The state of affairs of this House has deteriorated so far as to be disrespectful even to the dead - to many a distinguished Member of this House, some who had made a significant contribution to the economy of our country and for the cause of our people.

I wish to bring to your recollection that when D. M. Rajapaksa, Member of the State Council for Hambantota, the "Lion of Ruhuna", collapsed in this House and died, the then Leader of the House, D. S. Senanayake, within a few hours of his death moved the suspension of other work of the House and proposed the Vote of Condolence on that great man. That should be the spirit of this House and that has been the well-established tradition since the State Council days. But, that has been completely ignored and we had to wait 365 days to pay our tribute to the distinguished former Speaker, Anura Bandaranaike.

Anura Bandaranaike was a Speaker of this House, even the Leader of the Opposition of this House, a Cabinet Minister in several administrations, one of the finest debaters that this country has produced and it took us one long year to move this Vote of Condolence.

I recall my first meeting with Anura Bandaranaike at Temple Trees, soon after his return to the Island after his higher education. He was associated then with the Sri Lanka Freedom Party's Youth Organization. I invited him to deliver a talk on Lenin in English and that meeting was presided over by Mr. George Rajapaksa, the father of (Mrs.) Nirupama Rajapaksa. It was a stunning speech, not only from the point of view of his style of delivery, but also from his knowledge of history and his critical analysis of Lenin.

He held the Floor ferociously along with eight of us in the Opposition in the 1980s against 215 Members on the Government side. He also had a very tough time in dealing with the Speakers of those days and confronting a galaxy of intellectual giants in the Front Benches of the Government, including at that stage, the most unruly Member, Mr. Ranil Wickremasinghe, although he is today a tamed Leader of the Opposition.

He was a good Leader of the Opposition. Therefore, although we were diametrically opposed politically and ideologically, as a novice in this House I was given the privilege of winding up two debates on the Budgets presented by Ronnie de Mel.

I also had the privilege to join him in the delegation to the General Assembly of the United Nations when he was the Foreign Minister. He was friendly; he was cheerful; he was cultured; honourable; humane and above all, a man of the highest integrity.

I shall ever remember his landmark and historic ruling given by him as Speaker on the Floor of this House on a Supreme Court decision. When the judiciary was attempting to encroach on the frontiers of the legislature, he defended valiantly on the Floor of the House; he defended the legislature and that is where he made his mark as the Speaker.

I associate myself with the sentiments expressed by all the previous speakers on both sides of the House. To save time, I do not want to repeat or reiterate them. I believe, when discussing a Vote of Condolence of this nature on a distinguished Member of this House, as Anura Bandaranaike, we should not restrict ourselves to mere eulogies appreciations, evaluations or admirations. After all, he was the son of two Prime Ministers with an outstanding, illustrious and a distinguished social-political background. He served as a member in different capacities for over 35 years on both sides of the House and also as the Speaker. We all know that he could not achieve what he aspired for. It is necessary as students of history, as students of political science to inquire and investigate as to why he failed, where he failed and how he failed.

What are the objective and subjective factors which contributed to his failure to achieve what he aspired for? It is necessary to gain an insight into his political life, contemporary political trends and developments and prevalent political culture if we are to make an assessment and evaluation and draw necessary conclusions.

It is my sense of history and political judgment that he failed because he placed himself as a "right of centre" of politics in a party like the Sri Lanka Freedom Party. Maybe he stood by his own political convictions. But, this was the fundamental failure. When he was ready, luck did not come and when luck dawned on him he was not ready. So no one can be blamed, except himself.

As a politician of a "right of centre" in the SLFP, I think all such leaders receded into the political oblivion. In those days, even those who were pushed into power or forced into power by the force of events like the late W. Dahanayaka and the late C. P. de Silva, met with the same fate. Secondly, he was probably influenced by the neo-conservative political thinkers. Thirdly, even as a "right of centre" he was probably more dogmatic and less pragmatic.

Fourthly, he was prone to subjectivism and unconcerned with the objective realities and that subjectivism overpowered him. Fifthly, his pride, with due respect to him, was his guiding principle. Sixthly, he relied upon the superstructure of the party and not so much of the infrastructure of the party. Seventhly, he failed because he was surrounded by a circle of friends, some of whom were social climbers, careerists, opportunists who fattened themselves and who made their fortunes and probably they would have contributed to paralyze his political fortunes.

In the last days I can remember he confessed certain things to me personally as to why he failed politically. I do not propose to come out with those and I will find some other time later to make things known to the people. As a friend and as a colleague, I pay my tribute to Anura Bandaranaike for all what he has done for the cause of the people, for the cause of the country and I wish, to convey our deepest sympathies to Sunethra and Chandrika, his two sisters.