G.G.PONNAMBALAM’S POWER AND PLIGHT AS A TAMIL LEADER:

A Centenary Appraisal

by Sachi Sri Kantha and Siva Sachi

[Author Siva Sachi, who has fond childhood memories of Ponnambalam's 1934 and 1936 election campaigns for the Point Pedro constituency, is the father of author Sachi Sri Kantha.]

One year after the death of G.G. Ponnambalam on Feb.9, 1977, journalist Reggie Michael summed up Ponnambalam’s trail-blazing career as follows:

“Ganapathipillai Gangesar Ponnambalam belonged to a different age and different atmosphere. He was the last cut-post of a fading parliamentary frontier ruled by the golden tongue and flamboyant personality. We shall not hear again the rich velvet of his voice cushioning the pungent phrase; his studied and sonorous boom stalking the hapless foe; the peerless parry and thrust in the duel of debate; the stab of lethal sarcasm that struck fear within the portals of parliament as much as within the wall of courts. Nor shall we hear those purple patches of oratory such mesmerized the Soulbury Commission and spurred them to ask for an encore; those flights of eloquence such dazzled the distinguished audience at the United Nations in 1965…”¹

This year marks the one hundredth anniversary of the birth of G.G.Ponnambalam, the son of a Post Master born in Alvai, Point Pedro on November 8, 1902. His mother was from Navaly, Manipay. It is a pity that though 25 years have passed since his death, not a single biography of him has appeared so far. What is available as of now, is only partial descriptions of his political activities penned by Jane Russell² and Jeyaratnam Wilson^3,4. While Wilson’s observations were worthy for evaluation on the conflict Ponnambalam had with his then lieutenant and later antagonist Chelvanayakam, we believe that Wilson’s works may suffer from kinship bias, as he was the son-in-law of Chelvanayanakam. With due respect to his scholarship, Wilson’s descriptions on Ponnambalam’s status as the first popular Eelam Tamil leader deserve a review. Thus, in this study we provide a centenary appraisal of the power and plight of Ponnambalam.

Ponnambalam’s Stature as a Tamil Leader

Following the institution of universal suffrage in the island in 1931, Ponnambalam became the first politician to have mass appeal among the Eelam Tamils. Thus his electoral record between 1931 and 1970, spanning four decades, is worthy of review.⁵ As of now, none among the Tamil politicians had faced the voters repeatedly for such a lengthy duration without switching party affiliations. Ponnambalam’s public service to Tamils can be dissected into four phases. 

Phase 1: Period of ascendancy (1931-1943) as Member for Point Pedro

During this phase, Ponnambalam faced three elections to the State Council of Ceylon. He won two in 1934 and 1936, after losing at his first attempt in 1931, at the age of 28. Following the boycott decision made by the Jaffna Youth League in April 1931 in the Northern Province, election was held in June 20, 1931 for the Mannar-Mullaitivu constituency.⁵ Ponnambalam stood against S.M. Ananthan. The First State Council election for the Mannar-Mullaitivu constituency, held in June 20, 1931.Total electorate 16,476; Total votes polled 10,314; Percent polled 62.60. The result was: S.M. Ananthan 5,647 votes; G.G.Ponnambalam 4,667 votes; Majority for Ananthan 980 votes.

Following the lifting of the boycott, Point Pedro constituency by-election was held on April 5, 1934.Total electorate 26,837; Total votes polled 11,351; Percent polled 39.36. The result was as follows: G.G.Ponnambalam 9,319 votes; R. Sri Pathmanathan 2,032 votes; Majority for Ponnambalam 7,287 votes. He received 82 percent of the votes polled and entered the First State Council at the age of 31. Election was a new experience for the masses and only 39 percent of the voters in Point Pedro constituency exercised their rights. Following the death of Sir Pon Ramanathan, Eelam Tamils were devoid of a ‘voice’ and it was left to Ponnambalam to fill this vacuum. Less than two years later, the Second State Council election for the Point Pedro constituency was held in February 22, 1936.

Total electorate 44,767; Total votes polled 21,036; Percent polled 46.99. The result was as follows: G.G.Ponnambalam 14,029 votes; K.Balasingham 7,007 votes; Majority for Ponnambalam 7,022 votes. He retained the Point Pedro seat convincingly by receiving 67 percent of the votes polled. His career as a Tamil leader of stature began to blossom during the subsequent eight years.

