Page 1

8 KK ; წჭ: ་་་་་་་་་་་་་་་
! ! !

Page 2


Page 3
ඩිච්. ගුණසේකර මහතා (කලව (திரு. டில், குணசேசக்கர -
(Mr. Dew Gunasekera – Kalaw;
Mr. Speaker, We are meel Crisis. A situation is developin people are not in a mood to eve place in Parliament. Their atter what will happen tomorrow. It that my collaugas in the Opposi and the MEP, have decided tod. ing in the Sittings of Parliame1 back that this information Was C Some of the Views and sentim particular with regard to the dei and hold Genaral Elections. W on for a long time. However, a guided by the decision of the Cel munist Party of Sri Lanka, whor ter will receive their active cons decision I propose to take part the granting of the status of Sri I ing stateless persons of Indian have got definite instructions fr
Mr. Speaker, first of all, C Party of Sri Lanka whom I repr express my views on this Bill p the status of Sri Lankan citizens less persons of Indian origin. I far back as 1986 when the ori, Parliament with regard to the g
1.

0න) கலவான)
ana)
ting today at a time of grave g in the country where the 'n care about what is taking htion is focussed entirely on t is in these circumstances tion, belonging to the SLFP ay to refrain from participatnt. It was just a few minutes :onveyed to me. I agree With ents expressed by them, in mand to dissolve Parliament hich we have been insisting is you are well aware, I am ntral Committee of the Comm I repersent here. This matsideration, but pending their in this debate to provide for anka citizens to the remainbrigin, in respect of which I Om my party.
n behalf of the Communist esent, may I be permitted to roviding for the granting of O certain or remaining statethink you will recall that as ginal Bill was presented in granting of Sri Lankan citi

Page 4
Zenship to 94,000 persons the late Mr. Sarath Mutt clearly explained the posi voted in favour of the Bill
The problem of the known as the Indian issue sion and debate in this HO pendence in 1948. It was versy in this House and in even in the days of the Sta fact, even the old Legisla under colonial rule, had to Occassions.
Sir, going back to til that the migration of Indi; somewhere in the 1830s an cantly during the period c However, the Indian issue a problem of concern durin As you all know, the structu to a new form of slavery in by our local historians. So labour force, isolated geogr try with no trade unions, p. political rights and at that st petition in terms of employ of their large numbers, that
In 1911, the history the region of 530,000 and in from the 1830s to the 1930s

of Indian origin, my perdecessor etuwegama, MP for Kalawana, tion of our party and at that stage
people of Indian origin, otherwise :, has been the subject of discususe ever since the dawn of Indea matter subject to much controthe country from different angles, te Councils of 1931 and 1936. In tive Council which was directly deal with the subject on various
he history, it would be observed an labour to this country started ld the numbers increased signifif almost a century - 100 years did not become a central issue or ng this period of a hundred years. re of the plantation system geared this country as correctly termed long as they were a Very captive aphically in the hills of Our counbossessing neither economic nor age posing no threat or any comment, they were tolerated in spite
was the history.
shows that Indian labour was in n 1921 it was about 602,000. So, it was not a problem for anyone

Page 5
except for themselves who we human rights, civic rights, p rights.They were victims of col come on their own Volition or
here as a commodity of labour. Skeletons. Thousands died on t were all brought by the colonia ated by the colonials. Throug represssion, Supression and opp1 they did one thing. They enrich through their sweat, tears and ble six generations. According to S generally covers a period of 25 people of Indian origin have be oldest of those who are living t in the 1920s. A Vast majority W half of them would have been b
Sir, who created this prol dian issue who should be blame who should be blamed. It is not during the colonial period lostt It is not they who should be bla India or even the people of Sri L. It was the British Cononials Wl both India and Sri Lanka. And a problem was aggravated at the capitalists, as I would try to sho
It is quite relevant in this the old State Council of 1936, the a motion was brought forward b Member of the State Council for

re virtually slaves with no olitical rights or economic onical plunder. They did not Willingness. They were sent They came here as Walking heir way to Sri Lanka. They ls and the problem was creghout they were subject to ression. But, Sir, with all that, ed the wealth of this country OOd; and it is a story of nearly Ome historians a generation years. So six generations of en living in this country. The oday would have been born ere born in this country and born after independence.
blem? For this so called Ind? It is not the Indian labour the Kandyan peasantry who heir land that they inherited. amed. It is not the people of anka who should be blamed. ho created this problem for t a latter stage, of course, the : instance of Our Own local W you at a later stage.
connection to recall how in 2 second State Council, when y Dr. N. M. Perera the then RuVanWella, requesting the

