Buddhist Theory of Kamma

by Venerable Narada Maha Thera-October 1, 2020

Kamma is the law of moral causation. The theory of kamma is a fundamental doctrine in Buddhism. This belief was prevalent in India before the advent of the Buddha. Nevertheless, it was the Buddha who explained and formulated this doctrine in the complete form in which we have it today.

What is the cause of inequality that exists among mankind?

Why should one person be brought up in the lap of luxury, endowed with fine mental, moral and physical qualities, and another in absolute poverty, steeped in misery?

Why should one person be a mental prodigy and another an idiot’?

Why should one person be born with saintly characteristics and another with criminal tendencies?

Why should some be linguistic, artistic, mathematically inclined, or musical from the very cradle.

Why should others be congenitally blind, deaf, or deformed? Why should some be blessed and others cursed from their births?

Either this inequality of mankind has a cause or it is purely accidental. No sensible person would think of attributing this unevenness, this inequality, and this diversity to blind chance or pure accident.

In this world nothing happens to a person that he does not for some reason or other deserve. Usually, men of ordinary intellect cannot comprehend the actual reason or reasons. The definite invisible cause or causes of the visible effect is not necessarily confined to the present life, they may be traced to a proximate or remote past birth.

According to Buddhism, this inequality is due not only to heredity, environment, “nature and nurture”, but also to kamma. In other words, it is the result of our own past actions and our own present doings. We ourselves are responsible for our own happiness and misery. We create our own Heaven. We create our own Hell. We are the architects of our own fate.

Perplexed by the seemingly inexplicable, apparent disparity that existed among humanity, a young truth-seeker approached the Buddha and questioned him regarding this intricate problem of inequality:

“What is the cause, what is the reason, 0 Lord,” questioned lie, “that we find amongst mankind the short-lived and long-lived, the healthy and the diseased, the ugly and beautiful, those lacking influence and the powerful, the poor and the rich, the low-born and the high-born, and the ignorant and the wise?”

The Buddha’s reply was:

“All living beings have actions (Kamma) as their own, their inheritance, their congenital cause, their kinsman, their refuge. It is kamma that differentiates beings into low and high states.”

The Buddha then explained the cause of such differences in accordance with the law of cause and effect.

Certainly we are born with hereditary characteristics. At the same time we possess certain innate abilities that science cannot adequately account for. To our parents we are indebted for the gross sperm and ovum that form the nucleus of this so-called being. They remain dormant within each parent until this potential germinal compound is vitalised by the karmic energy needed for the production of the foetus. kamma is therefore the indispensable conceptive cause of this being.

The accumulated karmic tendencies, inherited in the course of previous lives, at times play a far greater role than the hereditary parental cells and genes in the formation of both physical and mental characteristics.

The Buddha for instance, inherited, like every other person, the reproductive cells and genes from his parents. But physically, morally and intellectually there was none comparable to him in his long line of Royal ancestors. In the Buddha’s own words, he belonged not to the Royal lineage, but to that of the Aryan Buddhas. He was certainly a superman, an extraordinary creation of his own kamma.

According to the Lakkhana Sutta of Digha Nikaya, the Buddha inherited exceptional features, such as the 32 major marks, as the result of his past meritorious deeds. The ethical reason for acquiring each physical feature is clearly explained in the Sutta.

It is obvious from this unique case that karmic tendencies could not only influence our physical organism, but also nullify the potentiality of the parental cells and genes – hence the significance of the Buddha’s enigmatic statement, – “We are the heirs of our own actions.”

Dealing with this problem of variation, the Atthasalini, being a commentary on the Abhidharma, states:

“Depending on this difference in Karma appears the differences in the birth of beings, high and low, base and exalted, happy and miserable. Depending on the difference in karma appears the difference in the individual features of beings as beautiful and ugly, high-born or low born, well-built or deformed. Depending on the difference in karma appears the difference in worldly conditions of beings, such as gain and loss, and disgrace, blame and praise, happiness and misery. “

Thus, from a Buddhist point of view, our present mental, moral intellectual and temperamental differences are, for the most part, due to our own actions and tendencies, both past and present.

Although Buddhism attributes this variation to kamma as being the chief cause among a variety, it does not, however, assert that everything is due to kamma. The law of kamma, important as it is, is only one of the twenty-four conditions described in Buddhist Philosophy.

Refuting the erroneous view that “whatsoever fortune or misfortune experienced is all due to some previous action”, the Buddha said:

“So, then, according to this view owing to previous actions men will become murderers, thieves, unchaste, liars, slanderers, covetous, malicious and perverts. Thus, for those who fall back on the former deeds as the essential reason, there is neither the desire to do, nor effort to do, nor necessity to do this deed, or abstain from this deed. “

It was this important text, which states the belief that all physical circumstances and mental attitudes spring solely from past kamma that Buddha contradicted. If the present life is totally conditioned or wholly controlled by our past actions, then certainly kamma is tantamount to fatalism or determinism or predestination. If this were true, free will would be an absurdity. Life would be purely mechanistic, not much different from a machine. Being created by an Almighty God who controls our destinies and predetermines our future, or being produced by an irresistible kamma that completely determines our fate and controls our life’s course, independent of any free action on our part, is essentially the same. The only difference lies in the two words God and kamma. One could easily be substituted for the other, because the j ultimate operation of both forces would be identical.

Such a fatalistic doctrine is not the Buddhist law of kamma, Five Processes for Kamma Niyama.

According to Buddhism, there are five orders or processes (niyama) which operate in the physical and mental realms.

They are:

1. Utu Niyama –

physical inorganic order, e.g. seasonal phenomena of winds and rains. The unerring order of seasons, characteristic seasonal changes and events, causes of winds and rains, nature of heat, etc., all belong to this group.

2. Beeja Niyama –

order of germs and seeds (physical organic order), e.g. rice produced from rice-seed, sugary taste from sugar-cane or honey, peculiar characteristics of certain fruits, etc. The scientific theory of cells and genes and the physical similarity of twins may be ascribed to this order.

3. Kamma Niyama –

order of act and result, e.g., desirable and undesirable acts produce corresponding good and bad results. As surely as water seeks its own level so does kamma, given opportunity, produce its inevitable result, not in the form of a reward or punishment but as an innate sequence. This sequence of deed and effect is as natural and necessary as the way of the sun and the moon.

4. Dhamma Niyama –

order of the norm, e.g. the natural phenomena occurring at the advent of a Bodhisattva in his last birth. Gravitation and other similar laws of nature. The natural reason for being good and so forth, many be included in this group.

5. Citta Niyama –

order or mind or psychic law, e.g., processes of consciousness, arising and perishing of consciousness, constituents of consciousness, power of mind, etc. including telepathy, telaesthesia, retro-cognition, premonition, clairvoyance, clairaudience, thought-reading and such other psychic phenomena which are inexplicable to modern science.

