The proposed amendment to the 13th Amendment of the Constitution to dilute the powers of Provincial Councils has already begun to make ripples in the Muslim and Left parties, Colombo Telegraph understands. SLFP ministers who talked big in the last few weeks that they would not allow any dilution of devolution have also been greatly embarrassed.
Rauf Hakeem
Colombo Telegraph understands that Muslim and Left party leaders who attended the party leaders’ meeting of the UPFA on Tuesday had kept mum when President Rajapaksa proposed the amendment. Ministers Tissa Vitarana and Rauf Hakeem are away from the country.
After having agreed to the amendment, apologists in the Muslim and Left parties have been telling party members that the amendment is a harmless one. According to them, the amendment was about the Concurrent List and has been necessitated by the Divineguma Bill judgement of the Supreme Court headed by Chief Justice Shirani Banadranayake. Another amendment will be the deletion of the sections relating to the merger of adjacent provinces. These leaders have said that a merger of the Northern and Eastern Provinces will not happen now and therefore there was nothing wrong in supporting the proposal.
A constitutional lawyer to whom Colombo Telegraph spoke said that under the 13th Amendment and the Provincial Councils Act, Provincial Councils cannot initiate the merger of adjacent provinces. The initiative has to come from the President and no one else. Therefore, the fear that is spread by opponents of devolution that the Northern and Eastern Provincial Councils can merge is totally without a basis.
On being asked about taking away other powers of the Provincial Councils as agreed to by party leaders, he stated that the Divineguma Bill decision was about the Provincial Council List and not the Concurrent List. Even now, Parliament can pass any Bill on a matter on the Concurrent List. It has only to ask for the views of the Provincial Councils but can disregard such views and pass the Bill by a simple majority.
The lawyer further stated that it was the Provincial Councils List that was in issue in the Divineguma Bill. As many sections of the Bill were on matters in the Provincial Councils List, the Supreme Court stated that the Bill must be sent to Provincial Councils to ascertain their views. The Court has also stated that as the Northern Provincial Council had not been elected, the Governor cannot give consent on behalf of the Council. So, it would be assumed that the Northern Provincial Council has not given its consent. The issue of the Northern Province will not arise after the Northern Council is elected, he added.
Under the 13th Amendment, if all Councils agree to a Bill on a matter in the Provincial Council List, Parliament can pass the Bill with a simple majority. If one or more Councils do not agree, the Bill must be passed by a two-thirds majority if it is to apply also to the Councils which did not agree. If the Bill is passed by a simple majority, it will apply only to the Councils that have consented.
What the new amendment seeks to do is to say that a Bill on a matter in the Provincial Council List will apply to all Councils if a majority of the Councils agree. This, he stated, would negate devolution. If the Government at the Centre has the support of at least 5 Provincial Councils, then it can impose a law on Opposition-controlled councils too. For example, if the UNP is in power in two provinces and the Government is in power in at least 5 provinces, those 5 Provincial Councils can help the Government to impose a law on the UNP-controlled Councils also. It would be worse for the Northern and Eastern Provincial Councils, he stated.
A Provincial Council member of a Left party told Colombo Telegraph that the left parties cannot support any dilution of powers given by the 13th Amendment. “A large number of left activists were killed for supporting devolution and we have to honour their memory” he stated.
Colombo Telegraph however understands that Muslim and Left party leaders would not be prepared to jeopardize their ministerial positions by opposing the proposed amendment. In the case of the impeachment of the Chief Justice, only a simple majority was needed and therefore their support was not crucial. But for a constitutional amendment, a two-thirds majority is essential and these leaders would not want to offend President Rajapaksa, a political analyst in Colombo stated.
However, ordinary party members are likely to oppose any attempts by leaders to support the amendment. Colombo Telegraph understands that members of the SLMC in the East are already angry with the leadership for going along with the Government on every issue and not protecting the interests of the Muslims. Dissension is likely within the LSSP and CP too but members of the Democratic Left Front led by Minister Vasudeva Nanayakkara is likely to go along with its leader.
Related posts;
CPA Strongly Urges The Govet To Not Proceed With The Proposed Constitutional Amendment
Exposed: De Facto CJ Advises President To Amend 13A
Government Considering Amending The Thirteenth Amendment Before NP Elections
raniJ / June 6, 2013
What more can you expect from these people?
/
Yusuf / June 6, 2013
The Muslim Congress and Dead Left must quit Rajapassa Dictatorship now – before it is too late to save the Muslims of Lanka!
