C. Wijeyawickrema, LL.B., Ph.D.

Colombo paradigm Vs. Rajarata paradigm

ලංකාවේ පරිපාලන අගනුවර කොළඹ නමැති මඩවඟුරෙන් රජරට දෙසට ගෙන යායුතු යයි යෝජනාවක් මුලින්ම අසන්නට ලැබුණේ මහාචාර්ය ගුණපාල මලලසේකර මහතාගේ ප්‍රධානත්වයෙන් ක්‍රියාකල බෞද්ධ තොරතුරු කොමිෂන් සභාවේ නිර්දේශ මඟින් 1955 දීය. ඒ වෙනුවට ලංකාවේ කළු සුද්දන් (JRJ හා ආනන්ද තිස්ස ද අල්විස්) විසින් කලේ ලෝකයේ වෙන කොහේවත් සිදු නොවූ අන්දමේ මුග්ධ ක්‍රියාවකි. එය නම් පරණ මඩ වගුරේ සිට අහස් සැතපුම් 10 ක් වත් නැතිතරම් වන තවත් මඩ වඟුරක් ගොඩකර දියවන්නා හෝටලය යයි දැනට හැඳින්වෙන ජයවර්ධනපුර කෝට්ටේ නම් කරුමයක්  ජනයාගේ කරමත පැටවීමය. මනා පරිසර සැලැස්මකින් තොරව කර, රට නයකන්දකට යටකල හා ගමුත්, කොළඹ අවටත් ගංවතුරෙන් යටකරන අධිවේගී මාර්ග මෙන්, දියවන්නා අගනුවරද, කොළඹ 7 පවා වරින් වර වැසිවතුරෙන්  යටකරලන්නේය. ගෘහ නිර්මාණශිල්පී ජෙෆ්‍රි බාවා ස්වර්ගයේ සිට හිනාවෙනවා නිසැකය.

1832 කෝල්බෲක් සූත්තරය

පරිපාලනය සඳහා රටේ භූමිය බෙදීමේ 1832 කෝල්බෲක් සූත්තරය තාමත් බදාගෙන ඉන්නා පාටලී චම්පික රණවක වැනි අවස්ථාවාදී අළුත් පරම්පරාවේ කළු සුද්දන් පවා හදන්නේ කොළඹ තිබෙන තදබදයට විසඳුම ලෙස ජපන් අහස් රේල් පාරක් දැමිමටය. මෙවැනි සුදු අලි විසඳුම් වෙනුවට කලයුතු වන්නේ, ඓතිහාසික, භූගෝල විද්‍යාත්මක විසඳුම වන්නේ රටේ පරිපාලන කේන්ද්‍රය, ක්‍රමාණුකූලව අවුරුදු 10-15 ක සැලැස්මක් යටතේ, රටේ වාරි ශිෂ්ටාචාරය වෙතට ගෙනයාම නොවේද? පාත් ෆයින්ඩර් මිලින්ද මොරගොඩගේ MCC හා ඉන්දියන් පාලම් ජරමරය වෙනුවට නූතන ලෝකයේ ඇමෙරිකන්-චීන-ඉන්දියන් බල අරගලය ඉදිරියේ ත්‍රිකුණාමලය වරායේ වැදගත් කම වටහා ගතයුතු නැද්ද?  සූවස් ඇල නිසා දියුණුවූ කොළඹ වරාය නගරය රටේ වානිජ මර්මස්තානය ලෙස තවදුරටත් දියුණු කිරීම දැන් කලයුතුම වන්නේ  චීනය විසින් මුහුද ගොඩකර හදා ඇති තවත් සුදු අලියෙක් කොළඹ තිබෙන නිසාත්මය. තවද හම්බන්තොට වරායත් තව අවුරුදු 200 කට චීනයට පවරා දීමේ ජාතික පවට (පාවාදීමට) මහින්ද රාජපක්ෂ හා රනිල් වික්‍රමසිංහ යුවල හවුලේ දායකවී ඇත.