Every mental or physical phenomenon could be explained by these all-embracing five orders or processes which are laws in themselves. kamma as such is only one of these five orders. Like all other natural laws they demand no lawgiver.

Of these five, the physical inorganic order and the order of the norm are more or less mechanistic, though they can be controlled to some extent by human ingenuity and the power of mind. For example, fire normally burns, and extreme cold freezes, but man has walked scatheless over fire and meditated naked on Himalayan snows; horticulturists have worked marvels with flowers and fruits; Yogis have performed levitation. Psychic law is equally mechanistic, but Buddhist training aims at control of mind, which ispossible by right understanding and skilful volition. The kamma law operates quite automatically and, when the kamma is powerful, man cannot interfere with its inexorable result though he may desire to do so; but here also right understanding and skilful volition can accomplish much and mould the future. Good kamma, persisted in, can thwart the reaping of bad kamma, or as some Western scholars prefer to say ‘action influence’, is certainly an intricate law whose working is fully comprehended only by a Buddha. The Buddhist aims at the final destruction of all kamma.

WHAT IS KAMMA?

The Pali term kamma literally means action or doing. Any kind of intentional action whether mental, verbal, or physical, is regarded as kamma. It covers all that is included in the phrase “thought, word and deed”. Generally speaking, all good and bad action constitutes kamma. In its ultimate sense kamma means all moral and immoral volition. Involuntary, unintentional or unconscious actions, though technically deeds, do not constitute kamma, because volition, the most important factor in determining kamma, is absent.

The Buddha says :

“I declare, 0 Bhikkhus, that volition is kamma, having willed one acts by body, speech, and thought. ” (Anguttara Nikaya)

Every volitional action of individuals, save those of the Buddhas and Arahants, is called kamma. The exception made in their case is because they are delivered from both good and evil; they have eradicated ignorance and craving, the roots of kamma.

“Destroyed are their germinal seeds (Khina beeja); selfish desires no longer grow,” states the Ratans Sutta of the Sutta nipata.

This does not mean that the Buddha and Arahantas are passive. They are tirelessly active in working for the real well being and happiness of all. Their deeds ordinarily accepted as good or moral, lack creative power as regards themselves, Understanding things as they truly are, they have finally shattered their cosmic fetters – the chain of cause and effect.

Kamma does not necessarily mean past actions. It embraces both past and present deeds. Hence in one sense, we are the result of what we were; we will be the result of what we are.

In another sense, it should be added, we are not totally the result of what we were; we will not absolutely be the result of what we arc. The present is no doubt the offspring of the past and is the present of the future, but the present is not always a true index of either the past or the future; so complex is the working of kamma.

It is this doctrine of kamma that the mother teaches her child when she says “Be good and you will be happy and we will love you; but if you are bad, you will be unhappy and we will not love you.” In short, kamma is the law of cause and effect in the ethical realm.

 

KAM MA AND VIPAKA

Kamma is action, and Vipaka, fruit or result, is its reaction.

Just as every object is accompanied by a shadow, even so every volitional activity is inevitably accompanied by its due effect.

kamma is like potential seed: Vipaka could be likened to the fruit arising from the tree – the effect or result. Anisamsa and Adinaya are the leaves, flowers and so forth that correspond to external differences such as health, sickness and poverty-these are inevitable consequences, which happen at the same time. Strictly speaking, both kamma and Vipaka pertain to the mind.

As kamma may be good or bad, so may Vipaka, – the fruit – is good or bad. As kamma is mental so Vipaka is mental (of the mind). It is experienced as happiness, bliss, unhappiness or misery, according to the nature of the kamma seed. Anisainsa are the concomitant advantages material things such as prosperity, health and longevity. When Vipaka’s concomitant material things are disadvantageous, they arc known as Adairaja, full of wretchedness, and appear as poverty, ugliness, disease, short life-span and so forth.

As we sow, we reap somewhere and sometime, in this life or in a future birth. What we reap today is what we have sown either in the present or in the past.

The Samyutta Nikaya states :

“According to the seed that’s sown, So is the fruit you reap there from, Doer of good will gather good,

Doer of evil, evil reaps,

Down is the seed and thou shalt taste The fruit there of”

Kamma is a law in itself, which operates in its own field without the intervention of any external, independent ruling agency.

Happiness and misery, which are the common lot of humanity, are the inevitable effects of causes. From a Buddhist point of view, they are not rewards and punishments, assigned by a supernatural, omniscient ruling power to a soul that has done good or evil. Theists, who attempt to explain everything in this and temporal life and in the eternal future life, ignoring a past, believe in a ‘postmortem’ justice, and may regard present happiness and misery as blessings and curses conferred on His creation by an omniscient and omnipotent Divine Ruler who sits in heaven above controlling the destinies of the human race. Buddhism, which emphatically denies such an Almighty, All merciful God-Creator and an arbitrarily created immortal soul, believes in natural law and justice which cannot be suspended by either an Almighty God or an All-compassionate Buddha. According to this natural law, acts bear their own rewards and punishments to the individual doer whether human justice finds out or not.

There are some who criticise thus: “So, you Buddhists, too, administer capitalistic opium to the people, saying: “You are born poor in this life on account of your past evil kamma. He is born rich on account of his good kamma. So, be satisfied with your humble lot; but do good to be rich in your next life. You are being oppressed now because of your past evil kamma. There is your destiny. Be humble and bear your sufferings patiently. Do good now. You can be certain of a better and happier life after death.”

The Buddhist doctrine of kamma does not expound such ridiculous fatalistic views. Nor does it vindicate a postmortem justice. The All-Merciful Buddha, who had no ulterior selfish motives, did not teach this law of kamma to protect the rich and comfort the poor by promising illusory happiness in an after-life.

While we are born to a state created by ourselves, yet by our own self-directed efforts there is every possibility for us to create new, favourable environments even here and now. Not only individually, but also, collectively, we are at liberty to create fresh kamma that leads either towards our progress or downfall in this very life.

According to the Buddhist doctrine of kamma, one is not always compelled by an ‘iron necessity’, for Kamma is neither fate, nor predestination imposed upon us by some mysterious unknown power to which we must helplessly submit ourselves. It is one’s own doing reacting on oneself, and so one has the possibility to divert the course of one’s kamma to some extent. How far one diverts it depends on oneself.

Is one bound to reap all that one has sown in just proportion?

The Buddha provides an answer:

“if anyone says that a man or woman must reap in this life according to his present deeds, in that case there is no religious life, nor is an opportunity, afforded for the entire extinction of sorrow But if anyone says that what a man or woman reaps in this and future lives accords with his or her deeds present and past, in that case there is a religious life, and an opportunity is afforded for the entire extinction of ‘a sorrow” (Anguttara Nikaya)

Although it is stated in the Dhammapada that “not in the sky, nor in mid-ocean, or entering a mountain cave is found that place on earth where one may escape from (the consequences of) an evil deed”, yet one is not bound to pay all the past arrears of one’s kamma. If such were the case emancipation would be impossibility. Eternal recurrence would be the unfortunate result.

 20A Grave Threat To Sri Lanka’s Sovereignty: Counsels For SJB Petitioners

Rasika, Mayantha and Lihini

SEPTEMBER 30, 2020

Counsels who appeared for three petitioners from the Samagi Jana Balawegaya stated this morning that the proposed 20th Amendment to the Constitution would gravely undermine the sovereignty of Sri Lanka and could not be passed with a two-thirds majority in Parliament.

The Supeme Court conducted hearings of the petitions filed against the 20th Amendment to the Constitution for the second consecutive day. Chief Justice Jayantha Jayasuriya said yesterday that the court intended to conclude submissions of all petitioners by Friday.

Making submissions for Samagi Jana Balawegaya’s Rasika Jayakody, Counsel Gehan Gunatilleke drew attention to Clause 17 of proposed Bill. “Holding citizenship of any other country typically entails pledging allegiance to a Sovereign other than the people of SriLanka,” he said.

Gunatilleke added. “A committee appointed by the Bar Association recently released a report on 20A Bill, which reproduced some of the citizenship oaths: Two examples are as follows

Section 42 of the British Nationality Act of 1981, as amended (para 26):

I, [name], swear by Almighty God that, on becoming a British citizen, I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Her Heirs and Successors according to law.

The oath of citizenship according to Section 337(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of the United States of 1952:

I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen

The sovereignty in the case of Sri Lanka would be the People of Sri Lanka – so any person taking the US citizenship oath would be renouncing all fidelity to the People of Sri Lanka

These oaths impose a legal duty on the said person to safeguard the interests of that country notwithstanding holding any public office in Sri Lanka, and in some cases to renounce fidelity to the People of Sri Lanka.

The question is whether a person who makes such an oath—for example an oath of allegiance to the Queen of England—should ask wield legislative and executive power of the People of Sri Lanka”. “These oaths impose a legal duty on the said person to safeguard the interests of that country notwithstanding holding any public office in Sri Lanka – in some cases to renounce fidelity to the People.”

Gunatilleke concluded that if enacted, Clause 17 of the draft 20th Amendment would be inconsistent with Article 1, 3, 4 of Constitution. “The clause would therefore require approval by the People at a Referendum in terms of Article 83,” he said.

Making submissions for Samagi Jana Balawegaya’s Lihini Fernando, Counsel Viran Corea said no government can remove constitutional provisions and weaken effectiveness of checks and balances by 2/3 majority alone.

“If checks and balances are removed abuses will result in weakening Sovereignty of the People,” he said.

He also said attempting to give “unsigned document that no one knows who authored”, without re-Gazetting, that promises sweeping changes, undermines ability of court to properly scrutinise implications.

“The constitutional provision given for the court to suggest any amendment that may make a Bill consistent is intended only to make recommendations in considering the Bill itself, and should not be allowed to be a provision that negates the ability to canvass constitutionality – the first counsel wasn’t even given half an hour to look at it. All this reeks of bad faith that shouldn’t be tolerated.

“Court should not accept and pronounce on so-called proposed constitutional amendments.”

Farman Cassim PC, appearing for MP Mayantha Dissanayake drew the court’s attention to Clause 14 of the Proposed amendment which aspires to dissolve the parliament after 2 and ½ years of being appointed.

He said, “It is abundantly clear that the authors of this bill are setting the stage for classic case of skullduggery, and thereby clean the coffers of the treasury by way of siphoning out billions of Dollars through state owned enterprises.

Read More

Long-term generation expansion plan – Legal barrier against implementing the Electricity Act

 

By Dr. Janaka Ratnasiri and Eng. Parakrama Jayasinghe-September 29, 2020

A retired Professor of Electrical Engineering has claimed that “the CEB’s long-term generation expansion (LTGE) plan is the best strategy for this country to follow at this time, which is revised once or twice a year” in a write up appearing in The Island of 03.09.2020. Obviously, the learned Professor does not seem to be familiar with the CEB plan because it is not revised once or twice a year but only once in two or three years. Nor has he studied the proposals made by the CEB in relation to the current developments in the energy sector worldwide. The LTGE Plan has some importance for Sri Lanka because compliance with it has been made mandatory for capacity addition both in the Act as well as in the Power Ministry mandate.

SRI LANKA ELECTRICITY (AMENDMENT) ACT NO. 31 OF 2013

This Act, which is an amendment to the Sri Lanka Electricity Act No. 20 of 2009, governs the addition of any new power plants or expansion of existing power plants in Sri Lanka. This amendment to the Act requires that such addition of generation capacity needs to comply with the CEB’s LTGE Plan which has received the prior approval of the Public Utilities Commission of Sri Lanka (PUCSL). There are six instances in the Act where reference has been made to the CEB’s LTGE Plan making it mandatory that any new capacity addition or expansion has to meet the requirements specified in the CEB Plan.

Some extracts of sections of the Act where reference has been made to the LTGE Plan are given below.

“A transmission licensee shall, based on the future demand forecast as specified in the Least Cost Long Term Generation Expansion Plan prepared by such licensee and as amended after considering the submissions of the distribution and generation licensees and approved by the Commission, submit proposals to proceed with the procuring of any new generation plant or for the expansion of the generation capacity of an existing plant, to the Commission for its written approval”.

“Upon obtaining the approval of the Commission under subsection (2), the transmission licensee shall in accordance with the conditions of its transmission licence and in compliance with any rules that may be made by the Commission relating to procurement, call for tenders by notice published in the Gazette, to develop a new generation plant or to expand the generation capacity of an existing generation plant, as the case may be, as shall be specified in the notice”

“Upon the close of the tender, the transmission licensee shall through a properly constituted tender board, recommend to the Commission for its approval, the person who is best capable of meeting the requirements of the Least Cost Long Term Generation Expansion Plan of the transmission licensee duly approved by the Commission”, among others.

“The Commission shall be required on receipt of any recommendations of the transmission licensee, to grant its approval at its earliest convenience, where the Commission is satisfied that the recommended price for the purchase of electrical energy or electricity generating capacity meets the principle of least cost and the requirements of the Least Cost Long Term Generation Expansion Plan and that the terms and conditions of such purchase is within the accepted technical and economical parameters of the transmission licensee”.

“For the purpose of this section- “Least Cost Long Term Generation Expansion Plan” means a plan prepared by the transmission licensee and amended and approved by the Commission on the basis of the submissions made by the licensees and published by the Commission, indicating the future electricity generating capacity requirements determined on the basis of least economic cost and meeting the technical and reliability requirements of the electricity network of Sri Lanka which is duly approved by the Commission and published in the Gazette from time to time”.

