any more than it would justify the Mannar incidents. Both were bad. But what I do want to say is that the Muslims themselves, whatever your attempt to divide the Tamil-speaking people of this country, are opposed to your language policy and are one with us in the demand for parity.

The Hon. Marikkar: No.

Mr. Vanniasingam: It has been urged that satyagraha may result in violence. I do not altogether rule out that possibility. But I do want the Hon. Prime Minister to note this passage on satyagraha by Mahatma Gandhi :

"“I admit, as I have already done, that non-co-operation is not unattended with risk, but the risk of supineness in the face of a grave issue is infinitely greater than the danger of violence ensuing from organizing non-co-operation. To do nothing is to invite violence for a certainty.

It is easy enough to pass resolutions or write articles condemning non-co-operation. But it is no easy task to restrain the fury of a people incensed by a deep sense of wrong. I urge those who talk or work against non-co-operation to descend from their chairs and go down to the people, learn their feelings and write, if they have the heart, against nonCo-operation. They will find, as I have found, that the only way to avoid violence is to enable them to give such expression to their feelings as to compel redress.

That is precisely what we want to do. If we do not resort to satyagraha something worse will happen.

Again, in his letter to the Viceroy in connection with the salt satyagraha at Dharasana, Mahatma Gandhi said:

"I know the dangers attendant upon the methods adopted by me. But the country is not likely to mistake my meaning. I say what I mean and think.

And

I have been saying for the last fifteen years in India and outside for twenty years more and repeat now that the only way to conquer violence is through nonviolence pure and undefiled. I have said also that every violent act, word and thought interferes with the progress of non-violent action. If in spite of such repeated warnings people will resort to violence, I must disown responsibility save such as inevitably attaches to every human being for the acts of every other human being. But the question of responsibility apart, I dare not postpone action on any cause whatsoever, if nonviolence is the force the seers of the

The Prime Minister has also complained in his press interview that the plans of satyagraha are being kept secret. In regard to that I again refer to a passage from Mahatma Gandhi's article in "The Harijan" of 10.6.1939:

"I have not yet known a general who has not altered time and again the plans of his campaign and made eleventh-hour alterations in his orders. The ordinary fighting soldier knows nothing of these plans. In fact they are a closely guarded secret unknown to all but the general himself. That is why Tennyson wrote those immortal lines-" Theirs not to reason why, theirs not to make reply, theirs but to do and die." But these words apply, if you please, to a Satyagrahi army more appropriately than to the ordinary army. For a military general change his plans in view of the changing situations every day. Military strategy depends on the changing tactics of the enemy. The Satyagrahi general has to obey his inner voice, for over and above the situation outside, he examines himself constantly and listens to the dictates of the Inner Self."

may

So that let it not be understood that this is going to be a fight against the Sinhalese. This is a fight against the injustices and insults that have been heaped on the Tamil-speaking people. But it is only a fight against the present system and the injustices.. It is not a fight against anybody else much less against the Sinhalese people.

So that I would refer to one other fact. My hon. Friend the First Member for Colombo Central mentioned the fact that satyagraha was not supported by the other parties on the other side of this House, and my good Friend just mentioned that it was dangerous to the minorities themselves. In this connection I am reminded of what Mahatma Gandhi advised the Tamil-speaking peopleor rather the Tamils-of Jaffna in 1927 when he visited them. Somebody had asked the Mahatmaji whether it was not advisable to get certain safeguards before they started fighting for freedom. The Mahatmaji had said:

"No, it is your duty to eliminate the outsider first. Then fight for freedom without any reservation or restrictions or

Before I discuss the Hon. Prime Minister's four points I must refer to the phrase "day to day administration in their own language in predominantly Tamil areas, namely, in the Northern and Eastern provinces used by the Hon. Minister of Agriculture and Food yesterday. I want a clarification of this phrase. I want to know whether it means that the Government offices in the Northern and Eastern provinces would carry on their administration in Tamil; whether in short we are going to have regional status for Tamil. Is that what the Government envisages?

If it is so, it is really in line with the S. L. F. P. resolution of 1955 which I quoted in extenso when speaking on the language Debate last year. I do not want to repeat it, but I do submit that under "the reasonable use" as explained in the Hon. Prime Minister's statement of April 25, it is not envisaged that the kachcheris and other Government offices in the Northern and Eastern provinces would be administered in the Tamil language.

