Soulbury Commission

Its constitutional recommendations were largely those of the 1944 Board of Ministers' draft, a document reflecting the influence of Senanayake and his main advisor, Sir Ivor Jennings.

[1] The struggle for independence in Ceylon had been fought on "constitutionalist" lines rather than on the strongly confrontational approach that had developed in British India.

Only the Marxists, a tiny minority, had attempted to create confrontational conditions which they believed to be a harbinger of the impending proletarian revolution against Imperialism.

The second was that the Governor's reserve powers and other controls of the Imperial government would be abandoned and there would be full responsibility in internal civil matters.

The 1943 Colonial Secretary's discussions envisaged that the draft constitution would be examined by a "suitable commission or conference", after the victory over the Axis powers.

However, Senanayake, Oliver Goonetilleke and others had developed impressive contacts with Lord Mountbatten who, as Supreme Allied Commander of South-East Asia had worked from Colombo.

Their disappointment was due to the widening of the scope of the commission beyond what was set out by the Colonial Secretary in 1943, to also consult with "various interests, including the minority communities concerned with the subject of constitutional reforms in Ceylon".

In fact, the politics of the 1930s had become very communal or racist, with the first Sinhala-Tamil riot occurring in 1939, after an inflammatory speech by G. G. Ponnambalam, a leading Tamil politician.

This enabled Senanayake and his advisors to present their views without getting into confrontational politics with the Tamil Congress, led by G. G. Ponnambalam who was allowed to dominate many of the official hearings.

The introduction of Universal Franchise in 1931 completely changed the character of Ceylonese politics, where Tamil politicians found it very difficult to accept that they would become a minority.

The Hindu Organ, an influential newspaper of the time, condemned it as something that "can only be maintained against the united opposition of the Sinhalese by British bayonets".

The submissions in front of the Soulbury Commission also included specific grievances of the Ceylon Tamils regarding claimed unfair discrimination against their community.

However, the commission concluded that "the evidence submitted to us provides no substantial indication of a general policy on the part of the Government of Ceylon of discrimination against minority communities".

The extensive and lengthy orations of Ponnambalam were rewarded by the commissioners by introducing a provision for multi-member constituencies in suitable areas, allowing for greater representation for ethnic minorities like Tamils, Muslims and other groups.

The British historian Jane Russell argues that the official boycott of the Soulbury Commission by the Board of Ministers led by Senanayake was a "statesman-like action, if not a diplomatic coup.

The voting in the third reading (in March) of the "Free Lanka" bill of January 1945, was supported by all the Muslim members, and by T. G. Rajakulendran, S. P. Vytilingam, and V. Nalliah.

Finally, the debate and the vote of acceptance on the eighth and ninth of September 1945 was the most significant indication of general reconciliation among the ethnic and regional groups.

[3]: 317 [6]: 6 Senanayake's speech in proposing the motion of acceptance made reference to the minorities and said "throughout this period the Ministers had in view one objective only, the attainment of maximum freedom.

Senanayake suggested the confirmation of Dominion status by an Order in Council, and delivered a draft to G. H. Hall, the new Secretary to the Colonies.

Oliver Goonatilleke, who was handling the negotiations in Whitehall on behalf of Senanayake, argued that the immediate granting of Dominion Status was urgently necessary since the moderates were under increasing pressure from left-wing and nationalist extremist groups.

Although Senanayake had consistently supported their citizenship under less strict conditions as early as 1923, and as late as 1941 in the Indo-Ceylon talks,[10] this change of attitude was a reaction to the increasing agitation of the Marxist trade-unionists whose power was misjudged by the colonial administration as well as most politicians of that era.

Thus Senanayake was supported by many Tamil leaders including Ponnambalam, and constitutionalists like Dr. Ivor Jennings, in regard to the Indian citizenship act.