CO882-10 — Page 389

89

375

,,

having any reference to such considerations as numbers, education, and the material progress of the community referred to, but upon a fantastic theory of " of power

-an artificial and arbitrary arrangement which must in practical appli- balancing cation result in injustice to one section of the people or another. The truth of this assertion is well proved by the scheme of representation given in the Joint Memo- randum. Its obvious inconsistencies can be defended on no rational grounds. It simply means that the majority section of the population of any country have no inherent right to adequate representation, but must be contented with what the minority communities in their wisdom and goodness of heart agree to allow them. Even from a communal point of view it is obvious that no such right of dictation can be claimed by, or granted to, any group of communities. It is scarcely necessary to add that in any scheme of reform adequate constitutional safeguards may be provided against any such danger as is apprehended by the authors of the Memorandum, instead of allowing their imaginary fear to stand as an insuperable barrier athwart the part of political progress in this country.

8. In reply to the criticisms levelled at the Congress in regard to its repre- sentative character, the memorialists beg to submit berewith a copy of an interview granted by the President of the Congress to the Ceylon Daily News, which they venture to submit establishes by indisputable facts and figures the position which the Congress occupies in Ceylon. (Vide Appendix H.)

9. In conclusion the memorialists beg to submit that any alteration of the reform scheme on the lines suggested in the Joint Memorandum will be keenly resented as a retrograde step which cannot but be disastrous to the welfare and political progress of Ceylon. It will engender in the minds of the people a sense of distrust which it would be difficult, if not impossible, to eradicate, and will create in this country a feeling of discontent the result of which it is not easy to foresee. In submitting these observations on the Joint Memorandum your Memorialists earnestly invite your careful and impartial consideration of the Congress claims in the sincere hope that you will judge them on their own merits and grant to the law- abiding and progressive people of this country a constitution which will set them forth in the path of ordered progress towards self-government.

And your Memorialists as in duty bound will ever pray.

H. J. CHAS. PEREIRA,

President.

M. A. ARUL Anandan, M. T. DR S. AMERASIKERA,

Honorary Secretaries.

On behalf of the Executive Committee of the Ceylon National Congress. Cevlon National Congress Chambers.

Colombo, 20th September, 1922.

APPENDIX B.

EXTRACTS from interview granted to the Ceylon Daily News by Honourable Mr. E. R. Tambimuttu, 23rd August, 1922:-

The Hon. Mr. E. R. Tambimuttu, interviewed yesterday, said :--

The statement in the mischievous memorandum that the Tamils favour the scheme of reform propounded there is quite unfounded. The Tamil provinces are represented in Council by Mr. Duraiswamy and myself. As for me from the very beginning I was opposed to the Tamils casting their lot with the other minorities in opposition to the Singhalene. I refused to take part in the deputation that awaited on His Excellency with that Memorial.

"But the Memorialists maintain that Mr. Duraiswamy favoured their scheme,” remarked our representative.

Mr. Tambimuttu replied: I have Mr. Duraiswamy's assurance that he did not see the memorial, and it is evident from the memorial itself that he has not signed it. In fact the telegram that was published as an appendix to the memorial, Mr. Duraiswamy says, was a private reply to a telegram from Sir P. Ramanathan, and its publication was quite unauthorized. Sir P. Ramanathan, as everybody knows, is one of the nominated members, and to quote the same document that is used by the Memorialiste, a nominated member is called to Council because of his experience or because his voice will be listened to in Council, not because he is a Tamil. So Sir P. Ramanathan cannot be said to represent the Tamils Therefore I fail to see

I am

how these minorities could boast that the Tamils are in agreement with them. very sorry that this Memorandum has created some bad blood between the Tamils and the Singhalese, but I am sure every true Singhalese who understands the situation will realize that the Tamils and the Singhalese should stand together in order to face the crisis that is looming ahead of us. and I am sure he will dissociate himself from all connexion with the Memorial.

Mr. Duraiswamy will be here on Thursday,

APPENDIX C.

Extracts from the Ceylon Daily News, 26th August, 1922.

AN EMPHATIC REPUDIATION.

The Hon. Mr. Duraiswamy's Signature.

THE Hon. Mr. E. R. Tambimuttu, M. L. C. for the Eastern Province, has already mentioned in the interview he granted a Daily News representative that Mr. Duraiswamy did not sign the Memorial in question and that the authors of the Memorial had made an abuse of his private telegram to Sir Ponnambalam by annexing it to their Memorial.

Mr. Duraiswamy's Version.

A representative of the Ceylon Daily News was able yesterday to hea. from Mr. Duraiswamy his version of the affair.

At first Mr. Duraiswamy was not disposed to grant an interview because he said that he had been misrepresented in the Daily News.

"How?" asked our representative.

"

Your paper said that I have signed the Memorial, which I never did,” replied the Member for the Northern Province. "In fact I refused to sign the Memorial.

But you say I signed it. You spoil your own cause by throwing the supporters of political advancement into the minority camp."

"

“Then you disagreed with the proposals in the Memorial!"

"I disagree," emphasized Mr. Duraiswamy, with many of the principles enunciated in the Memorial, especially that no two communities should be in a majority in Council. This, I consider, directly calculated to ignore the interests of

the majority of the population, Singhalese and Tamils, in the Island.”

"

From the very first," added Mr. Duraiswamy. "both Mr. Tambimuttu and I have been trying our best to bring about a settlement even at the risk of sacrificing

our personal friendship with some prominent figures on the other side. May I say that it is not in vain that I hope we will be able to get on in harmony.'

21

Mr. Duraiswamy mentioned that his telegram would have made it clear that he did not support the scheme in the Memorial in question. The scheme he supported was for a Council of ten official members, ten minority members, no nominated members, and twenty-five territorially elected members. expressed only that he was in favour of maintaining the proportion (7 to 13) between In that telegram he Tamils and Singhalese.

Extracts from an interview published in The Citizen of the 17th September, 1922. The Hon. Mr. W. Duraiswamy.

"I had no hand whatever in the Minorities Scheme. My telegram to Sir Ramanthan shows that I was opposed to the very essentials of that absurd scheme. If we have to hand the guidance of our political matters to the Minorities what is our political worth! I cannot understand how age and experience could have been guilty of such egregious blunders. I will never support any scheme of that kind that commits the Tamils to the back-waters of political uselessness. No sane Tamil unobsessed by personal magnificence could have been guilty of such a woeful exhibition of political absurdity. This is all the work of our old men. cannot lead in the right way they lead in the wrong, but they always lead: that is their one and only ambition."

If they

APPENDIX D.

Dr. E. V. Ratnam.

Dr. E. V. Ratnam, M.M.C., interviewed, said that he entirely dissociated him- self from what is stated in the Memorial.

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

11 Co. 882/10

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON