Incomplete Citizenship of the Plantation Community: Access to Governance Institutions and Public Service Delivery associated with the contemporary constitutional and powersharing discourse. This pattern has emanated from the new political leadership in the Plantation Community, along with the support of political and social activists. They put forth the demand to reform existing administrative and local-level political structures from the perspectives of an ethnic minority which has suffered and continues to suffer discrimination, as well as social and political exclusion (Uyangoda 2013). The proposal submitted by the Tamil Progressive Alliance (TPA)3 to the Steering Committee of the Constitutional Assembly—the body responsible of preparing the draft report for the new constitution—focuses more on access to governance structures at the local level, which remains their top priority.4 This chapter also argues that the disparity of available public institutions in the plantation areas (compared with the rest of the country) continues to be a problem of accessing public services. Cross-country comparison of public institutions, especially in the areas of the ethnic majority, gives more evidence in favour of the above argument. Namely, analysis of responses and review of various documents indicate the disparity in the availability of Divisional Secretariat Divisions (DSDs) and Grama Niladhari 3 4 The TPA was formed in 2015 just before the general election, as a political alliance consisting of three political parties: the Up-Country People’s Front headed by V. Radhakrishnan; the National Union of Workers headed by P. Thigambaram; and the Democratic People’s Front headed by Mano Ganesan. This proposal was prepared by Up-Country based intellectuals and civil society activists in consultation with TPA representatives and submitted to the steering committee headed by the current Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe. The same issue was highlighted in other proposals submitted to the Public Representations Committee on Constitutional Reforms by the Institute of Social Development, Human Development Organization, Upcountry Social Development Forum, and upcountry political parties and individuals. This became evident in a meeting in Hatton in late 2016 with all parties, institutions and individuals who submitted proposals. 39