 

MINISTRY OF POWER MANDATE

The recently established Ministry of Power has stipulated as a key mandate of the Power Ministry the following:

Meeting the electricity needs of all urban and rural communities based on the long-term generation expansion (LTGE) plan prepared by the Ceylon Electricity Board (CEB).

Among the special priority areas identified for the Power Ministry is the Implementation of the long-term generation expansion plan.

LONG-TERM GENERATION

EXPANSION PLAN

Since the Electricity Act as well as the Ministry of Power mandate require that the generation capacity addition needs to be carried out meeting the requirements of the LTGE Plan, it is necessary to examine closely what this plan is. The CEB prepares a long-term generation expansion (LTGE) plan once in two or three years outlining the least cost options of generation plants that need to be added to the system annually for the next 20 years to meet the forecasted demand. The latest plan is in respect of the period 2020 – 2039 but it is still in the draft form yet to be approved by the PUCSL as required by the Sri Lanka Electricity Act No. 31 of 2013. As such the LTGP in effect is the 2018-2037 plan which has received the written approval of the PUCSL.

Being a rolling plan updated once in two or three years, the types and capacities to be added in a given period keeps changing with the plan. Hence, a potential developer is at a loss to know which plan to follow in planning a future power plant development project. This becomes clear when the capacities recommended to be added in the three recent plans covering the periods 2015-34, 2018-37 and 2020-39 (Draft) given in Table 1 are examined. For simplicity, only the additions of large thermal power plant capacities are included in the Table.

It is seen that the 2015-34 Plan has included only coal power plants amounting to 3,200 MW up to 2034. The 2018-37 Plan, on the other hand, has included addition of 2,700 MW of coal power plants together with 1,500 MW of natural gas (NG) power plants, up to 2036. Whereas the 2020-39 Plan (Draft) has included addition of 2,100 MW of coal power plants together with 3,000 MW of NG power plants up to 2039. When the capital cost of power plants and fuel costs keep varying year to year, it is impossible to forecast accurately 20 years earlier what the cheaper option would be in 20 years hence.

 

ISSUES IN IMPLEMENTING

THE CEB PLAN

If the CEB Plan was implemented in 2016, by 2025, coal power of capacity 1,400 MW, including the proposed coal power plant at Sampur, needs to be built according to 2015-34 Plan. However, according to the 2018-37 Plan, 3×300 MW of coal power plants, together with 2×300 NG power plants, need to be built by 2025. On the other hand, according to the 2020-39 draft Plan, 3×300 MW of coal power plants together with 4×300 MW of NG power plants need to be built by 2025. When a plan keeps changing in this manner with so much divergent recommendations, it cannot be called a long-term plan. There is no unique recommendation for a given period for an investor to pursue. If the 2015-34 Plan decided that coal power plants are the cheap option up to 2025, how is that the 2018-37 Plan decided that NG power plants are the cheaper option for this period? This shows the weakness of the planning methodology.

If an investor wishes to build a power plant in 2015, he is required to follow the capacity additions as specified in the 2015-34 Plan and will decide to build a coal power plant. After spending the first two years on the preliminaries such as feasibility studies and environment impact studies, he finds that an updated 2018-37 Plan released in 2018 recommends NG power plants, instead. Is he then required to change his plans and start building a NG power plant instead? In view of environmental consideration, a NG power plant is always preferred to a coal power plant. It should be noted that a 300 MW coal plant will generate about 100,000 t of ash annually which is an environmental hazard.

There is also an ambiguity in applying the condition laid down in the Act that the capacity additions shall meet the requirements of the LTGE Plan. The Act does not specify whether the Plan to be applied is what is in force at the time of commencing the power plant project or what is in force at the time of commissioning the power plant. Within a matter of four to five years’ time taken to build a coal power plant, the requirements in the Plan could change widely during this period. Hence, it is essential that this be clearly specified or this condition removed altogether enabling implementation of the Act without leaving room for it to be questioned in a court of law.

 

DISPUTE BETWEEN THE REGULATOR AND THE LICENSEE

The Electricity Act requires that the LTGE Plan prepared by the CEB shall be approved by the regulator, PUCSL. However, the approval of the Plan for 2018-37 ran into a problem when the original draft submitted by the CEB was not approved by the PUCSL who in turn proposed an alternative Plan which was not accepted by the CEB. This dispute went dragging for over a year and settled only after the intervention of the President. Even in the case of the current draft for 2020-39, the CEB had submitted it to the PUCSL for approval last year, and is still awaiting approval. Possibly, the PUCSL may want the Plan to fall in line with the Government policy of giving priority for renewable energy sources as described in the writer’s article appearing in the The Island of 25^th and 26^th September.

This dispute was brought to stark reality in respect of the CEB plan 2018-2037 both by the evaluations of the PUCSL and in the submissions made during the public hearings. The blatant errors and misrepresentation sin the draft submitted by the CEB which was obviously done to force the adoption of further coal power plants ignoring the world wide rejections can be seen in the submissions made to the PUCSL during the public hearings and is available in the PUCSL web page ().

Accordingly, an amended LTGP was formally issued by the PUCSL which should be considered as the LTGP in force until such time a new plan is approved after going through the processes including the public hearings as done in the case of the 2018-2037 LTGP. The fact that the CEB refused to accept this plan and the fact that the Government decided to force the PUCSL to issue an approval for the flawed plan submitted by the CEB makes a mockery of the entire process and the role of the PUCSL as the regulator of the Electricity Sector. As such, it does not make sense to incorporate such a flawed variant plan as mandatory for capacity addition in the Act as well as in the Ministry mandate and to describe it as the best strategy. As a matter of fact, it is the worst strategy for power sector development in the country.

 

AMENDMENT TO THE ELECTRICITY ACT AND MINISTRY MANDATE

To get over the problem of the Act and the Ministry mandate not being able to meet the requirements of the LTGE Plan in view of the uncertainty of the technologies which the Plan recommends for different time periods, it is necessary to amend these two documents. The first reference to the LTGE Plan in the Electricity Act described previously says that procurement of generation capacity shall be based on “the future demand forecast as specified in the Least Cost Long Term Generation Expansion Plan”. This is in order because there is little variation in the demand for a given year between different Plans.

The rest of the references say that future capacity additions shall meet the requirements of the LTGE Plan. Since the requirements include the technology whether a coal plant or a NG plant should be installed and this changes from Plan to Plan causing the uncertainty in implementing the provisions in the Act or the Ministry mandate, it is best if these sections are amended. It is proposed that the words “meet the requirements of the LTGE Plan” appearing in the Act be amended to read “meet the demand forecasted in the LTGE Plan”, wherever the term “requirements” appear.