Phase 2: Period of peak (1944-1953) as Member for Point Pedro and then Member for Jaffna

Ponnambalam faced two general elections in 1947 and 1952 and won both. From Point Pedro electorate, he had moved to contest the Jaffna electorate. In 1947, Ponnambalam’s opponent was Sir Arunachalam Mahadeva and this contest became the ‘prestige battle’ of that era. Ponnambalam defeated Mahadeva by the largest majority he ever received in the elections. Then he was aged 45.

1947 General election: Jaffna constituency

Total electorate 42,546; Total votes polled 19,681; Percent polled 46.26. The result was: G.G.Ponnambalam (TC) 14,324 votes; A. Mahadeva (UNP) 5,224 votes; Majority for Ponnambalam 9,100 votes. Ponnambalam received nearly 73 percent of the votes polled. One year after the election, he was inducted into the D.S. Senanayake Cabinet as the Minister of Industries and Fisheries on Sept.3, 1948.

1952 General election: Jaffna constituency

Total electorate 29,489; Total votes polled 21,131; Percent polled 71.66. The result was: G.G.Ponnambalam (TC) 12,726 votes; E.M.V. Naganathan (FP) 8,317 votes; Majority for Ponnambalam 4,409 votes. Ponnambalam’s glamour was beginning to fade, though he contested the 1952 election as a Cabinet minister. In this election, his share of votes had fallen to 60 percent. His once loyalist Dr. Naganathan, contesting in the newly formed Federal Party ticket turned out to be a tougher opponent than A. Mahadeva in 1947. Following John Kotelawala’s ascendancy to prime ministership on Oct.14, 1953, Ponnambalam was pushed out and he quit as the Minister of Industries and Fisheries on Oct.22, 1953, after serving a little more than five years.

Phase 3: Period of descendancy (1953-1970) as Member of Jaffna and then as non-MP

Ponnambalam faced five general elections; namely 1956, March 1960, July 1960, 1965 and 1970, always contesting from the Jaffna constituency. He could win only in 1956 and in 1965. He lost twice in 1960 and also in1970. Between 1931 and 1952, he was involved in direct contests and he won four out of five times. From 1956, Ponnambalam had to face multi-cornered contests, involving spoilers belonging to the Leftist parties and an upstart Independent A.T.Durayappah.

1956 General election: Jaffna constituency

Total electorate 34,804; Total votes polled 22,178; Percent polled 63.72. The result was: G.G.Ponnambalam (TC) 8,914 votes; E.M.V.Naganathan (FP) 7,173 votes; M.Kartigesan (CP) 3,239 votes; .Visuvanathan (LSSP) 2,703 votes; Majority for Ponnambalam 1,741 votes. By 1956, the writing was on the wall that Ponnambalam had lost his glamour and it was only a matter of time that he would face defeat. His majority, which was 9,100 in 1947, had been drastically reduced to 1,741; he won on a plurality by garnering only 40 percent of the votes polled. He was 54 then. The noose tightened on him, with the demarcation of Nallur as a separate electorate in 1960, which saw two general elections.

1960 March General Election: Jaffna constituency

Total electorate 24,299; Total votes polled 17,473; Percent polled 71.97. The result was: A.T.Durayappah (Independent) 6,201 votes; G.G.Ponnambalam (TC) 5,312 votes; S.Kathiravelupillai (FP) 5,101 votes; A.Visuvanathan (LSSP) 767 votes; Majority for Durayappah 889 votes. Ponnambalam was defeated for the first time in Jaffna in this election. He received only 30 percent of the votes polled and lost to Durayappah. He was aged 57. Due to a hung parliament, another election followed soon.

1960 July General Election: Jaffna constituency

Total electorate 24,299; Total votes polled 18,056; Percent polled 74.31. The result was: A.T.Durayappah (Independent) 6,313 votes; G.G.Ponnambalam (TC) 6,015 votes; S.Kathiravelupillai (FP) 5,644 votes; Majority for Durayappah 298 votes. Compared to March 1960, Ponnambalam polled 703 votes more, but it was not enough to get him elected. Durayappah won with a reduced majority of 298 votes. These two successive defeats at the hands of a novice Independent Durayappah sealed the political career of Ponnambalam, which had blossomed in 1934. When the 1965 general election came, he had turned 62.