The Muslim Public should protest Rauf Hakeem the most venal Muslim politician ever!
/
Pig / June 6, 2013
Save Muslims of Lanka ?
from whom ?
or i would rather say, save Sri Lanka from Muslims
/
Memona kolamakda / June 6, 2013
from pigs like you…lol
/
Tsunami Hora / June 6, 2013
Sorry let me correct it please.
SAVE Sri Lanka & and all its people from PIGS like ‘him’ and his cousins LEELA, BBS, Champika, Gammanpila, GOO Amarasekara. Rathana etc.
/
K.A Sumanasekera / June 6, 2013
Most Muslims who are as poor as the majority Sinhalese, know what was done to their cousins in Kathankaddy and Jaffna by the God Son,whilst the TNA supplied Citizen Forces of the LTTE were guarding them.
Although these don’t have Dialog cable, their Leaders must have seen what the “Moderate Vigilantes” are doing to the poor fellow Muslims,in Turkey,when their Govt is giving them jobs ,food and power subsidies and has made the country a booming Nation among the struggling Europeans.
Do our Muslim leaders need more convincing to prevent Police and Land Powers for the LTTE proxies?.
/
Safa / June 6, 2013
Pleasing Rajapaksa and retaining your positions as against the interests of your community and the nation. The choice is clear.
/
Amarasiri / June 6, 2013
RE: How to Bribe Politicians
“Colombo Telegraph however understands that Muslim and Left party leaders would not be prepared to jeopardize their ministerial positions by opposing the proposed amendment. In the case of the impeachment of the Chief Justice, only a simple majority was needed and therefore their support was not crucial. But for a constitutional amendment, a two-thirds majority is essential and these leaders would not want to offend President Rajapaksa, a political analyst in Colombo stated.”
Looks like these politicians are available for sale.
They have no principles.
What is the difference between these politicians and the other bribe taking judges, DIG’s, and Customs Officers? None. It is only Self-Interest.
Ven. Sobitha Thero, the Good Hamuduruvo, where are you?
/
Suq Madique / June 6, 2013
The only time Hakeem will make a ripple is when his personal interest are being affected. He will only make a stand for the Muslims, he claims to represent, is if its in his benefit too.
/
Saman Wijesiri / June 6, 2013
Hakeem, Dew, Tissa Vitarana and Vasu will definitely vote for the proposed amendment. They may even vote for a Bill to repeal the entire 13A.Hanging on to the Ministerial portfolio is more important for them than principles !
/
Sama / June 6, 2013
Can anybody tell me please why the minister of Justice (Hakeem) stay as if he is blind and deaf whatever the issue it is. Be it related to constitutional AMDs or crime investigations based on broad daylight murder incidents – why the guy seem to have NOTHING to say. He is the minister of Justice or just a caricature placed by MR openly abuse the funds of the folks ?
I, me being out of the country, I have not read anything issued by this particular minister, about any incidents in terms of halal, antim muslim incidents carried out by BBS or the like segments – there I thought I could read any statement made by THE COUNTRY^S minister of justice, but I did not find it anywhere, what does he DO at all as a the minister of justice in this country ? SHAME SHAME
/
Leela / June 6, 2013
This writer says a lawyer said, “What the new amendment seeks to do is to say that a Bill on a matter in the Provincial Council List will apply to all Councils if a majority of the Councils agree. This, he stated, would negate devolution.”
What nonsense this lawyer is talking about? Does he not know that our PCs are smaller than most town councils of India. Of India’s 28 states 10 states has over fifty million population and another five has over twenty-five million population another four has over ten million population. The largest, Uttra Pradesh is bigger than Brazil. Many of are bigger than most countries in Europe. Yet, when necessary, the Union Government can dissolve any state government in favour of the President’s rule. Can our president dissolve PCs like that? No chance.
The State Governor who is appointed by the Union President can also exercise his emergency powers, dismiss the State Government and take over functioning of the state. Can governor of a Provincial Council in Sri Lanka do the same? No.
In India all bills that State legislatures pass must receive the assent of the governor. The governor may return bills other than money bills to the assembly. The governor may also decide to send a bill for consideration to the president, who has the power to promulgate ordinances. The governor may also recommend to the president that President’s Rule be invoked. Do Governors of our PCs have same authority? No.
Rajive Gandhi rammed 13A on old JRJ to keep Sri Lanka politically unstable for good. He wanted us to have problems and run for Indian advice all the time. Read so-called viceroy Dixit’s book named, ‘Assignment Colombo’. Mentality of the present day Indian rulers is no different.