Page 6
then colonial government t labour, it was defeated anc vour of this motion. With longer with us-II must mer N. M. Perera, Mr. Ph Goonesingha, Mr. D. M. Aluwihare, Those were the the State Council who ins bour should be allowed in Vast majority of our distin dhist leaders, insisted that uninterrupted.
Sir, I do not Want to
anyway history has to be m B. Jayatilleke, Mr. D. S.
Bandaranaike, Mr. H. W Nagawela Mr. Dodley HewaVitarne-Out of the twe distinguished Sinhalese Bl sition that the immigration lowed uninterrupted. So th which was proposed by Dr. Mr. Philip Gunawardana, f. Member for Maharagama, ceived only five votes. That much earlier in the year 19. up in the First State Cou Wickermasinghe, as Men Morawaka, who continuous of Indian labour should not est, in the class interest and Were all looked down upon
Sir, this problem Wou dimension or serious propor at that stage. So they who I View in the national interes

O put a halt to the immigration of only five Members voted in fadue respect to them-they are no htion their names. They were Dr. ilip Gunawardana, Mr. A. E.
Rajapaksa, and Mr. Bernard 2 five distinguished Members of isted that no immigration of lato this country. Unfortunately, a guished Sinhalese leaders, Budimmigration should be allowed
be disrespectful to the dead, but entioned as it i S. That e Ven Sir D. Senanayake, Mr. S. W. R. D. V. Amarasuriya, captain E. A. Senanayake and Mr. Rajah 2nty nine Members twenty were lddhist leaders - took up the poof Indian labour should be alle MOtion Was l'OSt, the Motion N. M. Perera and seconded by ather of my good friend the hon. Mr. Dinesh Gunawardana, ret was in the year 1937. But even 34, a similar decision was taken incil by my leader, Dr. S. A. nber of the State Council for sly insisted that the immigration be allowed in the national interin the human interest. But they and the Motion was rejected.
ld not have really taken such a tion, if that Motion was accepted moved the Resolution took that it, the human interest and class

Page 7
interest in bringing the Motio sometimes faced such a huge Motion had been, at least, accel Council On the one hand they de of labour should not be allowe demanded human rights for the in Sri Lanka That was the positio at it from a human angle, a clai tional interest. The others who ( own narrOW class interest, Veste cheap labour to their estates, Th lem on the basis of a long term at it objectively, dialectically ( point of view of the national ported the Motion looked at the ing factor into account, namel bour would create problems. Th foresight, They had the vision t not checked it will turn out to b Sothta Was why they demandes uninterrupted flow of labour. T unemployment in this country C was going to be continuous flow At the same time they also took isting labour should be treated h the indigenous workers of this the history of this problem.
What happened after Inde of patriotism dawned on this ge favour of bringing immigrant they took up the position that th are already Working in the Stat. prived of their political and frar the year 1948 Citizenship Bill c basically on the results of the firs
5

n. And we would not have problem as it is now if that pted at that stage in the State 2manded that the immigraton d and also at the same time 2 workers who were already in that they took. They looked SS angle and an angle of napposed went purely by their 'd interest, in trying to obtain ley never looked at the probobjective. They did not look or scientifically or from the interest. So those who sup: question taking the followy, uninterrupted flow of lahey foresaw it. They had the O see that if this problem is e a monster in time to come d that there should not be an hey said that the problem of :Ould not be tackled if there 7 of immigration from India. up the position that the exumanely and as equals with country. Sir, in short this is
pendence? A sudden feeling :ntlemen who were really in labour. After independance he existing immigrants who 2 plantations should be deIchise rights. That is how in ame to be presented. It was it General Election that such