1965 General Election: Jaffna constituency

Total electorate 28,473; Total votes polled 22,141; Percent polled 77.76. The result was: G.G.Ponnambalam (TC) 9,350 votes; C.X.Martyn (FP) 6,800 votes; A.T.Durayappah (Independent) 5,918 votes; Majority for Ponnambalam 2,550 votes. Ponnambalam was able to taste a win at this Election, by receiving 42 percent of the votes polled. But, the five year period between 1965 and 1970 turned out to be the sunset phase of Ponnambalam’s distinguished political career. When the 1970 general election came, he had turned 67. Rather than taking a bow and retiring from the arena, still he opted to dance at the Tamil political stage.

1970 General Election: Jaffna constituency

Total electorate 31,214; Total votes polled 24,938; Percent polled 79.89. The result was: C.X.Martyn (FP) 8,848 votes; A.T.Durayappah (Independent) 8,792 votes; G.G.Ponnambalam (TC) 7,222 votes; Majority for Martyn 56 votes. In the final election he faced, Ponnambalam was pushed to the third place and was rejected by Jaffna voters for the third time. Martyn of Federal Party narrowly defeated Durayappah by a whisker of 56 votes. Ponnambalam’s 1965 victory in Jaffna had given him pseudo-confidence that Jaffna voters wouldn’t reject him. But that was not to be so. If he had opted to contest from Point Pedro, he might have had a better chance of being elected, since Federal Party’s popularity was relatively weak in the Point Pedro segment of the peninsula. Also the nostalgia factor of being a native son returning to his birth soil would have worked in favor of him. But Ponnambalam being Ponnambalam, he had his pride and wouldn’t leave Jaffna for what could be taunted as a ‘retreat step’. Thus, Ponnambalam’s political tent came to be folded. Following his electoral defeat, he spent more time in Malaysia during the next five years.

Phase 4: Swan song as Legal Luminary in 1976

Between 1970 and 1976, much happened in the political arena in Sri Lanka. Introduction of the 1972 Republican Constitution, emergence of the Tamil student movement in response to state oppression, unusual extension of parliament’s term by two additional years, assassination of Ponnambalam’s erstwhile opponent Durayappah in 1975, and the arrest of three Federal Party MPs (V.N.Navaratnam, K.P.Ratnam and K.Thurairatnam) and two ex-MPs A.Amirthalingam and M.Sivasithamparam by the Jaffna police on May 21, 1976 on the charges of allegedly distributing literature discouraging the public from attending the Republic Day public celebrations. Apart from Sivasithamparam, other four were charged on five counts, two of which were described as contraventions of Emergency (Prevention of Subversion) Regulations. A trial-at-bar case was hoisted on them. This brought Ponnambalam for a swan song performance in the public arena. He had been elected as one of the co-Presidents of the newly formed Tamil United Liberation Front (TULF).

The trial-at-bar case began on July 12, 1976 at the High Court of Colombo. Ponnambalam had reached 74 and was ailing. After his death, a fellow lawyer A.H.C.de Silva, QC, had observed that he had persuaded Ponnambalam to take a less active role in the trial-at-bar case. To quote de Silva:

“In the trial-at-bar case I tried hard to prevent him [Ponnambalam] from taking a leading and an active part and suggested to him to be present only in a consultative capacity while someone else argued the important questions of law involved, as I felt that the strain of arguing his matter would be too much for him having regard to the fact that he had had a very serious illness only a few months back when he nearly passed away.