The Act says that “Upon obtaining the approval of the Commission the transmission licensee shall in accordance with the conditions of its transmission licence and in compliance with any rules that may be made by the Commission relating to procurement, call for tenders by notice published in the Gazette, to develop a new generation plant or to expand the generation capacity of an existing generation plant, as the case may be, as shall be specified in the notice”. Hence, it is logical to keep the fuel option open when calling tenders at the time capacity addition is required giving sufficient time for the procurement process and construction of the plant. The bids received would show which fuel option is the cheaper.

It is important to issue a set of specification with respect to performance and emissions which should be met by the plant offered. The tender should also be required to specify the levelized cost of generation including the amortized annual cost of the plant, cost of operation and maintenance and the fuel cost for generating a unit of electricity giving a formula to work out the fuel cost depending on its price in the international market. The price should also include the cost of externalties. It will be then possible to select the best and cheaper option, whether coal or gas, meeting the specifications.

It should also be noted that the Electricity Act has interpreted “least cost of generation” to mean “least economic cost of generation”. Economic cost should include the cost of damage to the environment due to emission of fly ash as well as from accumulation of about 100,000 tonnes of bottom ash annually from a 300 MW coal plant. It should also include the cost of health damage to people exposed to gaseous emissions and release of toxic substances from the plant. The current plans do not include these and if they are included, all the coal plants included in CEB’s LTGE Plans need to be changed to NG power plants as such plants do not cause emission of toxic gases or other substances.

 

CONCLUSION

Though the Electricity Act and the Ministry mandate stipulate that capacity additions be carried out to meet the requirements of the CEB’s LTGE Plan, practically it is not possible to follow this in view of the fact that the type of plants to be added keep changing with the Plan. It is therefore proposed that the Act as well as the Ministry mandate be amended suitably. It is also proposed that the type of plant be selected after calling tenders keeping the fuel option open a few years ahead when the capacity addition is required and not 20 s years beforehand.

It is important to recognize that the basic purpose of the LTGP is to ensure the long-term energy security of the country using means and technologies that enables realization of the least economic cost of generation, which should include the cost of externalities. As such, unless a firm binding feed in tariff over the life of the plant cannot be guaranteed via suitable tender procedure accepting the above premise, making any long term plans using numbers such as parity rate and price of coal or gas is a futile exercise.

Furthermore, the changes occurring in the energy sector practically every day which helps to realize the above objectives must constantly be factored in to the planning process. Thus, the CEB plans available currently certainly comprise the worst strategy to follow in developing the power sector in the country, as they completely ignore the very progressive advances made the world over which are of great benefit to Sri Lanka.

 

Will 20th Amendment change Government economic policies?

It would be the responsibility of President Gotabaya Rajapaksa with newly-awarded powers under the 20th Amendment to guide Sri Lanka towards a prosperous country with cordial relations from all countries – Pic by Shehan Gunasekara 

Wednesday, 30 September 2020

President Gotabaya Rajapaksa was elected in November 2019, but the Constitution restricted him from dissolving the Parliament until completion of four and half years. He ruled with a new Cabinet without touching any controversial issues. The parliamentary elections planned for 25 April had to be postponed twice due to COVID-19. Finally elections were held on 6 August and Sri Lanka People’s Freedom Alliance (SLPA) headed by his brother Mahinda won the election with 147 seats out of 225-member Parliament.

Planning to repeal the 19th Amendment

The 19th Amendment made the President just a puppet controlled by the Prime Minister, possibly creating a split between the President and the Prime Minister. The amendment was responsible for making the Yahapalanaya Government ineffective. According to 19A the appointment of ministers by the President would be on the recommendation of PM. The President cannot even be the Minister of Defence, although he is responsible for the armed forces.

During the parliamentary elections SLPA requested voters for a 2/3rd majority to repeal 19th Amendment to the Constitution (although it was passed with almost every one voting in favour). The election results gave SLPA almost the requirement as balance could be easily bought over.

The new Government presented the draft Bill ‘Twentieth Amendment to the Constitution’ on 3 September, less than a month after the elections. When challenged by the opposition for the ownership of 20A, Gotabaya accepted responsibility.

The proposed 20A raised concerns among the public, also within the governing party and a Committee was appointed headed by G.L. Pieris to make recommendations for revisions. The draft with Committee recommendations were expected to be gazetted. But as re-gazetting would delay the bill by minimum two weeks, the President wished to continue and make amendments during the Committee stage.

 

Gotabaya planning in advance

The former Secretary for Defence annihilated LTTE which the world believed to be impossible. The success was possible due to detailed advance planning and execution with amendments when faced with unexpected challenges.

Gotabaya Rajapaksa during the campaign presented the ‘Vistas of Prosperity and Splendour’ most comprehensive policy statement by any contestant over the country’s history, showing his planning abilities. But the plans had to be suspended when the country faced the corona situation. For almost one year he was unable to implement his plans. 

Under the current scenario the President used security forces under him to defeat the corona pandemic and is eradicating the drug menace and the control of drug mafia from the prisons. The President appointed young MPs as Junior Ministers and gave them the responsibility of encouraging villagers to produce items that were imported. But how about major urgent projects?

 

Impatient President

Under the 19A the President has no power on major projects, whose finances come under the Ministry of Finance, controlled by the Prime Minister. The largest project under implementation is the Colombo Port City, whose Colombo International Financial City regulations are awaiting approval from the Parliament which is expected to ‘fill the vacuum between Singapore and Dubai’ would be a major income earner and an employment provider for the country.

Mahinda Rajapaksa as Finance Minister informed that the Pettah-Malambe Elevated Railway Project funded by Japan was suspended due to financial limitations. In addition, when some trade unions in Colombo Port went on strike demanding East Container Terminal be developed and operated under the Port Authority, the PM was able to end the strike after discussions with the unions, but details of the agreement was not made public.

Most likely, the President wishes to avoid misunderstandings with the PM his elder brother, especially when he is powerless under the current law. The President having wasted almost a year is impatient and wishes early acceptance of 20A, enabling him to address the problems of the country.

 

US actions on China

The US Commerce Department announced penalties against some Chinese officials and 24 companies for their role in building artificial islands in South China Seas, claiming dredging and developments cause environmental damage and infringe on other nations’ claims. Among the named companies is China Communications Construction Company (CCCC).

CCCC is the parent company of China Harbour Construction Company, the main promoter of Port City. Although CHEC claims the US sanctions have no effect on Port City, the exact fallout of the penalties are unknown.

The US Secretary of Defence had a telephone conversation with the President few days ago, but details of the discussion was not made public.

