found and they persuaded to continue to be part of the deliberations of the CA for it to enjoy some modicum of legitimacy. Why did he not take this enlightened stand? If one understood the difficult nature and obstinacy of Colvin one would not speculate Colvin would have stood silent when others in the then Cabinet, Jayawickreme comments, made suggestions against Colvin’s considered views. Colvin would have blasted Felix, Justice Minister Jayamanne, Sirimavo and others if they interfered with his Constitution making efforts.

The reality is Colvin the Marxist, whom Jayawickreme defends ably, chose to become Colvin the politician and therein lies the sins of the 1972 Constitution of which Colvin – and very few others – must be entrusted with paternity. At least Jayawickreme and I agree on one broad facto. To use his words “the 1972 Constitution failed the test” Very little doubt about that, Sir.

It is a mystery why Colvin changed his stance on ‘parity’ between 1948 & 1972.

His nephew, now heading the APRC strenuously defrnds his actions !
Prof Vitarana is Dr NMPerera’s nephew.

JRJayawardene went further and created a constitutional monster which cannot be abolished and made the executive president a virtual dictater in addition, and ‘crowned’ himself as the first one.

He also ‘invented’ the provincial councils which are a ‘white elephant’ which nobody now wants, except the politicos who benefit from it.

Will these persons be remembered as those who ruined the nation and past five generations?

Look, how many times the constitution of USA, which was drafted 200 years ago, Australia, drafted 100 years ago, and many other leading countries got amended – A few times. It shows the leaders of those countries looked for a long term solution and had vision. On the other hand, Sri Lankan leaders from all ethnic groups are, I would happily say bigots.

That is the pity. We still see the same type of people leading the country. Since, the people never fought for independence, and it was given on the plate by the departing East India Company, so those idiotic leaders couldn?t appreciated the value of it, and had to cling to the ethnic mud to win the elections. And many thugs get elected to the parliament, still today.

I do not see a hope for this country, until a military coup occurs or a big disaster , then people from all walks of life may build a nation together. Tsunami didn?t bring the unity, so this country needs a major disaster than that to wake up the people. I would be seen as a pessimist.

You will have to restore the egg from the omelette into which it was beaten and cooked.” end of quote

if it was too late to rectify the mistake then why still subjugating the whole tamil community in the name of democracy ?
forgod sake give up and let them go on their own way!!

i would say the Tamils of srilanka were very patience and law abiding people, must have passed their time waiting for miracles to happen! they did bravely put up with their grievances untill 1983.

Sinhalese on the other hand since 1948 sharply concentrated on formulating a formula to
” institutionally removing the Tamils from high offices and from politics permanently and never to come back again as a Tamil”
into the srilankaness spectrum.

in effective ,, what the Sinhalese will be doing in the coming years if it was 1948 is ,,thieving the Tamils fundamental rights as well as their lands barring them from co-existing with other communities and criminalizing the whole Tamil community.

the foundation for the birth of an other state within the state has been planted.
there are many Sinhalese at present refuse accept the wrong doing and living in the denial!!

.