The four-point programme for the reasonable use of Tamil includes education in the mother tongue. I would briefly ask, can you do anything else? Have you got teachers to teach Tamil children in Sinhalese even if you want to enforce it? Do you think it feasible or possible to teach Tamil children in Sinhalese ? So, you are not giving us any concession. It is rather a confession of your inability to enforce Sinhala only There is no concesin this respect. sion in this. What about estate children and estate schools? What provision are you making for teaching them? Are you honest about Tamil children being taught in Tamil? I am rushing through these matters in order to finish my speech. If you are serious about promoting the Tamil language and culture would you hinder the establishment of a Tamil University and would you restrict Tamil-speaking children to a 6 to 1 ratio in your Peradeniya University-the Tamil medium for one out of six children? No. Then, admission to the Public Service is to include Tamil also. This necessarily follows from the earlier point. There again, are these admissions going to be on merit and merit alone? The proviso that you should qualify in Sinhalese within three years or a specified period nullifies the whole thing. If there is a rule that a public servant should qualify in both languages then there is equality. I can understand that. But why should a Tamil public servant alone be compelled to qualify in Sinhalese if, especially in the Northern and Eastern provinces, you are going to allow the reasonable use of Tamil?

Then, local bodies are to be administered in Tamil. Again I ask, is this a confession of your inability to enforce Sinhala only? You know that in local bodies in the Northern and Eastern provinces there are members who do not know any other language but Tamil. If you say that they must transact their business in Sinhalese you will straightway wind up local government in those areas. This is the other great concession which the Hon. Prime Minister is giving us.

The fourth concession is that letters written in Tamil will be replied to in Tamil. I do not know whether the Hon. Prime Minister himself knows that in the Official Languages Dept. itself its minor employees are forbidden to write letters in Tamil to the head of the Department. There is a circular to the effect that if they do communicate they must communicate in English or Sinhalese. And yet you are talking of the reasonable use of Tamil, when under your very nose this sort of thing is happening!

I would mention one of my own experiences. I wrote to the Education Ministry on the 8th May, 1957, a letter in Tamil. No reply was received. I had two more samples of the "reasonable use of Tamil". I have with me a letter from the Director of Irrigation to D.I.E., Vavuniya, Batticaloa, Trincomalee which reads

"No. GR. 46 Colombo, 31.5.1957. D.I.E., Vavuniya, Batticaloa, Trincomalee. Selection of Departmental labourers for allotments under Padaviya Scheme. Four copies of Departmental circular No. 27 (two in English and two in Sinhalese) are forwarded herewith for your information.

Sufficient copies in Sinhalese of this circular have been sent to the Irrigation Engineers direct.

The other day I received, from the Commissioner, Cottage Industries, an invitation to attend an exhibition of textiles to which was attached a questionnaire in English. Are not Tamilspeaking people interested in the development of cottage industries in this country? Should not these things go out in Tamil also? I wrote a letter to the Commissioner, Cottage Industries, returning the invitation because of the calculated insult contained in it. I raised this question with him but I received no reply. That is my experience in my attempts write to various Government departments in Tamil.

to

It will be seen that both this Irrigation Department circular and the letter of invitation from the Commissioner, Cottage Industries, are within the framework of the Sinhala Only Act. I ask you, what declaration of fundamental rights can ever safeguard us against a situation like this? Is it not irony to talk of fundamental rights when Tamilspeaking people are deprived of language rights and a very large number of citizenship rights and franchise rights as well?

In regard to colonization I shall deal with it if and when I have the chance on another occasion. I merely wish to conclude with these observations. The regional councils in the scheme adumbrated in the draft contains provisions which makes the Minister of Local Government a virtual dictator who can make and unmake councils. The councils have no powers except those that are delegated to them by the Minister. And this is said to be a measure of decentralisation which would which would help to satisfy the demand for provincial autonomy. I do not think that the Hon. Prime Minister does not understand the difference between these two, nor does he think that his formula for the reasonable use of Tamil would satisfy our just demands and that we would be so gullible as to accept it.

Once again let me say that these matters are matters which can be solved the federal question by a plebiscite and the others by discussion. As far as we are concerned,

[Mr. Vanniasingam]

we have always been ready and willing to negotiate on the one and only condition that the discussions shall be full, free and frank.

5.40 P.M.

Dr. Perera: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, that I have to start on a note of mild protest at the remark of the hon. Member for Kopay. I do not know whether it was inadvertently made or not but I do not want it to appear in HANSARD without a protest from me. He spoke about the just grievance the hon. Member for Vavuniya had. I do not know how he came to that conclusion. If the demand to speak for two hours

Mr. Vanniasingam: No, one hour was alloted to Independents.

Dr. Perera: If the demand made by the hon. Member for Vavuniya for two hours at the tail-end of this Debate is a just demand, then all I can say is that the hon. Member for Kopay should have summoned hon. Members and fixed on the time.

Mr. Vanniasingam: On a point of personal explanation, all that I said. Iwas that one hour was allotted to Independents and he might have been allowed that time.