 

A balance between international relations

While MR’s cordial relationship with China is well-known, US may be willing for a more accommodating relationship with their former citizen Gotabaya. Our imports from US and their aid to SL are minimal, but our exports especially garments are substantial. Thus, it is essential to have a balanced relationship with all countries, especially India, China and Japan.

During the recent past most major development projects were Chinese, funded with loans at commercial interest rates. Japan offered a number of projects, extremely high quality, but at a higher cost, at very low interest with long-term repayment making them most attractive.

Meanwhile, our relations with the neighbour India has been not satisfactory, possibly due to their role in supporting LTTE. But lately the relations have been improving.

 

Commercial relations with India

Over the years there were a number of project proposals with India. In 2002, PM Ranil Wickremesinghe handed over to India, the unused massive oil storage tanks in China Bay, Trincomalee built by British during the Second World War. The facility with 99 usable tanks each having a capacity of 12,100 tons, totalling over one million tons. But so far IOC has utilised only 14 tanks. The country having handed over all tanks, have made various proposals to utilise the tanks, but nothing materialised.

During a visit in 2015, Indian PM Narendra Modi, highlighted that developing the tank farm “would help the coastal town become a regional petroleum hub”.

A proposal to build an oil refinery in Trincomalee jointly with India using tanks as storage failed to materialise.

 

Public finances

So far, the Government expenses showed two clear differences, while most imports are controlled or completely stopped due to shortage of foreign exchange, local expenses do not show any cut backs. Employment to 50,000 graduates, also 100,000 unemployed with poor education, were promised state employment. But Government staff salaries are paid with loans obtained by the Central Bank from

 

Government banks. How long can this continue?

Government finances are controlled by the Finance Minister MR, claimed some proposed development projects need be curtailed due to financial constraints. But other expensive projects are proposed.

The biggest venture the country keeps hopes on is the Port City Project. For proper functioning the project would require easy access to staff, to be provided with: 

1. The road from the new bridge over Kelani River to Port City over the edge of the Colombo Port currently under construction 

2. Extension of Marine Drive under the Galle-Face green and 

3. Pettah to Malambe Elevated Light Rail Project.

 

Will 20A affect finance policy?

With the acceptance of 20A, the President would become the ultimate decision maker for the country and s number of policy changes are possible. MR’s affiliation towards China is well-known and may have benefited from same. But with Gotabaya taking over overall in charge, early action on urgent issues would be possible.

The country is facing difficulties in settling foreign loans and requested loan rescheduling from India and Japan. But failure to proceed with Indian and Japanese projects have resulted in a lukewarm response.

Although the country’s foreign reserves are poor, some proposed projects could be executed with minimal local funding. These projects would solve existing problems, create employment and enhance technical competence of workers.

During the last government, most projects proposed earlier were suspended and no new projects commenced, meanwhile the country’s requirements are expanding, needing new investments irrespective of availability of finances. We may have to take the path of Singapore, with hardly any own funds, the country has reached a level of development surpassing everyone.

 

Light Rail Transit System

A loan agreement was signed in March 2019 between Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) and Sri Lanka for JPY 30.08 b ($ 270 m) for the establishment of Light Rail Transit System from Colombo to Malambe. The JICA loan provided under Special Terms for Economic Partnership, carry interest rates of 0.1% per annum for civil works and equipment cost, 0.01% p.a. for engineering services cost with a 40-year repayment period including a 12-year grace period. But the Treasury has informed JICA of the government’s inability to continue with the project due to financial constraints. It is not clear how the JICA project would affect the Government’s finances as the loan payment includes a 12-year grace period.

Following the Government decision, Japan informed of their inability to continue with the promised 220 KW underground power cable project connecting Kerawalapitiya to Colombo Port.

There were unconfirmed reports that the LRT project would be awarded to China Harbour Engineering Company (CHEC). The only possibility of such a move would be to get a fat commission from the prospective contractor. It is well-known that the Japanese contractors’ prices are high compared to others, they do not offer commissions to politicians or officials, but deliver a high quality product on schedule.

 

East Container Terminal

The Port of Colombo recorded handling 7.2 million TEUS in 2019, and around 70% of Colombo Port’s transshipment business is India related. India is not too happy with their containers being handled by a Chinese dominated port and are developing their own ports, which would sure to affect Colombo.

After South Container Terminal the next in line for development was East Container Terminal (ECT) with a 1200m long quay wall, 18m deep berthing three mega ships, with a 57Ha container yard. In 2012 SLPA commenced construction of ECT and by 2015 when the government changed, SLPA had almost completed the 400 m long first phase with an investment of $ 80 million, allowing one berth and a container yard. SLPA had ordered container handling equipment to make terminal operational.

But the new Minister of Ports cancelled the cargo handling equipment order, claiming the tender was corrupt. Although the Ports Authority called an expression of interest with ADB for funding of ECT development, nothing happened over the five-year period.

In July 2019 an agreement was signed between India, Japan and SLPA to develop and run the ECT. According to agreement Sri Lanka will maintain a 51% stake in the company, while Japan and India will hold 34% and 15%, respectively. Development will be financed by Japan through a 40-year soft loan of between $ 500-800 million, at 0.1% interest rate with a grace period of 10 years.

Just prior to parliamentary elections port workers struck work demanding the ECT be run locally. After unions had talks with MR the strike stopped. The terms of agreement was not made public.

While the port development dragged on, number of ship arrivals and containers increased, the port efficiency dwindled, increasing waiting time for ships. The current port capacity allows simultaneous accommodating only two large ships of 360m length and additional capacity is urgently needed. Handling world’s largest ships of 24,000 container capacity would require a port depth of 16 m, planned in ECT, also in West Container Terminal.

Meanwhile, Global shipping giant Maersk, already a partner in SAGT, has expressed interest in developing the ECT. Maersk has single-handedly supported Malaysia to develop port Tanjung Pelepas (PTP) near Singapore, now handling around eight million containers a year.

The President will need to make an early final decision on the ECT deal. It would be best to award the ECT to India/Japan/SLPA joint venture and offer the Western Container Terminal awaiting development to Maersk, a win-win situation.

 

Additional petroleum refinery

The current 50-year-old Sapugaskanda oil refinery supplies only 35% petroleum needs of the country and the balance is imported. In addition our storage facilities for petrol, diesel and kerosene is only around two weeks requirement, making the country needing frequent replenishment from overseas.

There were number of proposals to increase Kolonnawa refinery capacity, establishing oil refineries including two refineries in Trincomalee and in Hambantota. Before 2017, a 100,000 barrels a day refinery was agreed to be built at Trincomalee by Indian Oil Company. But when challenged in court over environmental issues President Sirisena withdrew the proposal. Another refinery proposed in Hambantota by Singapore’s Silver Park International Ltd. and Oman’s Ministry of Oil and Gas. But again no further progress.