Only idiots and traitors complain that there are too many amendments to our constitution. If we cannot have consensus on a new constitution, let bluffers plod on for a new one, but amend it to suit we must. Look at what India had done. India made its first amendment to the constitution just a year after it was introduced. They have never stopped since. To date they have 98 amendments. The last one was introduced on 2 January 2013.
India has made it easy to amend the Indian constitution. All it need is a quorum of more than half of the members of each house with a two-thirds majority vote. Articles pertaining to legislative authority between the central and state governments need the approval of only half the state legislatures. But 13A that Gandhi rammed on old JRJ made our government have the approval of all our PCs. Why? Indians wanted to introduce impossible and make this country politically unstable. Weerawansa is right Government must get this bill through and fast.
Leela
/
manisekaran thangavelu / June 6, 2013
Leela,
Many of your quote is wrong;
“Yet, when necessary, the Union Government can dissolve any state government in favour of the President’s rule. Can our president dissolve PCs like that? No chance “
Rejoinder: Most of the state emergency was imposed by congress government in india to threaten state governments ( Non congress )for its own agenda than on actual problems or anything to do with real issue, couple of times even SC condemned the imposition of presidetial rule, hence there is a stong vocal from all states to abolish the provisions and Raja mannar committe took a potshot on this. So allowing centre to dissolve state or province is nothing but serving a easy tool for extortion as happened in India.In a conutry like India where independent EC, Judiciary, could not prevent this, how that is expected from a unitary government of Srilanka.
“In India all bills that State legislatures pass must receive the assent of the governor. The governor may return bills other than money bills to the assembly. The governor may also decide to send a bill for consideration to the president, who has the power to promulgate ordinances. The governor may also recommend to the president that President’s Rule be invoked. Do Governors of our PCs have same authority? No “
Rejoinder : Please stop your half knowledge on Indian constitution; Whether governor accepts the bill or not, if state pssaed a resolution , bill, ordinance accpeted by majoirty of the floor, it is passed legally in that state. Governor is rubber stamp post whereas in Srilanka Unitary governor has all powres to reject, and amend the bills. Is that called devolution?? ( Please correct me if I am wrong)
India has made it easy to amend the Indian constitution. All it need is a quorum of more than half of the members of each house with a two-thirds majority vote. Articles pertaining to legislative authority between the central and state governments need the approval of only half the state legislatures
Rejoinder: Here you need to understand, In India there are 28 states with 20 different languages so this provsion fits well, Whereas in SL, where out of 8 provinces, 6 are dominated by Sinhalese, if you use this yardstick than all laws will be decided by sinhalese beacuse even if 4 provinces out of them decides with centre , it has no measure for North and Nort eastern. hence your quote of eauating with Indian amendment is fundamental flaw and does not suit Srilanka
/
Ceylonese / June 6, 2013
Liela’s Usual Bull Shit Through Cows Arse – Minority Rights and Division.
/
Leela / June 6, 2013
Mr manisekaran thangavelu,
What I have been trying to say is, if implemented as it is in full, our PCs has as much power or in certain instances more power than that of a State government in India. It is particularly lethal when power is wrested in the hands of separatist and/or demagogic parties.
The best example is DMK contesting 1962 State election on a separatist platform. Actually it was like a plebiscite for separation. DMK increased its share of seats from 15 to 50. Thrilled with the electoral success 200,000 DMK supporters have marched through the streets of Chennai on September 22, 1962 to a DMK rally to demand a separate country for Tamils. And in October 5, 1963, Nehru has introduced the 16th amendment to Indian constitution to make it obligatory for seekers of public office to swear their allegiance to the Indian Republic and prescribe the various obligatory templates. We should introduce such an amendment as well in addition to the proposed one.
Now, article 3 of the Indian constitution authorizes its Parliament, by a simple majority vote, to establish or eliminate states and union territories or change their boundaries and names. This is not there in 13A. In fact, we had to go to SC and prove error in law and separate the two provinces that were joined illegally under false pretences. Like it or not, we have nine provinces now.
Article 249 of the constitution enables a two-thirds vote of the Rajya Sabha to empower Parliament to pass binding legislation for any of the subjects on the State List with the approval of only half the state legislatures. What you are saying it is ok for Union Government of India to have such legislative authority but that is not good for Sri Lanka because the majority of seven provinces are Sinhalas.