Page 8
a decision was taken. Th opinion expressed in the problem of citizenship. S sense of genuine fear an
Members of Parliament v tricts, They feared a large country. They had a fear co pression to a genuine fear.
There was another v of the growth of the real country. They had a fear al sections who suffered fro Perera rightly termed. The present threats from India. were those who feared th when seven Members of th returned to Parliament, in present Minister of Rural II were fourteen other Meml Movement who were retu the support of the plantatio HANSARD of the first Pa predominant motive in bri 1948 was due to the fact inclined to support the Le Hon. Ministers and the ot community, for example Sunderalingam and Hon. G deprivation of citizenship. this question from a classgle. That is why they supp of those hon. Members of

ere were three or four shades of State Coopcil with regard to this -ome of them imagined and had a d suspicion, particularly the hon. vho came from the Kandyan disinflux of Indian labour to the upof being swamped. They gave ex
view expressed. That was the fear
organized working class in this pout them There were also certain om "Indo-phobia" as Dr. N. M. ey were concerned about the ever They had that fear. Fourthly, there e growth of the Left Movement, ne Indian plantation workers were cluding Hon. S. Thondaman, the ndustrial Development. Also there bers of Parliament from the Left rned to the first Parliament with on workers. If you go through the liament you will observe that the nging this piece of legislation in that the plantation workers were =ft Movement. That is why even her Hon. Members of the Tamil , Hon. S. Sittampalam, Hon. 1. G. Ponnambalam voted for the
That shows that they looked at angle and not from an ethnic anorted that Bill. I think only three Parliament who participated in
| 6

Page 9
that debate in 1948 are presenti Hon. Montague Jayawickerma. and Hon. Maithripala Sena Jayawickrema and hon, Maithr the Citizenship Bill while I opposed it.
Thus, Sir, the Citizenship first time in our country a prot we are going to remove today this statelessness that we propos period of 40 years. Sir, the Bil problem, instead of finding a so of other problems. They sough lem and the end result was that problems. One is that they crea country a large number of peopl have been here for the last so m cally present here were stateles,
Now Sir, they placed an army o of fear and Suspicion with no p cile eitherin Sri Lanka orin Ind mistrust, the mutual fear and the from this point onwards that th mutual mistrust and the mutuall continued to persist even till toc troduction of this Bill. It also is the Working class. Earlier the in the plantation working class of class, creed or sex or any other tions, relations of fraternity and ter the introduction Of that Bill

n this House today. They are
Hon. Dr. W. Dahanayake nayake. Hon. Montague pala Senanayake supported Hon. Dr. W. Dahanayake
Bill of 1948 created for the plem of statelessness which from the statute book. It is se to put an end today after a which sought to solve the lution, created a host of host t to solve a particular probthey created a host of other ated the statelessness in our e Working in the plantations any years They were physi
S
fplantation labour in a state rospect of permanent domiia, and there was the mutual 2 mutual suspicion. And it is e real mutual suspicion, the ear were generated and they lay, particularly after the inOlated them from the rest of digenous working class, and Indian origin irrespective of ethnicity had friendly relaeverything broke down afIt also created, Sir, a fear

Page 10
among the minorities at lar each minority started looki fear, suspicion and mistru,
Sir really it is in this eral party took place in I was hastened by the introd gress members. Mr. G. G. leaders voted in favou Chelvanayakam and others pelled the birth of the Fe history. The enactment oft of the political rights whic since 1931 for 14 years. In State Council time, 145,00 1941 the elections could no registered voters and theret India and Sri Lanka. It Strel tor. The Indian factor is p talk about a foreign policy even any internal problem to the surface. In fact, the ened as a result of the Citi,

ge. That is the starting point where ng at the majority Community with St.
context that the birth of the FedDecember 1948. Really the birth Jction of that Bill. The Tamil ConPonnambalam and all other Tamil ur Of the Bi || ... Mir. S. J. V. s opposed and it hastened and proderal Party in 1948. And this is he Citizenship Bill deprived them h these prople had been enjoying the year 1936 during the Second )0 Voters were there on record. In it be held. There had been 225,000 by it strained the relations between ngthened the so-called Indian facresent even today. Whenever we question or any other problem or always the Indian factor comes Very Indian factor was strengthZenship Bill of 1948.