I also felt the argument would take a number of days and that this would impose a heavy strain on him, but he told me that he had already undertaken to argue this case and he would have to go through with it and did so. The submission took many days and I have no doubt that the effort seriously undermined his health. It was a surprising performance by a man who nearly died only a few months earlier. Such was his devotion to duty.”⁶

It may be inferred that Ponnambalam’s devotion to duty, coupled with his wish on answering a final curtain call on leading a battle for a Tamil cause, overruled the overtures made by some of his Sinhalese friends to play it calm. The High Court at Bar, on September 10, 1976, upheld a defence objection on the validity of the Emergency Regulations and Appapillai Amirthalingam, the Secretary General of TULF, was discharged of charges of possessing and distributing seditious literature. Amirthalingam, the first accused, paying tribute to Ponnambalam’s skill at the end of the trial noted:

“During the case, Mr. G.G. Ponnambalam convinced us that we should attack the way the Emergency was proclaimed. The Emergency was hated and repugnant to both Sinhala and Tamil. By contesting the validity we hoped to win some of the Sinhala people also to be sympathetic to our cause. We were fighting their case too.”⁷

The three High Court Judges unanimously ruled, in a 67-paged judgment that they could not continue to exercise any further jurisdiction in the case to try the accused. They held that the Emergency Regulation 59, gazetted in May 1976 by which the Court was created ‘can have no sanction or validity in law’. Then the Attorney General Siva Pasupati appealed for a revision of the High Court-at-Bar order in the case against Amirthalingam. The Attorney General argued that when one had to strike a balance between the security of the state and the liberty of the subject, there was no question that the security of the state must take precedence. On December 10, 1976, the five-judge Bench, by a unanimous verdict, held that the proclamation of the state of Emergency was valid. Soon after the judgments were delivered, the Attorney General announced that the Government will not be proceeding the case against the four FP leaders relating to the possession and distribution of seditious literature. Ponnambalam breathed last on Feb.9, 1977.

F.R. Jayasuriya, a staunch agitator for ultra-Sinhala Buddhist causes, summed up the embarrassing position in which the Government was placed at the end of the trial-at-bar case, as follows:

“When it came to the most fundamental need of the government to have the right in a crisis, to declare a state of Emergency – even this simple, elementary and vital matter became the subject of one of the most important constitutional battles of recent years, when the sick and ailing leader of the Tamil Congress was carried from his sick-bed to argue the case before the Supreme Court, whose judgment alone saved the Government and prevented the country from being thrown into governmental and administrative chaos, but also advised the Government to have the ambiguous clause amended.”⁸

This was indeed a compliment for the legal acumen of Ponnambalam who embarrassed the then Government in a court of law, even when he was ailing. When it came to identifying solutions for the political problems of Eelam Tamils, Ponnambalam was a visionary – sometimes even ahead of Chelvanayakam. As noted by S.P. Amarasingam, the editor of Tribune, in the aftermath of the much-delayed Kankesanthurai by-election in February 1975,

“… Chelvanayakam does not believe in separation. The call for a separate state had first come from Suntharalingam and it was later weakly echoed by TC’s G.G.Ponnambalam. The FP had fought this separatism with its federalism. But now the TUF has an open mind on federalism as well as a separate state…”⁹

Ponnambalam’s Power

Though it has not been thought of seriously until now, Ponnambalam has to be credited as a Gandhian style agitator in the pre-Independent era, before Chelvanayakam. Two aspects of his Gandhian strategies deserve merit. First, like Mahatma Gandhi who woke up the down-trodden Indian populace with his ‘Never fear’ admonition, Ponnambalam introduced the ‘Tamil pride’ to the sedate Eelam population, then untutored about the universal franchise. His catch phrase, Thamilan enru sollada; Thalai nimirnthu nillada [Say you are a Tamilian and Stand holding your head high] was an epoch-turning manthra for Eelam Tamils. This fact has been acknowledged by Wilson. Secondly, like Mahatma Gandhi, Ponnambalam rather than being a meek collaborator or ‘fence-sitter’, agitated and negotiated for equal rights of colonized population. That he was not successful in his venture shouldn’t take away his merit in arguing the case for the people he represented. This fact has not been acknowledged by analysts like Wilson and K.M.de Silva¹⁰. They stress only the angle of Ponnambalam ‘overplaying his card’ and not satisfying the mood of the wily British administrators. That Ponnambalam also shared Gandhi’s fate in his negotiations with the British imperialists is easily visible. Both were ‘cheated’ (if that is the proper word) by the British Poo Bahs. Gandhi was outmaneuvered by the British who carved a Pakistan by their imperial game of ‘Divide and Rule’. Similarly, Ponnambalam was outfoxed by the British Poo Bahs, by their adamancy of turning a deaf ear to Ponnambalam’s plea for ‘balanced representation for the minorities’ in their blundering approach to colonial constitution making.