And for that reason, you say, all the PCs must be given more power than a State Governments in India and made passing such laws by our Parliament impossible. We know all that separatists want is to upset the political stability of Sri Lanka make governing difficult if not impossible for them to get to their goal, Eelam. Your idea seems to be no different to Mr. Ponnambalam’s 50-50 demand. Just like Ponnambalam you too want Sinhalas to be penalised. I say, it is this superior mentality of Tamils that put them in the predicament they are in today.
I agree that I am no expert of the Indian constitution but I can read and understand the downloaded copy of it. Accordingly, I read that whether SC condemned the imposition of presidential rule or not, the Union government can dismiss a state government under article 356 and impose President’s Rule. Article 356 was used for the first time during Vimochana samaram to dismiss the democratically elected Communist State Government of Kerala on July 31, 1959.
In Tamil Nadu, President’s Rule was imposed 31 Jan 1976 to 30 Jun 1977 when Karunanidhi enjoying majority support in Assembly. And 17 Feb 1980 to 6 Jun 1980 when M G Ramachandran enjoying majority support in Assembly. And 30 Jan 1988 to 7 Jan 1989 in spite of confidence vote was secured in the Assembly by CM Janaki Ramachandran. And 30 Jan 1991 to 24 Jun 1991 Government headed by Mr. M. Karunanidhi dismissed by Prime Minister Chandrashekhar on charges of supporting anti-national activities, in spite of the then Governor Barnala’s report and enjoying majority support in the Assembly. You do not want our President to hve this power, eh.
In spite of all that you say Governor of a Indian State ‘is rubber stamp.’ Read articles 256 and 257. You’ll see that it require states to comply with laws passed by Parliament and with the executive authority of the central government. The articles empower the central government to issue directives instructing states on compliance in these matters. And the Governor is there to make sure state follow those rules.
Article 200 also enables a state governor, under certain circumstances, to refuse to give assent to bills passed by the state legislature and instead refer them to the president for review.
Any more queries
Leela
/
manisekaran thangavelu / June 7, 2013
Ok Now it is meaningful to engage arguements with you, as you have accepted ( rightly so, being srilankan you are not expected to be expert of Indian constitution as much me being indian cannot be expert of Srilankan constitution), let me have some rejoinders;
“What I have been trying to say is, if implemented as it is in full, our PCs has as much power or in certain instances more power than that of a State government in India. It is particularly lethal when power is wrested in the hands of separatist and/or demagogic parties” – Wrong notion; because governor under Srilankan constitution having veto decision on provicial legilatory power simply robs off its very purpose of the democartic nature as in case of States in india, how would you say when veto power is vested with governor, ( I may be worng here), you would ascribe to say that province will have more power to bypass what is promulgated or a bill passed by central authority. is it not that governor will act more in line to central than province? Can you also cite what are those instances?
As for as your exmaple of quoting DMK, they felt the need for the separate state as they were forced to accept hindi as their national language and official language, realising this Nehru withdrew three language policy and retained english as official language; That solved the problem,( which SWRD failed and the problem looping in many form caused great havoc to both community), so here where i highlight the power of democracy; you see it as hegemony, i see it as democracy to meet the demand of the people.
“And for that reason, you say, all the PCs must be given more power than a State Governments in India and made passing such laws by our Parliament impossible. We know all that separatists want is to upset the political stability of Sri Lanka make governing difficult if not impossible for them to get to their goal, Eelam. Your idea seems to be no different to Mr. Ponnambalam’s 50-50 demand. Just like Ponnambalam you too want Sinhalas to be penalised. I say, it is this superior mentality of Tamils that put them in the predicament they are in today. “
Rejoinder: I see many comments under previous articles that this was just perceived fear and not true, I leave it to the experts who studied this can explain,
“In Tamil Nadu, President’s Rule was imposed 31 Jan 1976 to 30 Jun 1977 when Karunanidhi enjoying majority support in Assembly. And 17 Feb 1980 to 6 Jun 1980 when M G Ramachandran enjoying majority support in Assembly. And 30 Jan 1988 to 7 Jan 1989 in spite of confidence vote was secured in the Assembly by CM Janaki Ramachandran. And 30 Jan 1991 to 24 Jun 1991 Government headed by Mr. M. Karunanidhi dismissed by Prime Minister Chandrashekhar on charges of supporting anti-national activities, in spite of the then Governor Barnala’s report and enjoying majority support in the Assembly. You do not want our President to hve this power, eh.
In spite of all that you say Governor of a Indian State ‘is rubber stamp.’ Read articles 256 and 257. You’ll see that it require states to comply with laws passed by Parliament and with the executive authority of the central government. The articles empower the central government to issue directives instructing states on compliance in these matters. And the Governor is there to make sure state follow those rules.
