I refer to V. P. Vittachi's letter to the Editor in "The Sunday Times" of October 6, under the headline "G.G. Ponnambalam and the Indian Tamils".
Yes, I do not deny that G.G. Ponnambalam (Sr.) voted for the Indian and Pakistani Residents (Citizenship) Act No. 3 of 1949 and the Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Act No. 48 of 1949 and see no wrong in having done so. In fact, I would go so far as to say that was the correct thing to have been done, under the circumstances. Perhaps, what he did was endorse by the voters of the Northern Province in 1952, as Mr. Vittachi says!
Mr. Vittachi asks two questions of me. Firstly, he wants me to explain why "this legislation" was challenged right upto the Privy Council. Secondly, Mr. Vittachi wants to know why S.J.V. Chelvanayakam and a number of other Tamil Congress stalwarts broke way from the All Ceylon Tamil Congress (ACTC) on "this issue" and formed the Federal Party.
To answer Mr. Vittachi's first question, it is not clear what Mr. Vittachi means by "this legislation". We are talking about three Acts of Parliament. So, which is "the legislation" Mr. Vittachi is meaning? Anyway, G.S.N. Kodakan Pillai v. P.B. Mudanayake is reported in 54 New Law Reports page 433. Mr. Kodakan Pillai wanted his name included in the register of electors for the Ruwanwella electorate. A study of that case will show that "the legislation" that Mr. Kodakan Pillai was complaining about to the Privy Council was the Ceylon Citizenship Act No. 18 of 1948: This is evident from his affidavit of 15th May 1951. The Act No. 3 of 1949 came before the Privy Council perhaps by chance, because this is what the Privy Council had to say about Act No. 3 of 1949 ".... but their Lordships' attention was subsequently drawn to the Indian and Pakistani Residents (Citizenship) Act No. 3 of 1949, by which an Indian Tamil could by an application obtain citizenship by registration and thus protect his descendants, provided he had a certain residential qualification". Since it was the Act No. 18 of 1948 that Mr. Kodakan Pillai was complaining about, Mr. Ponnambalam (Sr.) and he were not at variance, because Mr. Ponnambalam (Sr.) had voted against that Bill.
It will be relevant to consider Mr. Kodakan Pillai's evidence before the Assistant Registering Officer on 26th February 1951. He said, "i was born in British India. Both my parents and all my other relations were born in British India. All my wife's relations are in India except my brother-in-law who lives with me. I have not sought registration under the Citizenship Act No. 18 of 1948 or under the Indian and Pakistani Residents (Citizenship) Act No. 3 of 1949. I do not own any property in India. I do not own any property in Ceylon either."
To answer Mr. Vittachi's second question, I can do no better than to refer Mr. Vittachi and the readers of "The Sunday Times" to what contemporaries of Mr. Chelvanayakam had to say about this matter in the daily newspapers in the decades gone by, when similar public debates took place through the newspapers. Before I quote what C. Suntheralingam and the CWC had to say as to why Mr. Chelvanayakam left the ACTC, I wish to state that Mr. Chelvanayakam, nor his supporters in the ACTC then, ever alleged that they were leaving the ACTC on the Indian Question. On the contrary, the position taken up by them suggests a reason that has nothing to do with the Indian Question.
Here is what Mr. Suntheralingam and the Ceylon Workers Congress had to say about why Mr. Chelvanayakam broke away from the ACTC.
Mr. Suntheralingam, in a letter to the Editor of the "Daily News" of 19th June 1962, says "The origin (of the ITAK) however was the preferment by D.S. Senanayake of Ponnambalam to Chelvanayakam to ministerial rank. The excuse of the injustice of the Indian Pakistani Residents (Citizenship) Bill is window dressing propaganda, part of the technique for which Mr. Chelvanayakam is now notorious". He also says, "the Indian and Pakistani Residents (Citizenship) Bill gave Mr. Chelvanayakam the opportunity for which he was marking time". Mr. Suntheralingam was in the Cabinet in 1948 and should be taken to know what was happening.