The Trincomalee oil tank farm has been leased to India for 50 years, extendable up to a maximum of 99 years, but only 15 of the tanks are used by IOC. Thus the establishment of a new petroleum refinery with Trincomalee oil farm for storage of crude and refined oil and a strategic oil storage.

 

Discussion

The world has changed, Russia is no longer considered a world power. Hard working Chinese population who save a high percentage of income, has made possible for China to invest heavily world over. The Commonwealth, Non-aligned nations, SAARC all have become inactive and cannot support a member country in an emergency. When US commands unilateral restrictions on selected nations, other countries keep quiet. With China and India fighting over boundaries in Kashmere, India has moved towards US. In a world deprived of joint support from each other countries, small countries like ours cannot afford to neglect powerful neighbours.

Last government failed to implement even a single major project and some requirement issues have become crucial, as discussed above. With financial constraints, implementation of urgent projects would require the country moving towards a new direction, a path used by Singapore. Allowing external parties and the private sector to implement large projects for local usage and exports, making use of Sri Lanka’s strategic location and available resources.

Under current regulations, presidential elections were conducted at a huge expense, but the result is a powerless President, the 20A would correct the anomaly. President Gotabaya prior to elections had presented a detailed program ‘Vistas of Prosperity and Splendour’ for the development of the country, but the lack of authority restricted him from implementing the program.

As shown above, the East Container Terminal and JICA funded Light Rail Transit System need immediate implementation as financial provisions have already been arranged, also showing the world that Sri Lanka is non-aligned. Other projects as efficient utilisation of Trincomalee oil tanks for an oil refinery and balance tanks for strategic oil storage as suggested by Indian PM are among possibilities. In addition Chinese projects too could continue as required.

In the past most investments came from China, resulting the country being labelled as pro-China with the possibility of facing economic restrictions. Sri Lanka always had a policy of non-alignment. Among the countries that help us are neighbour India, Japan and China and need a balancing act, especially when quality funding is available with minimal local investment.

Thus it would be the responsibility of President Gotabaya Rajapaksa with newly-awarded powers under the 20th Amendment to guide Sri Lanka towards a prosperous country with cordial relations from all countries.

The Beginning Of The End

By Harsha Gunasena –SEPTEMBER 29, 2020

Harsha Gunasena

There was a debate on who was the author of the 20th Amendment to the constitution. It is not a complicated document to be authored as such. The legal draftsman was instructed to undo the changes of 19A except for the limitation of the terms of the president, duration of such terms and replacing the Constitutional Council with the Parliamentary Council with limited powers. The President himself could do it. 

If the President wants to continue his down to earth, good, executive work of directing, guiding, and motivating the public staff, which is his own variety of President Premadasa’s mobile Ministries and Minister Athulathmudali’s Exporters Forum, he can do it with the current powers. There is no necessity of additional powers for that. 

The fundamental issue here is that as pointed out by many the shift towards a despotic rule once again. An absolute majority of the parliament leads to a despotic rule. All the regimes with 2/3rd majority in Sri Lanka did not last too long as expected. Government of Prime Minister Sirimavo Bandaranaike (Mrs.B) in 1970 lasted only to the end of its extended term. It had to face a rebellion during its term. The UNP government which was initially headed by President J.R. Jayewardene (JRJ) lasted only three terms with all the constitutional juggleries. It had to face two rebellions one of which has taken the lives of the lieutenants of JRJ in front of his own eyes and the other lasted for 30 years and again has taken the lives of the possible successors of the leadership of the UNP. The rule of the President Mahinda Rajapaksa in 2010 also lasted only one term. Therefore, the expected result is that rulers with absolute power would not last to suit their expectations.

The country has faced three rebellions after the independence. This was a result of unequal treatment to various segments of the society by the state. It can be rural poor, lower strata of the society or ethnic minorities. Therefore, moving towards more democratic rule is needed to counter the social unrest. That was the opinion of G.L. Peiris when he headed the Commission appointed by President Premadasa to find out the reasons for JVP second insurrection. G.L. Peiris has forgotten all these since he has metamorphosized to a political animal. That was the sentiments expressed by the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission headed by C.R. De Silva as well.

Mrs. B and JRJ have done a lot of good things as well as bad things to the country. The autocratic way of their governing style which was powered by the majority in the parliament they enjoyed was disagreed by many. However even in that style there were positives. The way Mrs.B handled the insurrection was one example. The 13A to the constitution which came with the Indian influence and with the sole decision of JRJ was the only legislative provision from independence for decentralization of power.

It was said that 20A is an interim amendment and a new constitution is on the way. Rulers with 2/3rd majority cannot and will not make a constitution acceptable to all. Mrs. B could not do it and her constitution marked the origin of Tamil rebellion. JRJ could not do it either. As he has pointed out in retirement his constitution would be defended by those in power and opposed by those who are not in power. In addition to the power the present ruling party has, with the strong bias of the President towards the ideology of Sinhala Buddhism it is extremely unlikely that they can produce a constitution acceptable to all which is a must of a constitution of a country.

Both the 17A and 19A to the constitution which curtailed the despotic powers of the President were passed by minority governments with the support of the oppositions. The Constitution making process initiated by the previous government was supported by the opposition as well, although there were differences of opinion of the basic issues. The process failed since the leaders of that government did not take the leadership of the process.

There were comments whether the Prime Minister would approve curtailing of his power. The fact would be that the family has decided sometime back the extent of authority the ruler should have and the succession plan. Things are happening based on that blueprint. Therefore, there is no question of a power struggle between the President and the PM.

If the President decides that 20A should be passed in the Parliament as it is it will be passed irrespective to the opposition to it within the ruling party. The MPs we have are not strong enough. In the Parliamentary history there were only few exceptions such as opposition to JRJ’s one man show of Gamani Jayasuriya and M.D.H. Jayawardena. As a result, they had to leave politics. 

It is generally commented that people have given the ruling party a 2/3rd majority and now people have to face the consequences. It is not correct to say that the people have given them the 2/3rd majority.  

JRJ came into power in 1977 with 5/6th majority of the parliament as a result of the despotic rule of Mrs. B. It was a vote against the then government rather than a vote for JRJ. Similarly, if the previous government played its role well the present government would have not come to power. However, the 2/3rd majority was given to them on a platter by the UNP leadership. Sajith Premadasa (SP) was polled 5.5mn votes in the Presidential election. If it is assumed that the people who voted for SP in the presidential election have voted for the Samagi Jana Balavegaya (SJB), Tamil National Alliance, Tamil National People’s Front headed by Gajendrakumar Ponnambalam, United National Party, Muslim National Alliance, Tamil Peoples National Alliance headed by C.V. Wigneswaran, All Ceylon Makkal Congress headed by Rishad Bathiudeen and Sri Lanka Muslim Congress  in the general election, total number of votes for all of them were 3.6 mn. Therefore, there was a shortage of 1.9mn votes. At the general election although there was 0.27 mn increase of the total voters compared to the general election there was an overall reduction of 1mn of total polled. Out of the polled the increase of rejected votes compared to the presidential election was 0.6 mn. Total of the voters who did not turnup to vote and those who casted rejected votes was 1.6mn. There is a difference of 0.3mn between this figure and the reduction of votes to SP in the general election which was 1.9mn.