ගෝල්පේස් අරගලය හරහා දියවන්නා හෝටලය අල්ලා ගැනීමට JVP නායකයින් තුන්දෙනෙක් විසින් ගත් උත්සාහය පැතුම් කර්නර් විසින් බකල් කල බව එලිවිය.  මේ කර්නර් දැන් රංජන් රාමනායකගේ ජරමරයේ උපදේශකයෙක්ව සිටී. මේවා ගැන ඔවුන් දන්නා කෙංගෙඩියක් නැත.  ලේ වැගිරීමකින් තොරව මහජන චන්දයෙන් පාර්ලිමේන්තුව අත්පත්කර ගැනීමට අනුර කුමාර සමත්වෙමින් සිටී (ballot not bullet). මෙම අගනුවර මාරුව, යටත් විජිත වාදයෙන් ලෝකයේ රටවලට උරුමවුන හා ඔවුන් බෝකල  කළු සුද්දන් විසින් බදාගෙන සිටින කොළඹට කිරි  ක්‍රමයෙන් ලංකාවට ප්‍රශ්ණයක් වී තිබෙන, ජනයා ගමේ සිට කොළඹට ඇදී ඒම විසඳීමට ඇති හා පොදුවේ හමෝම කතාකරණ  සිස්ටම් චේන්ජ් කිරීමේදී ඉතාමත් වැදගත් සාධයක්  බව ඔහුට වටහෙනවා නිසැකය.  මෙම අගනුවර සංකල්පය සමහර පාසැල් වල  රචනා මාතෘකාවක් වුයේ 1958 කාලයේය. මේ සමඟ ඇත්තේ ඊට අදාලව ලියන ලද ලිපියකි.

=========================

(Source: The Island, April 21-24, 1998)

An alternative to the ‘Devolution’ dilemma: Move the capital to Rajarata
by C. Wijeyawickrema
Southeastern Louisiana University. USA

“All human progress has depended on ‘new questions’ rather than on ‘new answers’ to the old questions.”

Alfred North Whitehead — Science and the Modern World (1925)

“Anuradhapura should be the capital of Sri Lanka.” In 1958 I wrote an essay on this topic as a ninth grader in a small public school in Panadura. Now, after forty years, I find this topic so relevant, yet completely forgotten or ignored by most Sri Lankans. I am not reintroducing this topic for symbolic reasons such as our leaders’ habit of beginning their new programs (projects?) by first offering flowers at the Sri Maha Bodhi. From the perspective of political and legal geography, I think, moving the capital of Sri Lanka from Colombo to the North-Central Province is sine qua non for the survival of this tiny island nation. Local and regional geopolitics and global economics compel us to select a new forward capital in the nation’s new centre of action in the NCP. Sri Lankan political parties are trapped on to a tiger’s tale called the “devolution-revolution,” and their leaders have placed all the eggs in an economic basket known as “fast-track corporate globalization.”

A forward capital under a new Rajarata paradigm provides an alternative to the dilemma of devolution, political and economic. Mr. Prabhakaran, a son of a fishing community, who does not have a law degree or training in a foreign university, realized the value of a forward capital, when LTTE declared that the capital of Eelam will be Trincomalee and not the Fort of Jaffna. Like Colombo in the south, Jaffna is a symbol of Tamil elites’ grip over the Tamil masses in the north, whereas Trinco has a forward location for seaward as well as landward expansion in the future.

The current devolution fever first started in the 1980s as a reaction, and to some extent a compromise, to the harshness of the Executive Presidential form of government. In its extreme form, the devolution medicine will create a union of regions, with nine or ten parliaments, which is not accepted even by the patient himself, namely the LTTE. The Tigers are, at least, frank in rejecting the package, unlike some others, who are initiating a strategy allegedly attributed to the late Mr. D. S. Senanayake, in his role as a negotiator during pre-independence time, “If I am hungry and want a loaf of bread, I will not be foolish to throw away the half of loaf given to me now?” This form of devolution is nothing, but a resurrection of the proposals submitted by the Federal Party in 1971, and the TULF in 1985 to achieve “Tamil aspirations” otherwise known as a “Tamil homeland.” The Federal Party wanted to create 1 Tamil, 3 Sinhala and 1 Muslim autonomous states. Those who prepared the ‘package’ for the PA government has now increased the number from 5 to 9 or 10 regions to maintain “symmetry,” without realizing that “one cannot legislate against geography,” and that “one law for the lion for the lion and the ox is oppression.” The political science concept of “symmetry” can never be accomplished through the geographical concept of “region.”