Mr. Suntheralingam again says this, in an article that appeared in the "Daily Mirror" of Monday, 4th January 1965, which was a reply to Mr. V. Navaratnam's article. "S.J.V. Chelvanayakam made use of the occasion of the Indian and Pakistani Bill to break away from the ACTC. I have used the words "made use of the occasion" deliberately for the reason that Mr. Chelvanayakam made that Bill a pretext to avenge himself on G.G. Ponnambalam because D.S. Senanayake could not, and would not be persuaded to make of Mr. Chelvanayakam a Cabinet Minister in addition to or to supplant G.G. Ponnambalam. Premier Senanayake stated publicly that he did not wish his Government to be associated with "lean and hungry looking men as they were dangerous". This allusion was clear (This article was later published as a booklet entitled "Let the Public Judge").
The CWC, in a Press statement published in the "Daily News" of 23rd June 1962 has this to say on the same matter. "Had the TC been given an additional portfolio, as earlier agreed, it is a matter for conjecture as to whether Mr. Chelvanayakam and his followers would have been in a position to vote against the Bill". The CWC, of course, represents the Upcountry Tamils on whose issue the ITAK claims it split from the ACTC!
There are hundreds of suffering residents including children and invalids, in Nawala Road, Rajagiriya, who are assailed by the smoke, noxious fumes and noise of other operations carried on round the clock in the premises of a bakery. Residents are at a loss to understand how such a smoke belching bakery was allowed to be located right in the middle of a residential area in the first place.
As an example to other such public nuisances the owner of this bakery should be prosecuted and the bakery should be closed down forthwith. Not only are we assailed by smoke, it is a breeding ground for flies and mosquitoes that swarm into our houses and no amount of disinfectants and insect killers can repel them. Isn't there a law to prevent factories being located in residential areas? Shouldn't the Labour Department look into these things?
It is the sad truth that whatever govt. is in power, one constant factor is that wealthy businessmen can get away with anything. The Chairman of the U. C. who visited us on foot with his people before the local government elections is probably now going about in air-conditioned splendour and does not get even a whiff of the noxious fumes we lesser mortals have to breathe day in and day out. He does not suffer the agony of living near this bakery and chooses to ignore the many public complaints.
The residents of this area pray that the Welikada Police will be their saviours.
It is surprising that very little action is taken to stop 'sledging', described by the well-known Cricket writer, E. W. Swanton as, "the utterly pernicious, repugnant habit of assailing batsmen and sometimes umpires with abusive, foul-mouthed talk." Sledging has been extensively used for years, by Australians, but the Australian umpires and the authorities have turned a blind eye. Gradually others have also got used to ignoring the practice. Eminent commentators seldom, if ever, mention the habit, even if they notice it. Some even justify sledging, on the pretext that professional cricketers have to be aggressive.
Ian Healy, it was reported, has justified the nasty Aussie practice, by saying that it would be 'like a walk in the park for the batsman,' if he is not tested in this manner. He has admitted making comments at the batsman, but according to him, not with bad intentions, but for supposed-to-be gamesmanship! A very strange kind of gamesmanship indeed! If disturbing the batsman's concentration is fair, surely sleding should be fair in other sports as well - Chess, and Tennis for instance. Just imagine Gary Kasporov or Pete Sampras being sledged by his opponent!
Cricket lovers will be elated to know that Sir Donald Bradman, in one of his rare TV appearances recently, has come out with a strong condemnation of sledging. "If a fellow attempted it under me I would have given him one warning and if he repeated it, I would have made sure he was not selected again." Let us hope the Australian Cricket Board will respect the greatest ever batsman Australia has produced and do something to cure this disease once and for all.
Return to the Letters to the Editor contents page
Write a letter to the editor : editor@suntimes.is.lk