CO882-10 — Page 425

410

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

C.O.

Reference :-

882/10

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH—ÑUT TO

8

left the Island, and so have two of the European Members, namely, Sir James Broom and Mr. Philpott. The reply I am now forwarding is on behalf of the remaining four signatories of the Joint Memorandum, namely, Messrs. Wright (European Rural Member), Abdul Cader (Muhammadan Member), Adamally, and myself, but I feel that Sir James Broom, Mr. Philpott and Mr. Allan Drieberg, as well as their successors-Colonel Hayward and Messrs. Bois and Loos-will support me in the statement that the scheme of representation put forward in the Joint Memorandum, and sanctioned with some modifications by the Secretary of State, has the heartiest support of the European, Burgher, Muhammadan, Indian and Tamil communities generally, and all the loyal and moderate members of the Sinhalese community.

3. It is needless to reply to the several distortions of truth contained in the Memorial of the so-called National Congress. Writing on behalf of its Executive Committee, the President (Mr. H. J. C. Pereira) and the Joint Secretaries have tried to divert attention from the real issues by setting up false issues and demolish- ing them by specious arguments. Such tactics do not deceive the residents of Ceylon, whether native, European or Indian. They know that the actors on the Congress platform have been playing only to the officials in the Colonial Office and to a few members of the House of Commons, who live thousands of miles away from Ceylon. The resident population know the true state of things in regard to this body and its work, and how utterly fictitious are the statements of the framers of the Memorial that they "merely formulated the popular demand," and that "the electorate was solidly behind the Congress" (paragraph 2).

4. The constitution of the Ceylon National Congress is very peculiar. It was organized for the purpose of getting within its walls only those persons who enter- tained the belief that "responsible government and the status of a self-governing member of the British Empire were necessary for Ceylon, and to exclude every man who was either opposed to such an idea, or desired a reform of the existing form of Government on some other lines. The opening and closing of the portals of the National Congress were left strictly in the hands of a body of certain Extremists, numbering not less than 24 nor more than 60 members, called the Executive Committee of the Ceylon National Congress, and their duty, according to its constitution, was declared to be-

(1) To elect not only its own Chairman, Secretaries and Treasurer, but also a President, a Vice-President, two Secretaries and a Treasurer as the Officers of the Congress;

(2) To invite political associations to send delegates to the Congress; (3) To decide whether an association should be recognized as capable of

promoting the objects of the Congress;

(4) To determine whether the resolutions forwarded by the political asso- ciations should be placed on the agenda paper of the Congress, for discussion at the meeting of the Congress, each year, in the month of December; and

(5) To exclude from the session of the Congress any delegates who had failed to pay the annual subscription, or to express in writing his acceptance of the objects of the Congress, and his willingness to abide by its rules. 5. Such being the constitution of the Congress, can it be said that it is a popular body! Is it not really a very exclusive body of Extremists bent upon agitating for self-government and the status of a self-governing member of the British Empire, whether the people liked it or not? And what right has this small band of agitators to call itself "national"! If this term cannot be applied to the Congress by reason of its very constitution, why was it nevertheless assumed and flaunted about! It is obviously to create the misleading notion, especially in the minds of European Officials here and in the United Kingdom that the different communities in Ceylon supported the extreme views of the Executive Committee. Indeed, Mr. H. J. Č. Pereira was audacious enough to declare publicly that "mem- bership in the Congress was from its very inception thrown open to every Ceylonese as well as every European, Indian or other British subject resident in Ceylon," and that "its portals were kept wide open for the admission of all sections of the com- munities resident in Ceylon." (Appendix H, quoted in paragraph 8 of the Memorial.) Every line of this statement is untrue. For, according to the articles of the Congress its doors were firmly closed against every one who would not agree to clamour for responsible government and the status of a self-governing member of the British Empire, and no motion or amendment of a motion could be placed

9

before the Congress for consideration and decision if the Executive Committee disapproved of it.