Article 200 also enables a state governor, under certain circumstances, to refuse to give assent to bills passed by the state legislature and instead refer them to the president for review.”
rejoinder: the below comments made by perakadoru bena answers it all, adding to that we have judiciary completely independent of all three branches of governannce. Whereas that is not case with srilanka, in such situation hwo would you ensure people’s right in provinces if you dont have a democratic , political power not vested them; Also though governor can refuse few items, it is passed in assembly unless parliament enacts a law against it; Governor has no say here other than referring to parliament;
I got a chance to read APRC and that shows the real starter for you people. Answer me is that a worrisome deal in sharing power amicably through a federal model than a separate eelam request??
/
perakadoru bena / June 6, 2013
Leela
In India, governors cannot dissolve State Assemblies as they wish. The Supreme Court stopped all that in the SR Bommai case. A little knowledge is very dangerous, especially when the person concerned has verbal diarrhea and is paid to say what he says.
/
Leela / June 6, 2013
perakadoru bena,
Wasn’t that ruling made on the sole basis that India has a Federal constitution? I think it is. Ours is a Unitary constitution and that’s why we say no to Federal but separatists cry for Federal. So, that ruling is out of context to our situation. I am no law professori; get to your thick head, my aim is not to prove the law is there in force or not but to show President’s Rule had been imposed in India but it is not there in Sri Lanka.
Leela
/
Fairose / June 8, 2013
India is not federal state. It is Unitary
/
perakadoru bena / June 6, 2013
India is a federal State, we all know that. But the S.R. Bommai case was not decided on that basis. What the Supreme Court held was that the power to dissolve a State Assembly under Art. 356 cannot be used arbitrarily.
I give below extracts from the judgement:
“The power under Art.356 should be used very sparingly and only when President is fully satisfied that a situation has arisen where the Government of the State cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. Otherwise, the frequent use of this power and its exercise are likely to disturb the Constitutional balance. Further if the proclamation is freely made, then the Chief Minister of every State who has to discharge his constitutional functions will be in perpetual fear of the axe of proclamation falling on him because he will not be sure whether he will remain in power or not and consequently he has to stand every time from his seat without properly discharging his constitutional obligations and achieving the desired target in the interest of the State.”
Then again:
“The examples of the situations which may not amount to failure of the constitutional machinery in the State and where the use of the power under Art.356 will be improper are:
(i) A situation of maladministration in a State where a duly constituted Ministry enjoying majority support in the Assembly, is in office. Imposition of President’s rule in such a situation will be extraneous to the purpose for which the power under Article 356 has been conferred. It was made indubitably clear by the Constitution-framers that this power is not meant to be exercised for the purpose of securing good Government.
(ii) Where a Ministry resigns or is dismissed on losing its majority support in the Assembly and the Governor recommends, imposition of President’s rule without exploring the possibility of installing an alternative Government enjoying such support or ordering fresh elections.
(iii) Where, despite the advice of a duly constituted Ministry which has not been defeated on the floor of the House, the Governor declines to dissolve the Assembly and without giving the Ministry an opportunity to demonstrate its majority support through the `floor test’, recommends it supersession and imposition of President’s rule merely on his subjective assessment that the Ministry no longer commands the confidence of the Assembly.
(iv) Where Article 356 is sought to be invoked for superseding the duly constituted Ministry and dissolving the State Legislative Assembly on the sole ground that, in the General Elections to the Lok Sabha, the ruling party in the State, has suffered a massive defeat.
(v) Where, in a situation of `internal disturbance’, not amounting to or verging on abdication of its governmental powers by the State Government, all possible measures to contain the situation by the Union in the discharge of its duty, under Article 355, have not been exhausted.
(vi) The use of the power under Article 356 will be improper it, in the illustrations given in the paragraphs 6.4.10, 6.4.11 and 6.4.12 of Sarkaria Commission Report, the President gives no prior warning or opportunity to the State Government to correct itself. Such a warning can be dispensed with only in cases of extreme urgency where failure on the part of the Union to take immediate action, under Article 356, will lead to disastrous consequences.
(vii) Where the response to the prior warning or notice or to an informal or formal direction under Articles 256, 257 etc., the State Government either applies the corrective and thus complies with the direction, or satisfies the Union Executive that the warning or direction was based on incorrect facts, it shall not be proper for the President to hold that “a situation has arisen in which the Government of the State cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution”. Hence, in such a situation, also, Article 356 cannot be properly invoked.