Dr. Perera: The hon. Member knows that one hour was allowed to Independent Members but that has been consumed by all the other parties including the hon. Member's own Party. Nevertheless, I was prepared to sacrifice half an hour of my time and give the hon. Member for Vavuniya that time. But he would have nothing less than two hours. Therefore, if the hon. Member for Kopay still thinks that is a just grievance of the hon. Member for Vavuniya, I can only say that our concept was somewhat different.

Mr. Speaker: I was prepared to give the hon. Member for Vavuniya 45 minutes.

Dr. Perera: I was not responsible for this arrangement. When I came back from China the three days' Debate was already settled and all that I could have done was to adjust the time. If the other hon. Members wanted more time, they should have asked for it and got it. It is not fair to place the burden on us for the time allowed. In a sense, I am sorry. I agree with the Hon. Minister of Industries and Fisheries. The Debate on the Address is a Debate which covers the multifarious activities of a government for a whole session. All manner of subjects have to be discussed; not only the policy of the coming session, but also what they have done in the past, giving us an indication of what they are likely to do in the future. What did actually occur? I agree that most of the time was spent by the hon. Members in discussing the communal issue. The greatest amount of weight was placed on the communal issue. The tension that exists outside this House pervaded hon. Members inside the House. Can you blame them for it? That is the atmosphere that has been created by this Government after a year's activity as Members of Government. This is a bulky document. I agree with the Hon. Minister of Industries that this is about the bulkiest Address of the Governor-General we have ever had and, I believe, submitted with good faith to give us details as to the activities of the Government. I shall come to that presently. I want to rush through because my time is limited and I certainly want to honour my undertaking with the Prime Minister.

Last year, when we discussed the Governor-General's Address, this House was full. Apart from the Hon. Ministers, Members of the back benches took an interest. They wanted to know what the Government policy was, and what was the nature of the criticism that the Opposition would direct at the policy of the Government so that they could profit by it in the year to come. But today nobody has any interest. All the back benches were empty all the

time. At some stage there were barely four Members on the Government side with one Minister and three other odd Members. Is that an indication of the interest that the Members of the Government have of their own policy? Surely that is a very bad start for a new Session for this Government. Last year when we criticized the Government, their complaint was that they had had no time, that barring a few days to prepare the Governor-General's Address they had had a very short time in which to carry on with work. They said, "Do not criticize us because we will deliver the goods; give us time." At least, the Hon. Prime Minister said, "How can you expect us to deliver babies until even nine months have passed?" Well, these babies have been in the womb for 15 months now.

The Hon. S. W. R. D. Bandaranaike: Babies come out healthy and vigorous.

Dr. Perera: If this is the baby as a result of 15 months' sojourn in the womb, all that I can say is that there is bulk but nothing else in this baby. There is no life in this baby. This is not a baby that will grow in health and youth, that will be a credit to Ceylon, that will provide the basis for the unification, for the unity, the harmonious development and the lasting progress of this country. That is the charge that I have against this Government.

Let me for a moment rush through what has happened in the past year. One year has passed and more-15 months. From April 13th, 1956, to this date what has happened? For this whole year there is only one outstanding achievement of this Government and that is the Sinhala Only Act and, I think, it is fair to say that posterity will judge this Government by that Act in a more vital sense than they realize. It is at once their monumental achievement and also their monumental folly. Round that Act, as I was almost going to say, gyrate all their subsequent actions and activities. They have, so to say, unearthed a monster which they

have spent a whole year trying to lay to rest. Time and again the Ministers and Members of this Government have made speeches outside this House drawing attention to the Sinhala Only Act. That was the main theme of their speeches outside, but what have they done in providing the Sinhala Only Act? Very little. I shall refer to that presently.

My good Friend the Hon. Minister of Agriculture and Food denied that communalism arose or that the communal tension at the moment was due to the activities of this Government. The Hon. Minister of Agriculture and Food has had a period of, shall I say, Rip van Winkle, a political Rip van Winkle. He has forgotten the past. This is not the first gov

ernment that we have had. We have had this dispensation since 1947 and 1948, but never was there so much communal tension outside as today. Never was there that. The Federal Party existed for nine years, that is ever since 1948-49. But there was no such feeling of this disunity, of communal clashes, of the possibility of communal clashes of this type until the Sinhala Only Act was passed and the consequences which arose therefrom. It is that disharmony, that bitterness of feeling that has endangered the peaceful state of affairs that existed in the past. But the Hon. Minister of Agriculture and Food thinks he has solved the problem by shouting and making his speech.

The Hon. D. P. R. Gunawardena : I maintain that.

Dr. Perera: He thinks he has solved all the problems by shouting. I say, you will never get your demands although you may shout at the top of your voice. I am very sorry that the Hon. Minister of Agriculture and Food participated in this Debate. He did more damage to the present position, and, to the position which the Prime Minister, with great difficulty is trying to create, than anybody else on the Government side. His whole speech which he delivered so vehemently was utterly