I read with interest the two articles on the ‘Mandarins’ by Gamini Seneviratne (GS) and ‘Jolly’ Somasundaram (JS) in the last two editions of the ‘Sunday Island’.

One cannot disagree with them that the CCS produced some of the finest officers in the Government Administrative Service. While GS’ article was an innocuous one triggered by the reminiscences at the ‘CCS get together’, JS’ article was filled with his political and elitist biases.

For instance, JS in his bilious frame of mind, ridicules successive SLFP governments and ministers (Felix DB and TBI). Of TBI he says "....who started life as a clerk before switching to politics." He goes on to psychoanalyse him by saying "Illangaratne had a deep inferiority complex vis-a-vis civil servantsÉ", then denigrates him - "...carrying a boulder on his shoulders as he was dismissed by one of them (CCS)" and adds for good measure and part defense, "...after due process."

If I may now psychoanalyse JS, I think he has not been able to get over the irony (and perhaps, class embarrassment), even after so many years have passed, that he, as a CCS officer, must have had to "Sir" Illangaratne the Minister - the man who "... started life as a clerk".

JS has made the following highly admired Civil Servants conspicuous by an absence of mention: Godfrey Gunatilleke, DBIPS Siriwardhana, Mahinda Silva and Charlie Abeysekera. Why? Another bit of psychoanalysis on my part. They were, at one time or another, close to the LSSP or SLFP or were politically left of centre. They don’t seem to have a place in JS’ list of ‘honourable mention".

But he refers with great admiration to the two most well-known CCS political (UNP) supporters - Bradman Weerakoon and Neville Jayaweera. These two, in particular, and GVP Samarasinghe, did not think it prudent to maintain the stoic political neutrality that was expected of the elite CCS. The CCS was trained to serve successive governments diligently not to exhibit their allegiances to political masters.

JS again lists - very condescendingly, as if his judgment is of the essence - names of CCS "could have beens" whom he considers would have been "excellent officers". But prior to that, almost as a preface to it, he denigrates all officers of their category by labeling them as persons with "A deep sense of grievance that lacerated...’ them; "In the demand for abolition of the CCS, the same slogans were mouthed like karaoke tunesÉ"; "These were cant and incantations."; "These ignoble expressions camouflaged a hidden agenda to make their own the higher posts which were exclusively the domain of the CCS."

They are made to look like political boot-lickers who found a ‘political ear’ in the left parties. He then goes on to ‘lacerate’ the ethic of these parties too - "É the slogan, colonial, instantly vapourising any critical faculties these parties had!"

As can be seen, he casts damning aspersions on the SLFP government and two of its ministers and the LSSP and CP and Dr. N. M. Perera as well. But what of the UNP? - "The next government was the UNP which would never have abolished the CCS." There is no mention of the UNP other than the above positive reference in passing.

Understandably, he fails to mention how many Civil Servants of that time were picked up (purchased?) at a price by rich mudalalis and landed proprietors to wed their daughters. Many ended up with house and property in Colombo 03 or 07. With that single deal, many became - not "Éalpha male graduates between the ages of 22-24" as JS gloats, nor the mandarins or even Brahmins of their times, but the man-servants of the new post-colonial ruling class.

Therefore, it was no wonder, that many were most conciliatory and comfortable with successive UNP governments and did their bidding as it was a matter of mutual class interest. Whenever a SLFP government came to power from 1956 to 1970 many ‘mandarins’ were, to say the least, non-co-operative in implementing government policy. This was well-known within the CCS as well as outside it. Hence, progressive members of the CCS were not averse to the abolition of the CCS - notably, Godfrey Gunatilleke, one of their most brilliant recruits.

The final nail in the coffin of the CCS came in 1970 when the Permanent Secretary posts were also abolished and political replacements were brought in as just plain ‘Secretaries’ from outside the CCS and the CAS. It needs to be reminded that it was JRJ who first brought in an outsider in Anandatissa de Alwis as his Secretary to the Ministry of State in 1965.

It was the ‘brahminism’ as well as the ‘pukka sahib’ mentality of many, if not most, CCS officers that caused the abolition of a good service. In contrast, the brilliant men in the ICS, though elitist in their own way, held newly independent and secular India with a patriotic fervor not seen in the ‘brahmins’ of the emergent post-colonial CCS. Therefore, the abolition and the downfall of the CCS was certainly the ‘brahminism’ of their own kind. They have no one to blame for it than themselves. That was the tragedy that befell Sri Lanka’s administrative service.

The general attitude that killed the CCS then, is exemplified in JS’ letter in the Sunday Island last week.

"Let the turf lie lightly on the CCS - it caused its own premature passing. Forgive its members for they knew not what they did. Nor, it seems, do the few remaining know it yet."