Page 11
කථානායකතුමා
(கபாநாயகர் அவர்கள்)
(Mr. Speaker)
Order, please! The Deputy Spea
(අනතුරුව කථානායකතුමා මුලාසනයෙන් ඉවත් වෛද්‍යරත්ත මහතා) මුලාසනාරූඪ විය.)
Whereupon MR. SPEAKER DEPUTY SPEAKER (MR NO) the Chair.
ඩිච්. ගුණසේකර මහතා (திரு. டிவ் குணசேக்கர) Mr. Dew Guinasekara)
Mr. Deputy Speaker, that Bill 1 eral Party really it hastened the also strengthened the CWC. It that the Ceylon Workers Congre ble organization, This is the happensd? The introduction, th ship Bill in 1948 which sought Stead created a host of other inst remained unSolved. Therefore 1964, the problem of statelessne the Indian government nor the attempted to deal with this prot The people were here physically negotiations or correspondence large number of plantation wo and the Indian government did unable to send them back or gra
9

aker will now take the Chair
වූයෙන් නියොජ්‍ය කථානායකතුමා (නෝමන්
left the Chair, and MR. RMAN WAIDYARATNA) took
not only gave birth to a Fedbirth of Federal Party-but it is from that point onwards 2ss really became a formidahistory. And finally what e enactment, of the Citizento solve a problem but inurmountable problem which from the start. from 1948 to 'SS became acute and neither Sri Lanka Government ever plem or tackle this problem. 7. They were stateless and no took place and there was a rkers of Indian origin here, not claim them and we were nt them citizenship This was

Page 12
the starting point from Wl India and Sri Lanka Starte time of the Kotelawala gC discussions between Sri JC took place. Although ther Nehru Pact of 1954, histo off the ground. It was jus from 1948 tO 1964, absolu a period of non-cooperatio after Mr. S. W. R. D. Band he had no time to solve it. F break-through in trying to statelessness really took pl Shastripact was signed. frc Nothing happened till ab Bandaranaike and Mrs. In certain matters and attempt Pact. So really the probler the implementation.
Now, if you look bac was created in 1948 and made in 1964 after 16 years in 1974 after another 10 yea in 1986 after another 12 ye the last phase, is being mac years. So it has taken 40 O lem remained unsolved. It ened, and it was really cla determining factor in the W a Solution. There was neith tice. The congruence of th consiousneSS Was Supplem

lich even the relations between d to become Strained During the Vernment there was an attempt, hn Kotelawala and Pandit Nehru } was the so-called Kotalawalay shows that it never even took I a dead letter and for 16 years, ely nothing happened and it was n on both sides, both parties Even aranaike came to power in 1956 Ie had only two years. So the first find a solution to this problem of ace in 1964. That is After SirimaIm 1964 it took another 10 years. bout 1974 unti : Mrs. Sirima VO dira Gandhi princt again to clarify to implement the Sirima-Shastri n that arose Was the question of
ck you will See that the problem he first attempt to Solve it was . Then the next attempt was made rs and the third attempt was made ars and the fourth attempt, that is le now in 1988 after another two did years. For 40 years the probgot escalated, fastened and tightLSS more than race that was the hole process of finding of finding er human justice nor Social juse ethnic and the Social in classented by a whole host of other
IO

Page 13
Subjective factors, and there W people were regarded as a poor, moral people and therefore the the vote. So there were problem
The Problem really came mentation of the Sirima — Sh: Agreements and luckily. Sir, ther consider that the Sirima-Shastri advance in finding a Sotution Agreement was signed there we The Indian Government agreed Sri Lankan Government agreed and thereby solved the problem sons. But what had happened in tion ? When applications were to become Indian citizens. Inc 600,000 persons but they had r cations. The number had fallen S hand, the Sri Lankan Governm 375,000 persons, but actually th cations. That was how the quest up in the year 1986 and for whic in Parliament to rectify that ano
But really, Sir there are SC like to draw your attention to ir Agreement, The Bill that was pi to provide citizenship to the b persons who were not covered sorbed by India. This of course the situation, the reality as it is political problems are concerne
11

ere prejudices beause these illiterate, degraded and imy were considered unfit for ns no doubt.
to the surface in the impleastri and the Sirima-Indira e was some advance. I would Agreement made a very big in this problem. When the re 975,000 stateless persons, to absorb 600,000 and the to absorb 375,000 persons, of the 975,000 stateless perthe process of implementacalled only 506,000 applied lia was prepared to absorb 2ceived only 506,000 applihort by 94,000. On the other ent was prepared to absorb ere had been 469,000 appliion of 94,000 persons came h a separate Bill was passed maly.
me other problems I would the implementation of this resented today was intended alance number of stateless by the. 506,000 persons abfully agree, is the reality of today. As far as most or Our d, whether it is an Indian is