(viii) the use of this power to sort out internal differences or intra-party problems of the ruling party would not be constitutionally correct.
(ix) This power cannot be legitimately exercised on the sole ground of stringent financial exigencies of the State.
(x) This power cannot be invoked, merely on the ground that there are serious allegations of corruption against the Ministry.
(xi) The exercise of this power, for a purpose, extraneous or irrelevant to the one for which it has been conferred by the Constitution, would be vitiated by legal mala fides.”
In Sri Lanka, the President can take over the administration of a Provincial Council under Article 154 L for failure of administrative machinery and when that has been done Parliament can, under Article 154M confer on the President even legislative powers in respect of that Provincial Council.
Apart from these, the Centre has been using various means of interfering with Provincial Councils, sometimes legally, sometimes otherwise.
/
Leela / June 8, 2013
manisekaran thangavelu,
Your notion of “… they (DMK) felt the need for the separate state as they were forced to accept hindi as their national language and official language,….” is completely wrong. Because they say, Hindi became the national and/or official language of India on January 26, 1965 and DMK contested State election on a separatist platform in 1962. No connection, eh.
Madras Presidency had federal powers long before 1962. It had land as well as police powers. Were Tamils of India satisfied? No. Tamils instigated other Dravidians to join them to demand ‘self rule’ for Madras Presidency. And ‘Self rule’ is just another word for separate country. And that is also long before Hindi being made a national and/or official language. These two points alone proves Tamils of India wanted not fairly treated or more power but separation.
Tamils of Sri Lanka is of no difference. It is timely and good sense that India acted wisely and let Sri Lanka bury genocidal Tamil tigers for good. Had LTTE won the war and created Eelam by chance, Tamil Nadu would have fallen next like a domino. Tiger Diaspora being better Anglophiles than British themselves, that ‘Greater Eelam’ would have been a puppet of the British. I mean the US could have both a land bases as well as naval bases. I am sure the US and the British anticipated this scenario to come true.
Those that blame for making Sinhala the official language for Tamil demand for separation and the rise of LTTE do not speak candidly. I can write volumes on this. To say it all in short, they cover up; Ponnambalam had demanded his ‘50-50’, long before Sinhala was made the official language in 1956, to continue Tamil held hegemony. And the likes of Sundaralingam, the Tamil intellectual had presented separation ideology long before independence. DBS Jayaraj said an unknown man named Visvalingam proposed ‘Elom’ in the late twenties. Today, your Karuna says, he cannot sleep well without Eelam for real, and Whyco, Nadumaran and co are spreading dire lies as truth and instigate to beat Sri Lanka pilgrims to show cause for Eelam. And there is this Tiger diaspora and their TGTE floating in the sky but eyeing for an opportunity to land it in the North or East. We Sinhalas are alive for all that and every other thing that is happening. Besides we fought a bitter separatist war for 30 years.
It is in the context of such a situation that Sri Lanka have to gauge what power should be shared with TNA safely. Unlike India, Sri Lanka is a small country surrounded by 65 million unfriendly Tamils. But in Sri Lanka, more Tamils live among Sinhalas than in the North and East put together with no problems. In Colombo Tamils and Muslims have become the majority. Sinhalas are not against that, but they will not accept sole Tamil areas or Muslim areas in chosen parts of the country. Sri Lanka should remain unitary and never federal where all are treated equal. We are not averse for devolution either. We are for towns and village given more power like panchayat, but no ‘Bantu’ lands. Ideally, Tamils and Muslims should negotiate to share power at the centre.
Leela
p/s Don’t take APRC seriously for it was a war strategy. And Witharana, the man who authored it, has no following or popular base. He is the head of a three wheeler party who cannot get elected even to a village council.
/
manisekaran thangavelu (மணிசேகரன் தங்கவேலு) / June 8, 2013
Completely wrong facts and wrong information;
Your notion of “… they (DMK) felt the need for the separate state as they were forced to accept hindi as their national language and official language,….” is completely wrong. Because they say, Hindi became the national and/or official language of India on January 26, 1965 and DMK contested State election on a separatist platform in 1962. No connection, eh.
The above statement by you is completely wrong; The Hindhi was forced as national language in 1937 linguistice policy and reached its peak in 1960. so your statements are wrong; also till date Hindi is not national language and all 21 ( recent three including) are national languages; got it? In 1963 nehru dropped the idea.
Regarding your remaining comments, it would loop again and agai who started what etc etc endlessly
/