At the presidential election there were 0.3mn voters who cased their vote to other candidates other than the main two. Sri Lanka Peoples Freedom Alliance (SLPFA) together with its supportive parties, Eelam Peoples Democratic Party,Tamil Makkal Viduthalai Pulikal headed by Vinayagamoorthy Muralitharan alias Karuna Amman, Sri Lanka Freedom Party, National Congress  headed by A.L.M. Atavulla and Our Power of Peoples Party obtained 7.1mn votes which is an increase of 0.2mn votes obtained by Gotabaya Rajapaksa in the presidential election. This explains the shortage of 0.3mn votes of SP to a certain extent.

If SJB together with the parties who voted SP in the presidential election managed to get the same amount of votes, there will not be a 2/3rd majority to the ruling party now. The difference was made by the voters who voted for SP in the presidential election and either did not vote or casted a rejected vote. 

Read More

 Sri Lanka miffed at India’s call to implement 13A

The 13th Amendment was incorporated into the Constitution following the 1987 Indo-Lanka accord

The accord called for the merger of the North and the East and the conduct of Provincial Council elections to the North-East Provincial Council before December 31, 1987

Unlike on past occasions, Prime Minister Rajapaksa did not commit to do anything regarding the 13th Amendments in the joint statement

 1 October 2020

A host of important matters were discussed at a virtual bilateral discussion carried out last Saturday between Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Subsequently, a joint statement was issued for the first time in ten years. The statement contained numerous positive points for the furtherance of economic cooperation and development of Buddhist heritage sites. Irrespective of this public debate is directed at India’s call for the implementation of the 13th Amendment in the Constitution. In fact, the Sri Lankan side is miffed at the Indian leader emphasising, once again, on the need to implement it.   

The statement says, “Prime Minister Modi called on the Government of Sri Lanka to address the aspirations of the Tamil people for equality, justice, peace and respect within a united Sri Lanka, including by carrying forward the process of reconciliation with the implementation of the Thirteenth Amendment in the Constitution of Sri Lanka. Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa expressed the confidence that Sri Lanka will work towards realising the expectations of all ethnic groups, including Tamils, by achieving reconciliation nurtured as per the mandate of the people of Sri Lanka and implementation of the Constitutional provisions”.   

The points related to the entire gamut of bilateral relations are highlighted in the statement, but the references to the 13th Amendment and a ‘united Sri Lanka’ has sparked a public debate that has consumed media space otherwise meant to be reserved for highlighting positives.   

The timing of such mentioning is the reason here. An open political discussion is already underway whether the Provincial Councils established in terms of the 13th Amendment are appropriate in today’s context.   

The 13th Amendment was incorporated into the Constitution following the 1987 Indo-Lanka accord. Now, the government has launched action to evolve a brand new constitution to be enacted by repealing the present 1978 constitution. A committee of legal luminaries and scholars has already been appointed in this respect. A school of thought has emerged within the government that the provincial system should be revisited. Prime Minister Rajapaksa himself suggested that time was ripe for the country to have a relook at the historical demarcation of boundaries of Sri Lanka’s principalities during the time of ancient kings instead of adhering to the provincial boundaries created by British colonial rulers. Besides, a core segment of the government including State Minister of Provincial Councils and Local Governments Sarath Weerasekara publicly views that the Provincial Councils have been nothing but a white elephant.   

That India insists on it once again at such a time is bound to encounter a stiff reaction from this segment of the Sri Lankan polity which is fundamentally opposed to Provincial Councils.   

In the aftermath of the joint statement being issued by the Yuthukama organisation, which has two parliamentary seats on the government’s ticket, convened a press conference and conveyed its displeasure on the calls for the implementation of the 13th Amendment and to achieve reconciliation with a united Sri Lanka. The word ‘united’ is considered politically sensitive terminology since it connotes federalism.   

Unlike on past occasions, Prime Minister Rajapaksa did not commit to do anything regarding the 13th Amendments in the joint statement. Obviously, he was cautious to avoid any commitment this time because of the sensitivity involving the topic in the current political climate of Sri Lanka. Of course, Mr. Rajapaksa spoke of ‘13th Amendment plus’ when he, as the then President, interacted with Indian leaders. This time, he opted out from taking any such position since the political landscape has been altered with a rigorous call for dismantling the Provincial Council system.   

From the Indian perspective, it looks difficult to budge from its stand taken for more than three decades. The 13th Amendment is a result of the bilateral treaty called the Indo-Lanka accord which was signed on July 29, 1987 between then Sri Lankan President the late J.R. Jayawardene, and the former Indian Prime Minister the late Rajiv Gandhi.   

Since then, it has remained valid though many people have forgotten it. The accord recognises the North and the East as areas of historical habitation of the ‘Tamil speaking people’.   

The accord called for the merger of the North and the East and the conduct of Provincial Council elections to the North-East Provincial Council before December 31, 1987. A referendum had been proposed to be conducted before December 31, 1988 for people in the Eastern Province to decide whether they should remain linked to the North, or part ways.   

The other main focus of the accord was to disarm the Tamil militant groups and end violence. As far as Sri Lanka is concerned, the prime objectives could not be achieved. Though some Tamil militant groups laid down arms and joined democratic politics after the accord, the LTTE, the dominant armed group among all, remained active wreaking havoc until it was militarily vanquished on May 19, 2009.   

The accord talks about the ‘North-East Provincial Council’. However, seven other Provincial Councils have been established outside the North and the East. Today, even the North and the East remain de-merged.   

The 13th Amendment, which was enacted consequent to the Indo-Lanka accord, envisages that police and land powers should be devolved to the Provincial Councils. In practice, it has never happened. The government seems to be taking into account all these aspects in the evolution of a totally new constitution.   

As such, it is possibly miffed at India’s repeated emphasis on the 13th Amendment as a means of bringing about reconciliation in the country. This is something serious to be taken note of since it has happened at a time when the two countries aim at pursuing bilateral economic projects. India is keen to share equity in a joint venture to develop the East Container Terminal of the Colombo Port, a move vehemently opposed by port workers.   

Any resentment, generated over laying emphasis on the 13th Amendment, will lead to further skepticism among people even against commercial projects.   

For India, the accord is still important for its strategic aspect. India can have some leverage on Sri Lanka as long as the accord is intact. Otherwise, its obvious purpose has not been served at all.