Page 14
Sue or the ethnic issue in Why We cannot tackle ther the reality. The same prob what happened? If the real 1948, so many millions of ing the last forty years. Th not, was the legacy Create the fault of the Indian Gove ernments, and it is not the ments of this country. It
colonialists as they had in where they had power, the
So today we are puti ated over a period of 150 ye ness that had existed Over pened as a result of a piec described by the late Mr. P. hon Member for Maharaga
"The most unjust unf, tion enacted in the Parliam
History has proved th it was so That is why afte Party Goverment had to b anomalies the mistakes, mac originally introduced the C thing is it took 40 years. Al I think there are people whi understand, Who cannot cor lem. Sir, I would quote e Bandaranaike, former Primr

the North, the biggest problem m is our unwillingness to accept lem had been there in Israel and ity had been accepted in the year people Would not have died durhe reality, Whether you like it Or d by the colonialistS, It, Was not :rnment, post-independence govfault of any other post-governWas the legacy Created by the terests: in all parts of the World British Empire.
ting an end to this problem crears and the problem of statelessa period of 4U years. This hap2 of legislation which was aptly hilip Gunawardene, father of the ma. as follows:
air and inhuman piece of legislaent of this country"
hat it was SO Reality has pre that r 40 years the United National ring in legisation to correct the le by the UNP government which itizenship Act of 1948, the only though it took 40 years, Sir, still D cannot appreciate, who cannot nprehend, the reality of the probVen from the H On S. W. R. D. le Minister Who spoke in wind
12

Page 15
ing up the debate on the Citize of the UNP. Of course he disti ernment to some extent and he si in winding up the debate on the distancing himself from the res position. I am quoting his spee
"From my point fo view, of view, these provisions go fui personally. Though I support tl manship and wisdom and in th have preferred the problem to angle"
So even the Hon. S. W. R. for that Bill would have had s
mind because he would have ha been looking at the problem al ably, that is why he would hav he had in mind, Probaly what h been the subsequent experience mum of Indian workers was nee should given full rights once tl who wanted to return should be terms. Now Sir, it has taken 40 implement even what Mr. Band
mind at that time.
I am in full agreement wi I feel that the implementation, today, the implementation to a some time. I can imagine that fr Now that the statelessness is no
13

enship Bill in 1948 on behalf anced himself from the Govaid. S. W. R. D. Bandaranaike = Citizenship Bill in 1948 and t of the speakers, took up this
ch.
- I asy from a personal point ther than I would have liked hem in the interest of statesne interest of peace, I would be approached from another
D. Bandaranaike who voted ome reservation in his own ad a vision or he would have ittle more objectively. Probe referred to an "angle" that e had in mind was-and it has -that a safe absorbable maxided by this country, that they hey are kept here and those - given fair, just and genuine
odd years to determine and laranaike would have had in
th the provisions of the Bill, although we passed this Bill Finality, may not take off for om my own past experience.
more, let us strive to create

Page 16
the necessary conditions
feel at home, to make the communities, With the indi and tranquility. Whatever to bring this piece of legis round the corner and W Thondaman, was insisting to this problem - We ourse being brought to a finality mediate or remote reasons. the government bring this it because it makes the m and in human piece of leg Wards. We Welcome this B basic rights of these plan uninterruptedly. We were stand, In spite of Various
Setbacks We continued to far as this question Was CO
I would remind the H lation is really an asset to th as our own indigenous WOI On the Vote on Account D of foreign exchange that t this country for a year goes tal and interest on the monit their Sweat, tears and bloo Wealth of this country but eign exchange to meet the annually Rs. 17,000 millic

conducive to making the people sm live with fraternity with other geneous Working class with peace he reason that motivated the UNP lation - no doubt the elections are e know the Hon. Minister, Mr. upon a Solution the final Solution :lves were insisting on this matter . Where Ver It is, Whatever the imWhatever is the motive that made piece of legislation. We Welcome Ost disCriminating, unfair, unjust, islation ineffective from now Onill because we have fought for the tation Workers continuously and undeterred and undismayed in Our threats intimidation, defeats and take a very principled position as oncerned.
Ouse that this Section of the popuhe country We must consider them kers AS II mentioned in my speech ebate, about Rs. 17,000 millions hese plantation Workers earn for sentirely for the payment of capies that wehave borrowed Through d they have not only enriched the
have also continued to find forrepayment of capital and interest
).
14

