Sri Lanka stands at a crossroads as it grapples with the complex issue of constitutional reform, particularly surrounding the 13th Amendment. This amendment, an outcome of the Indo-Sri Lanka Accord of 1987, aimed to address the aspirations of Tamil minority groups for increased regional autonomy. 

The nation’s political landscape is awash with diverse perspectives, reflecting a spectrum of opinions on the future of the 13th Amendment and its potential implications. As political leaders voice their views, the nation watches with bated breath to discern the course that Sri Lanka will chart.

SJB position

Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB) MP Eran Wickramaratne emphasised the importance of implementing the 13th Amendment, asserting that it was an integral part of the Constitution. The party’s stance is rooted in the belief that the amendment, which delineates powers and responsibilities between the Central Government and Provincial Councils, holds the key to a more balanced governance framework. 

Wickramaratne acknowledged President Ranil Wickremesinghe’s outlined measures for reform, including potential amendments to existing laws, asserting that the Parliament would scrutinise these proposals to ensure their effectiveness.

“As far as I know, we haven’t given any proposals as such because our position has been that the 13th Amendment is part of the Constitution and needs to be implemented. The President outlined a series of things that need to be done, including some laws that need to be amended and so forth. If he brings these matters to Parliament, we will look at the details and see how they can be made effective,” MP Wickramaratne said, speaking to The Sunday Morning.

The issue of concurrent Provincial Councils lists, which outlines shared powers between central and provincial governments, has been flagged for rationalisation. Wickramaratne underscores the need for clarity in this area, citing overlapping powers and inefficiencies. While the SJB is receptive to the idea of rationalisation, it stresses that the Government must provide detailed proposals for consideration.

“The other thing he suggested was the rationalisation of the concurrent Provincial Councils list. The general feeling is that it is not clear as there are overlapping power and decision-making inefficiencies, in addition to cost inefficiencies. That will need a constitutional amendment, but then they will have to come up with a proposal of how they are going to rationalise it. In principle, we are fine with that thought, but the Government has to come up with the details.” 

Wickramaratne emphasised the need for action and said that the time for discussions was yielding to the time for implementation. He asserted that once the Government proposed changes to the law, Parliament would rigorously discuss and evaluate them.

“Now it’s not so much a time for talking as much as for implementation. I think they should just implement and where there are changes to the law required, they can put forth the proposal and we can discuss it in committees in Parliament and take it up in Parliament.” 

Wiggy’s proposal

Thamil Makkal Thesiya Kuttani (TMTK) Leader MP C.V. Wigneswaran presents an intriguing proposal to address concerns surrounding arming Tamil policemen in the Northern Province. Drawing inspiration from the Indian city of Pondicherry, Wigneswaran suggests providing local policemen with non-lethal tools like batons and handcuffs. This, he argues, could alleviate psychological tensions and create a sense of authority among the local population. 

Wigneswaran’s proposal has resonated with some political figures, including SJB MPs Lakshman Kiriella and Kumara Welgama, who have expressed support for the concept.

“If arming the Tamil policemen in the north is a problem for the Sinahalese in the south, thinking that there might be violence, we can still have, like in Pondicherry in India, policemen who carry the baton and handcuffs. With the baton and handcuffs, the Police in Pondicherry are able to do traffic duty, take down complaints, and so many other things. 

“Similarly, the Excise Department of Sri Lanka does not carry guns or anything like that, but they are able to catch people involved in making moonshine and other illegal activities. Therefore, for the moment, as a stopgap arrangement, I have asked them to give them Police training and only batons and handcuffs for the moment, so that the psychological problems of the Sinhalese can be eliminated. 

“There is no problem in giving Police powers in the Northern Province, but then it’s the Sinhalese who feel as if that will give Tamil Police officers the right to be harsh to certain people and things like that. This is why I have proposed this. It was welcomed by Kiriella and Welgama. Both of them, when we came out of the meeting, told me that they tended to agree with me on the proposal,” MP Wignesawaran told The Sunday Morning.

Wigneswaran’s proposition aims to tackle two critical issues: unemployment and the need for local empowerment. By offering job opportunities to youth and granting them a measure of authority, the proposal seeks to bridge gaps between communities. However, the Government’s response to this proposal is pending.

“There are two reasons for my proposal. Our young people will have jobs. There are lots of people without jobs so they can be trained and they will have jobs. Secondly, they will also be given some authority, which our people don’t have. At the moment, with only Sinhala policemen in the Tamil areas, there is definitely antipathy towards the people in authority. 