Wilson has recorded that D.S. Senanayake transformed ‘from rebel to a conservative collaborator of the British’ and that Sir Ivor Jennings – the internationally recognized constitutional expert was partial to the interests of D.S. Senanayake and O.E. Goonetileke, as opposed to Ponnambalam. Also, the established facts that the British Governor Andrew Caldecott did not like Ponnambalam in late 1930s reveal that Ponnambalam was a confrontational agitator in the Gandhian mould. The British rulers in the 1930s did not like Gandhi as well for his confrontational stance.

Ponnambalam’s Plight

Ponnambalam’s decision in joining the D.S.Senanayake’s Cabinet in mid-1948 and subsequent downfall in popularity among the Eelam Tamils can be attributed to at least four factors. First, though electorally he represented the Jaffna Tamils he came to be influenced more by the Colombo Tamils as well as his non-Tamil contacts in Colombo. Ponnambalam had catered to this constituency in the legal arena and they paid him well for his legal acumen. Thus, he turned to be a ‘drifter’ from Jaffna to Colombo. Secondly, what psychologist Carl Jung recognized as ‘mid-life crisis’ may have had an adverse influence on Ponnambalam. By mid 1948, he was about to reach 45. As Wilson had observed⁴, Ponnambalam by then had spent 14 years in the Opposition benches, and the ‘carrot’ of Cabinet position was too tempting for him to reject. Contrastingly, Chelvanayakam was then a new-face in the 1947 Parliament. Thirdly, due to his flamboyant personality, Ponnambalam never bothered to nurture his beliefs beyond the territory of Jaffna peninsula. Thus, he never pulled the ‘next generation’ within his fold, like Chelvanayakam did. Fourthly, the unanticipated leadership changes within the UNP (from D.S.Senanayake to Dudley Senanayake to John L.Kotelawala) between March 1952 and October 1953 - a short span of 18 months – pulled the rug from under Ponnambalam’s ‘Cabinet perch’ beyond redemption.

Conclusion

Following the introduction of universal suffrage in the island, Ponnambalam became the first Tamil leader to have mass appeal among the voters. Being a pioneer in an unchartered territory that he fumbled occasionally is undeniable. Like any great political leader (Abraham Lincoln and Winston Churchill for example), Ponnambalam had his supporters and detractors. In the political arena, like Lincoln and Churchill, he did taste both success and defeat. Between 1931 and 1970, Tamil voters elected him six times and spurned him four times.

The singular fact that it was he who introduced Chelvanayakam into Eelam Tamil politics has to be noted as one of his meritorious deeds. Also the fact that rather than being a collaborator with the colonial British administrators or functioning as a ‘fence-sitter’ marking time, Ponnambalam practiced Gandhian-style agitational politics in the pre-Independence era should not be forgotten. His life badly deserves a full length biography.

Foot Notes

Abbreviations to political parties: Communist Party – CP; Federal Party – FP; Lanka Samasamajist Party – LSSP; Tamil Congress – TC; United National Party – UNP.

1. Sunday Observer, Colombo, Feb.19, 1978.

2. J.Russell: Communal Politics under the Donoughmore Constitution 1931-1947, Tisara Prakasayo, Dehiwala, 1982.

3. A.J.Wilson: The Break-Up of Sri Lanka – The Sinhalese Tamil Conflict, C.Hurst & Co, London, 1988.

4. A.J.Wilson: S.J.V.Chelvanayakam and the Crisis of Sri Lankan Tamil Nationalism 1947-1977 – A Political Biography, Hurst & Co, London, 1994.

5. Electoral results were gleaned from, G.P.S.H.de Silva: A Statistical Survey of Elections to the Legislatures of Sri Lanka, 1911-1977, Marga Institute, Colombo, 1979.

6. Sun, Colombo, Feb.9, 1978.

7. Himmat, Bombay, Jan.7, 1977.

8. Sun, Colombo, July 18, 1977.

9. Tribune, Colombo, Feb.15, 1975.