Page 17
The Hon Minister of Ru Mr. Thondaman, is not here an reference in his absence. But record, my personal observation problem of stateless persons re of the Ceylon Workers Congers aim was directed at achieving Now that this problem will ceas ment of this Bill and of course, a will not be any basis or condit Congerss to exist as a political marcation as far as policy differ the UNP and the CWE will no development would be the merg If this happens, I am sure ther origin, who will become full-fl try with all rights human, civic, be afforded the opportunity. to choice and of their own class. T (Interruption) That is what, I th ment to reconsider the whole c had been with the UNP in 1948 never have come. Now that Ho far as the UNP is concerned
Workers were no longer a thera them as a threat when they were way they supported the left mo
Anyway Sir, I think the w that they going to become free c the opportunity to choose their
with the working class and co politics Now that the stumbling are removed and the main prol vent hope that particularly in th tension, conficts and confrontat so many years, sanity will perv working class and that they wi
15

ral Industrial Development, d I do not want to make any anyway for the purpose of n is that this Indian issue, the cally germinated the growth s as a political party. Its main
a solution to this problem. se to exist after the enhanceifter its implementation there ion for the Ceylon Workers party So the only line of deences are concerned between » longer exist So the logical ger of the CWE and the UNP. plantation workers of Indian edged citizens of this counpolitical and franchise - will select the party of their own hey will get that opportunity ink, made the UNP Governquestion If Hon Thondaman 3 the Citizenship Act would n Thondaman is with you as they thought the plantation at to them. They considered - on the opposite side and the vement
Porkers of Indian origin now itizens of Sri Lanka, will get - own political party, merge
me into the main stream of ; block is cleared the burdles blem is solved, it is out fere hill country where a lot of ions have existed for the last ail among the leaders of this Il merge with the indigeous

Page 18
Working class and fight fo class and for the peace anc
In that context, I thir Bill, is an important Bill Th senting the Citizanship Bill said that it was a simple E Similarly, Sir, the Hon. Mi presented a Very simple Bij important Bill.
The main problem is would like to bring to the the Bureaucracy is playing is concerned. I think that SC hand once this Bill is enact ing of the Government. On terday that an application t still lying there. This is 198 had been asked to bring a le had been referred to the po station they said nothing ha to go to the CID. He went had not been informed of S place to place, from CID t Department of Immigration departments. But the matte so many such instances.
After this Bill is enact ple. They will become full-f is no reason for the bureauc ernment to Stand in their w; bill as early as possible, the tend to crop up. Therefore Hon. Minister, in impleme keen initiative and the same ing the Bill.

Ir the rights of the entire Working
stability of this country.
nk this Bill. though it is a simple ne Hon. D. S. Senanayake. in prell, made a very short speech. He Bill but it was an important Bill. nister of National Security today ill. Although it is simple, it is an
the implementation of the Bill. I notice of the Hon. Minister that hell as far as the implementation metimes they will also get a free ed. They would know the thinke trade union leader told me yeshat was made in the year 1967 is 37, and 20 years have clapsed. He tter from the police as the matter lice. When he went to the police ad come there, and he was asked to the CID. They said that they uch a thing. He was driven from O police, from one police to the and Emigration and Various other er remained un SOlved. There are
ed there will be no Stateless peoledged citizens. Therefore there :racy or the officials of the Govay. If you do not implement this nother subsidiary problems will , it is my earnest appeal to the nting this Bill, to take the same trouble that he took in introduc
16

Page 19


Page 20
Citizenship issue
"Who created this so called India be blamed? It is no who should be bl: Kandyan peasantry lonial period lost inherited. It is not blamed. It is not th even the people of S be blamed. It was th who created this p dia and Sri Lanka. A of course, the prob at the instance of talists, as I would i later stage."

E of indian labour
this problem? For en issue who should at the Indian labour amed. It is not the
who during the cotheir land that they they who should be e people of India or Sri Lanka who should de British colonialists roblem for both InAnd at a latter stage, lem was aggravated Four own local capitry to show you at a