The other devolution alternative based on the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution is as unlucky as the number assigned to it. The seven southern provinces in Sri Lanka, did not ask for provincial governments, and this is another case of “changing the pillow to cure a headache.” Recently, The Island newspaper carried an article which suggested that Sri Lanka join with the Indian Union of States, rather than forming the Union of Regions of Sri Lanka. This reminds me of a bumper sticker I once saw on a car of a geology professor, “Gondwanaland, Unite!” Plate-tectonics, the forces that move the earth’s crust, separated Sri Lanka from the Indian landmass millions of years ago and this prevented Sri Lanka ending up as the southern tip of South India.

A former cabinet minister, Mr. Gamani Jayasuriya, wishes to consider the Executive Committee System we had under the Donoughmore Constitution as a viable alternative to the current problem. In our Civics lessons at public schools, we studied how these committees were compared to seven horses trying to run in different directions, kept under control or in focus, by the three British Secretaries on the Board of Ministers. One reason why democracy is preferable to any other form of government is that it is based on the principle of separation of powers, because power corrupts anybody and everybody. The executive, legislative and quasi-judicial powers must be separated from one another as far as practicable. Mr. Jayasuriya is closer to the new interpretation given to the doctrine of separation of powers, identified as “Montesquieu standing on his head.” Under which the distribution of the sum of governmental power to a wide spectrum of units possible, is considered the ideal, but does it allow concentrating the executive and legislative powers at the highest level of governmental hierarchy? We may end up with seven donkeys or seven dogs!

Ironically, the best form of real “political devolution” can still be found within the famous B-C Pact. With modification, to be in line with modern geopolitical realities, that formula plus a willingness to take remedial action to answers given by Tamils to the question, “What other discriminatory practices can you point out (still) which makes you feel a second-class citizen?” ought to take care of the Tamil ethnic minority problem. Economic devolution, the other side of the devolution panacea, is nothing but a question of how quickly and effectively the ruling elites discard the Colombo paradigm. In other words, how sincere is the Colombo group in changing the situation aptly summarized on the Report of the Presidential Commission on Youth, “milk to Colombo, and forage to us” (kolambata kiri apata kekiri), a situation which bestowed a place for Sri Lanka in the 1997 Guinness Book of Records as the country with the highest (youth?) suicide rate in the world!

The Colombo paradigm

Colombo paradigm has controlled Sri Lanka since the 1870s. During that decade Colombo’s fate as a world-class artificial port was sealed with the decision to erect two long breakwaters to protect ships anchored there from rough weather during the Southwest Monsoon season. While the entire world came under the Age of Columbus (or Vasco da Gama) after the discovery of the Americas and India, respectively, in the 1490s, Sri Lanka’s Colombo Age started in 1505. Yet, its ascendancy to supremacy that it enjoys today, began in the 1870s when the British Governor William Gregory, bowing to the wishes of the British planters, merchants, government officers, and local traders and planters, decided to move the colony’s commercial centre from Galle to Colombo.

Governor Ward’s ardent support or the backing of the Colonial Office in London to develop harbour facilities in Galle could not stop the rise of Colombo. Like the situation found in other colonial countries, in Ceylon too, Colombo became the island’s primate city, based on an export-import economy connected to London or Liverpool. The roads (railways) linked to a colonial port capital were compared to drains taking the blood (resources) out of the colony. Fifty years after obtaining political independence, Colombo’s role as the primate city is increasing uncontrollably.

Our grammar teacher, in 1958, did not express any anti-Colombo sentiments, but presented several reasons supportive of his thought that the late Mr. S. W. R. D. Bandranayaka entertained the idea of moving the capital to Anuradhapura, long before he became the Prime Minister in 1956. For the “five forces” that brought him to power (priests, native physicians, teachers, farmers and workers), Anuradhapura as the new capital would have been his legacy. Ideally, the transfer of the capital city should have been included in the government’s official Ten-Year Plan. On the other hand, if the late premier made even a symbolic gesture toward discarding the Colombo paradigm, the Colombo group and the Colombo establishment would have advanced the 1962 Coup to 1959.