“The youngsters feel that they are all different people who speak a different language and as a result, there is no chance of the two communities meeting together. Thus, it is best to give the local population some authority. The Government has not responded to my proposal. It doesn’t want to commit itself to the 13A at the moment.” 

Gammanpila’s opposition 

Speaking to The Sunday Morning, dissident Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) MP Udaya Gammanpila questioned whether President Wickremesinghe possessed the mandate to go beyond the 13th Amendment. Gammanpila argued that the President’s authority was confined to completing the agenda set by his predecessor. Any deviation from this mandate, he contended, necessitated seeking a fresh mandate from the people. He warned that current actions were inconsistent with the ‘Vistas of Prosperity and Splendour’ policy document, made by former President Gotabaya Rajapaksa.

“The President has no mandate to go beyond the 13th Amendment because he was appointed to complete the mandate of former President Gotabaya Rajapaksa. He doesn’t have any other mandate. If he wants to implement his own policies, then he should go before the people and seek a fresh mandate. What he is doing right now is totally contradictory to what is promised by Gotabhaya Rajapaksa’s ‘Vistas of Prosperity and Splendour,’” MP Gammanpila opined.

Gammanpila vigorously opposed MP Wigneswaran’s compromise on Police powers, dismissing it as an inadequate solution. He asserted that arming regional forces, even symbolically, could pave the way for future conflicts. He referenced historical events such as the formation of the Tamil National Army in 1989, to underline the potential risks of such a move.

“It’s not a good compromise. Why are they so interested in Police powers? What are they going to achieve by having a Police force without any weapons? This is the first step – gaining Police powers to have an armed struggle against the Sri Lankan Government. 

“You may recall, in 1989 Varadaraja Perumal formed a militia under the Provincial Councils system called the Tamil National Army. Thereafter, he declared unilateral independence of Tamil Eelam and he used the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) as his armed force. With these bitter experiences, we don’t give our consent to give any sort of Police powers to the provinces.” 

Gammanpila argued for preserving the status quo, suggesting that seven successive presidents had identified a natural compromise on the 13th Amendment. Going beyond its current scope was unnecessary, he opined.

“There is a natural compromise. For the last 36 years, seven successive presidents have identified the real compromise of the 13th Amendment, which we have implemented so far. There is no necessity to go beyond the present point of implementation.”

Other political perspectives

The National People’s Power (NPP), represented by MP Dr. Harini Amarasuriya, takes a different stance. The NPP has chosen not to submit proposals, citing scepticism about the President’s initiative and intentions. The party’s absence from the All-Party Conference reflects its lack of confidence in the process.

“We are not submitting proposals. We don’t think the President’s initiative is in good faith and so, we don’t want to be a part of that. We did not attend the All-Party Conference as well,” Amarasuriya told The Sunday Morning. 

Sri Lanka Muslim Congress (SLMC) Leader MP Rauff Hakeem has taken a proactive approach by submitting the same document prepared during the previous Government. This document contains their proposals and standpoint regarding the 13th Amendment, signalling a desire for continuity in their approach.

“We have decided to send the same document we prepared for the Constitutional Assembly during the last Government. That contained the details of our proposals and standpoint regarding the 13th Amendment,” MP Hakeem told The Sunday Morning. 

Awaiting the Govt.’s stand

Chief Government Whip and SLPP MP Prasanna Ranatunga revealed ongoing discussions between party heads and the President. While their definitive stance on the 13th Amendment remains undisclosed, these dialogues emphasise the complexity of accommodating diverse viewpoints.

“It is still at the discussion level. The party heads met with the President. SLPP Secretary Sagara Kariyawasam, National Organiser Basil Rajapaksa, and Leader Mahinda Rajapaksa met with President Wickremesinghe and the matter was discussed. Our proper stance on the 13th Amendment will be revealed soon,” Ranatunga said, speaking to The Sunday Morning.  

As Sri Lanka engages in a discourse on the future of the 13th Amendment, it becomes evident that the issue transcends political divides. Voices from different parties offer a spectrum of opinions, underscoring the delicate balance between unity and autonomy. The outcome of this constitutional debate will shape Sri Lanka’s trajectory and determine its ability to address historical grievances while fostering a future of inclusivity and prosperity.

TNA MPs were not available for comment despite repeated attempts by The Sunday Morning.