6. From the very day of the founding of the Ceylon National Congress every thoughtful man in the country questioned the right of the promoters to call this institution "National," because it implicated the people of the country in its pro- ceedings, and created the impression that the members of the Executive Committee, as well as the delegates sent by a handful of wild doctrinaires, were bona fide representatives of the "nation in Ceylon. The vast majority of the different communities in Ceylon, who knew very well what miseries were created by the hot- headed Extremists in India, did not care to be either Members of the Executive Committee of the Ceylon National Congress, or to figure on that platform as dele- gates from any association, political, literary or industrial. Consequently, even in the palmiest days of the Ceylon National Congress, when Sir P. Arunachalam was at the helm of affairs, the Executive Committee and the Delegates to the Con- gress did not amount to more than 200, and after his retirement from the chair and the Executive Committee, the numerical strength of the Congress steadily declined, and, at the date of its Memorial to the Secretary of State (20th September, 1922). the attendance at the meeting had fallen to about 30. The ideas and loyalties of these 30 Extremists are paraded in the Memorial as those of "a large majority of the people" quoted (paragraph 6).

7. The Memorialists state in paragraph 1 that the Ceylon Burgher Electorate Association is politically an unimportant body, and that the assent of the President of that Association (the late Mr. Arthur Alwis) and of its Committee is repudiated by the "Burghers of Ceylon." These two statements are grossly untrue. They further state that the Jaffna Association and the Ceylon Tamil Mahajana Sabai, which accepted the constitution proposed in the Joint Memorandum, represent the views of certain small sections of Tamils residing mainly in the Northern Province," and that "their claim to voice the views of the Tamil community gener- ally has been publicly repudiated in different parts of the Island." These state- ments are also grossly untrue. They further state that the assent given on behalf of the Muslim Association was repudiated by two of its members. This statement proves nothing. They further state that because the Hon. Mr. Tambimuttu and the Hon. Mr. Duraisamy are not in accord with me, it is "misleading to claim that the Joint Memorandum represents the views of the Tamil Members of the Legisla- tive Council." No such claim was ever made.

8. As to the extract from the newspaper reports quoted in paragraph 1 of the Memorial and its Appendix C, about the Hon. Mr. Duraisamy's disagreement with many of the principles enunciated in the Memorial," it will be remembered that his telegram to me is set forth in its entirety at page 10 of the Joint Memo- randum, and it proves that on the 21st of November last he was in agreement with me and my colleagues regarding our scheme of proportion of seats between the Sinhalese and the Tamils and between the Tamils and other communities. What- ever the Editors who work with the Extremists and their reporters may say, I do not think that the Hon. Mr. Duraisamy has ever repudiated these two principles.

9. And as to the telegram sent to the Secretary of State by Dr. E. V. Rutnam, the President of the Colombo Tamil Association, in which he declared that it had disapproved the scheme formulated in the Joint Memorandum, I have to state that this telegram was shown to be false by the committee of that Association passing on the 12th of May last, and forwarding to His Excellency the Governor, a Resolu- tion accepting the whole scheme of Reform, including the Tamil seat for the Western Province. The Ceylon Tamil League also has supported it. Thus, the Tamils of Ceylon are practically of one mind on this subject, and have thereby condemned the Hon. Mr. Tambimuttu for siding with the Sinhalese Extremists.

10. I beg to add that for underrating and exaggerating, and for suppressio veri and suggestio falsi, the Memorial now under review stands unexcelled in the history of public documents, and that, during my fifty years of experience of public affairs, I have not known any representation to the Governor of Ceylon or the Right Honourable the Secretary of State for the Colonies to have been more generally supported by thoughtful men and women in the country than the Joint Memorandum of the eight Unofficial Members of the Legislative Council who signed it on the 22nd February, 1923.

I have. &c.,

P. RAMANATHAN.

The Honourable

The Colonial Secretary,

Colombo.

10