A Pandora’s Box called Devolution

“Devolution-Revolution” is the latest product of the Colombo paradigm, by the Colombo group, for the Colombo group. It is presented as the path to political “Nirvana” and economic “Salvation,” while it is nothing but Greek to the masses living outside the present Capital territory. It is sad that the children, grandchildren and the relatives of the members of the former Ceylon Congress or the Ceylon National Congress, have now discovered a magic formula called “devolution” with nine or ten IGPs, nine or ten Attorney Generals, nine or ten Governors, Chief Ministers and Parliaments to “empower” the common man, those who live away from Colombo or those who cannot speak English. Previously, their parents and relatives repetitively objected to the British rulers’ decisions to extend the voting rights to the poor and the non-English speaking.

It is unfortunate that this class does not realize that there is no dearth of laws, regulations, programs, schemes, departments and plans aimed at achieving “devolution” that they are now preaching, and those programs and plans have failed because they had to operate within the Colombo paradigm. They failed not because we were short of ten parliaments or ten governors or chief ministers, but because of a ruling elite, and a bureaucracy, paid lip service to decentralization and empowerment, while making sure that the Colombo group will always have its supply of milk and honey.

The real challenge, therefore, is to discard the outdated Colombo paradigm which helps the rich, English-speaking Sinhala-Tamil-Muslim urban class, and not to prescribe a medicine worse than the disease to the non-Colombo people. For the blunders of the Colombo class, we should not punish the country by breaking it into nine or ten pieces. The soldiers from rural areas who cannot speak English, fighting with the terrorists in the jungles of Wanni and with terrorist infiltrators in the city of Colombo itself, have already paid enough with the supreme sacrifice that they can offer to their motherland to prevent such a break-up.

Devolution: A hundred-year-old concept

The spirit and purpose of devolution was very much in vogue in Sri Lanka, long before the spread of current devolution madness. As soon as the British government consolidated its military supremacy over the island, and after constructing a system of roads aimed at unification and centralization of administration, colonial governors directed their attention to subjects that we in the 21st Century label as “empowerment,” “devolution,” and “regional development.” Governor Henry Ward enacted the Village Council Ordinance in 1856, and Governor Robinson increased the powers of these village councils in 1879. These decisions were based on the lessons learned from the Peasant Rebellion in 1848. The British shrewdly utilized local institutions and customs, such as the caste system, village councils, and the village headmen system to achieve all three interconnected goals of “empowerment,” “devolution” and “regional development.” They employed indigenous institutions as checks and balances to maintain peace and good government. For example, powers enjoyed by the village headman were to be moderated by the recognition given to village councils and to local Buddhist temples.

British governors recognized the need for “regional development,” and proceeded in a logical fashion. Despite his taking the side of the local capitalists in developing a port in Colombo, Governor William Gregory, wanted to do “something” for the unfortunate people of the Wanni. He created the North-Central Province in 1873 and called it “my child.” A long line of British governors and a cadre of dedicated British civil servants devoted their attention to regional development in the dry and arid climatic zones of Sri Lanka, because of social, economic and political necessities. British governors and British civil servants had no real estate or other vested interest in the Colombo Area, other than that it was a convenient location for them to be in contact with the mother country. During the hot season in Colombo, they temporarily moved their offices to cooler locations such as Nuwara Eliya and Bandarawela.

British government also realized that the Crown Colony of Ceylon was too small an area to divide into small pieces and that its geography does not support viable independent units. Donoughmore and Soulbury Commissioners heard these arguments for separate units, but did not think an Indian-type division was the solution. Colebrooke-Cameron Commission divided the island not based on physical or human geography, but for the purpose of administrative convenience. Coblerooke was more interested in how to remove the influence the native chiefs had on the Kandyan regions. The river system in Sri Lanka radiating from a central mountain mass allows carving out administrative units, but not a Union of Regions. The British ruler also knew the limited governing ability of local leaders and kept in their hands the three key portfolios until they left the island, Finance, Justice and Foreign Affairs, the three areas in which the Colombo group has later failed miserably. The problem was thus not what the British did, but what the Sri Lankans who replaced the British did not do or did not want to do. It is in this context that the Colombo paradigm of the ruling elite must be replaced by an alternative Anuradhapura (or Rajarata) paradigm. Colombo has lost its geopolitical importance, and the center of action is moving to the North-Central Province.

Location of capital cities

If a kingdom or a state is considered an organism, the capital is its heart and soul. For example, London was known as the “engine of growth” of Great Britain. Anuradhapura was perhaps the earliest known capital city in the world named after the founder of that city. The site and situation characteristic of a place are the two aspects that mostly influence the location of a capital city. Absolute location affects a site selection in such a way as a huge rock (Sigiriya) or an island in a river (the original site of Paris), or availability of plain land (London) or a river (Anuradhapura). Relative location on the other hand considers a site in relation to other factors such as the distance from invading armies (Sigiriya, Polonnaruwa), central location (Paris), facing Europe with easy access via water (London), or central location, sufficient distance from invading armies, access to ports and the availability of a regular supply of water (Anuradhapura).

The Indian capital, Delhi, provides an example of how old Asian capitals were selected relative to both local geography and foreign invasions. The location of the actual seat of the king’s palace within the Delhi Area had changed at least 26 times before the British captured India but Delhi acted as the last blockage to stop invaders entering through the Khyber Pass. If a “Panipat war” fought near Delhi failed to stop the enemy, then the entire Ganges Plain was open to plunder and destruction. After the Sepoy Mutiny, in 1858, British government moved the capital to Delhi from Calcutta. Bombay continued to function as the commercial centre, with Karachi and Madras serving as regional ports. Aurangzeb (1659-1707), the Mogul emperor, moved the capital from Delhi to Aurangabad, a new capital city that he had built in central India. He applied brute force to move people to this new capital, with tragic consequences to both his power and to the Mogul Empire itself.

Sometimes a city is selected as the capital for sentimental reasons, i.e. Israel’s shift of capital from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem or given a new name such as Ho Chi Minh City for Saigon or created to satisfy the ego of a dictator as in the case of Stalingrad in Russia. The capitals of Pakistan and Brazil provide more recent examples of “forward capitals” that Sri Lanka is now compelled to follow. In the case of Brazil, Brasilia, the new capital is located 400 miles inland from Rio de Janeiro, the old capital, to conquer Brazil’s internal frontier or the periphery. In the case of Pakistan, the port city of Karachi was replaced by Islamabad, near Rawalpindi, as the national capital, so that the capital is near the disputed territory of Kashmir. Thus, the forward capital would be first to be engulfed by conflict in case of strife with an “enemy.” This was the role Delhi (Panipat) played in the past. One can call this “taking the bull by the horns” approach to statesmanship. This is what LTTE plans to do with Trinco as the capital of Eelam.

The selection of a capital for a nation should not be based on sentimental or personal reasons; however, there is no harm in capitalizing on such factors, provided that the selection is based on sound geopolitical-geographical reasons. Whether we like it or not, the North-Central Province is no longer a remote region of empty lands but has become the geopolitical heartland of the nation. Even though Colombo, with a container port, is considered the nerve center of Sri Lankan open economy, larger and long-term, global and national economic issues require reorientation of our attention to Trincomalee, one of the world’s largest and safest natural harbours. A forward capital in the NCP fits neatly with the professed goals of the “devolution package”. Economic devolution (regional development) expects to reduce the gap between the center (Colombo) and the periphery (dry and arid zones). One aspect of political devolution, the empowerment of villagers, is possible only by taking to their midst the seat of power. A decision to leave Colombo will itself be a second 1956 revolution, more significant than the present habit of offering flowers at the Sri Maha Bodhi and returning to Colombo in the night. The other aspect of political devolution, giving some kind of political recognition to the Tamil ethnic minority concentrated in the North and East, will be easier to implement from a forward capital.

Reasons for moving the capital to Rajarata

Regional and Global Geopolitics

The Columbus Age or the Colombo Era in Sri Lanka began in 1505, and the promotion of Colombo since the 1870s was needed by the geopolitical forces prevailing at the time. This location provided optimum advantage to the rulers and maximum profit to those who invested capital on tea plantations. From the war-time industries to land settlement schemes to government central school to difficult-area allowances for government servants and district-basis university admissions to more recent names of Gam Udawas, Jana Saviyas, and Gam Samurdis, successive governments have tried to do justice to non-Colombo areas, with one foot always firmly rooted in Colombo. Unlike in the past when these half-hearted attempts focused on social and economic goals, events taking place in Sri Lanka for the past 25 years, however, require looking at them from a new geopolitical perspective. The geopolitical frontier of Sri Lanka has now moved to the Raja Rata and the Wanni. Colombo can neither prevent nor hide from the changes taking place at this frontier.

Historically, the three kingdoms in South India (Pandya, Chola and Kerala) and the king of Anuradhapura or Pollonnaruwa, were locked in a power struggle to maintain a regional balance of power. Whenever one of the four kings became too powerful, the others teamed together to control him. The methods employed varied from matrimonial alliances to secret agreements to actual invasions, reminiscent of what the Tamil Nadu, Mrs. Gandhi and her son Rajiv, did in recent years to the government of the late J. R. Jayewardene, by arming, training and funding the Tamil Tiger groups. Or what the late Mr. Premadasa did to the IPKF by secretly arming the Tigers. The difference was that the ancient kings inherited their thrones while the Delhi politicians had to depend on the votes of the Tamil Nadu politicians to remain in power. Any attempts by Sri Lanka to develop extra-commercial contacts with the Superpower (rumours of plans to lease Trinco harbour to the American Navy) or with China or Pakistan has brought chills to Indian politicians. India did not like Sri Lankan government’s willingness to allow the Voice of America to expand its transmission station located in the island. They resorted to acts overt or covert, to destabilize the Sri Lankan government.

Referring to his southern neighbour, the United States, a Canadian prime minister once said, “You cannot remain unaffected when you are standing next to an elephant”. India is our ailing elephant and Tamil Nadu is India’s lizard. Tamil Nadu will always be a military base for Tamil terrorist acts directed against Sri Lanka. India is also a dirty elephant as revealed by the Jain Commission Report and the Dixit book. Tamil Nadu is the only state in India which once refused to accept Hindi as the unifying national language of India. This state has 60 million people and has no doubts about what they want, when the time is ripe. Tamil politicians’ desire for a separate state is not a result of the 1956 government change in Sri Lanka. Tamil Nadu’s dream of a separate state is buried and not dead. The Indian elephant has so many wounds, all over, in the north, south, east and west, and the country we knew as “Bharat”, is no more. The leaders it produced adhering to Panchaseela qualities died with personalities like Nehru, Lal Bahadur Sastri and Radhakrishnan. Indian political scene is so unstable, and to base Sri Lanka’s defence strategy relying on the words of one Indian prime minister, such as the Gujral doctrine, will be a grave mistake.

The World Federation of Tamils, or the World Tamil Movement, looking for a homeland for world Tamils, does not, yet have a sovereign state solely for the Tamil race. A part of Sri Lanka is a quicker base than the Fiji Islands or the Tamil Nadu itself. Devolution or no devolution, this is a reality, and Sri Lanka must accept it and face the challenge. It is in this context that a union of regions is like “putting the tortoise in water”. Even without a union of regions UDI was attempted once, and it is natural to expect another UDI, sooner or later. The center of action must be taken to the NCP, in a systematic fashion, so that in ten years one would find half the international schools in Sri Lanka located closer to Anuradhapura. Sri Lanka cannot stop international Tamil politics, their monthly collection of millions of dollars of donations or how the Oxford Dictionary defines the word “Tamil”, but if we act prudently, we can prevent such acts becoming our headache. A sea has separated us from India, and therefore, what India did to East Pakistan or does to Bangladesh, India cannot now do to Sri Lanka, without becoming an “aggressor state” under the international eye. Sri Lanka did not become part of South India because of the Palk Strait, just like England did not become part of Napoleon’s France or Hitler’s Germany because of the English Channel.

To be continued