Connect with us

Features

IPKF’S Withdrawal: Correspondence between Premadasa and Rajiv Gandhi

Published

on

  2 June 1989

My dear Prime Minister,

I am writing to you on some matters of urgent importance. The most immediate matter relates to the presence of Indian Forces in Sri Lanka. After I assumed the Presidency of Sri Lanka, the Government of India initiated the withdrawal of troops. We are grateful for your prompt action in this regard.

One of the important campaign pledges made by me at both the Presidential and Parliamentary Elections was the withdrawal of the IPKF on being elected to office. I assumed the office of President of Sri Lanka-on the 2nd of January 1989. Five months have elapsed since then. The complete withdrawal of the IPKF will, hopefully, contribute to stabilizing the situation in Sri Lanka, where the presence of the IPKF has become a deeply divisive and resentful issue. It is also in keeping with your often expressed sentiments that the IPKF will be withdrawn when requested by the President of Sri Lanka.

I am thankful for the efforts of the IPKF during the time it has been in our country. I have often paid tribute to the bravery of the many officers and men who lost life and limb in the discharge of their duties. The tragedy of violence has not only affected your soldiers, it has destroyed many Sri Lankans as well. Our Armed Forces and large numbers of civilians, innocent and uninvolved, have suffered beyond description. Their sacrifices must not be in vain. I am confident that a complete withdrawal of the IPKF will enable me to secure the trust and confidence of my people. Therefore, I would like all IPKF -personnel to be withdrawn from Sri Lanka by July 31st 1989.

The withdrawal of the IPKF will also enable Sri Lanka to host the SAARC Summit in November this year in a climate of tranquility. As you are aware, we could not undertake our obligation to do this in. 1988. You will appreciate how difficult it is to hold a regional gathering of this nature with foreign forces on our soil. Our people are most enthusiastic about welcoming leaders of our own region, particularly our closest neighbours. However, their anxieties must also be satisfied, especially in relation to their deep patriotic and, nationalist sensitivities.

In this context, we have submitted several proposals regarding an Indo-Lanka Friendship Treaty. I believe that, in the long term, such an agreement will further strengthen relations between India and Sri Lanka. I await your response to our proposals in this regard.

We have always appreciated your sincere interest in the unity and the territorial integrity of our country. our own efforts to this end need the understanding and goodwill of our neighbours. I believe, that your people and you yourself, share these objectives and will contribute to their realization.

I have just seen the Aide Memoire which was handed over to me by your High Commissioner, this evening. As the Aide Memoire refers to the need for consultations between our Governments, I am designating my Foreign Secretary to personally clarify our position on these matters.

With assurances of my high consideration and esteem.

Yours sincerely,

His Excellency Shri Rajiv Gandhi
Prime Minister of India
Prime Minister’s Office
New Delhi
INDIA

Dear Mr. President,

I have your letter of the 2nd June, which was handed over to me by your Special Envoy, Foreign Secretary Tilakaratne.

India is committed to preserving the unity and integrity of Sri -Lanka, under the terms of the Indo-Sri Lanka Agreement. It was as a. result of this commitment and. our responsibility as a guarantor for the implementation of the Indo-Sri Lanka Agreement that we responded to the request of the Government of Sri Lanka to send the IPKF. This was at a time when the situation seemed headed inexorably towards the break-up of Sri Lanka. During its presence, the IPKF has striven, with considerable success but at heavy cost to itself, to prevent such an outcome and safeguard the unity and integrity of Sri Lanka.

Three successive elections have been held peacefully despite threats of terrorist violence in the North-East, and all Tamil-groups, barring one, have joined the democratic process. All the Tamil groups, barring one, had given up the demand for Eelam. If the process of devolution of powers to the Provincial Council had been implemented in time and had the deliberate attempt by the Sri Lankan Government to alter the population balance in the Tamil areas by the continued State-sponsored colonisation of Tamil areas been stopped, the extremists s would have been further isolated and marginalised, and the violence ended.

As you have yourself stated, we had started the withdrawal of the IPKF even before you requested for it. A broad time frame for the IPKF’s withdrawal was also discussed at our initiative, based on which your Foreign Minister had made a statement in your Parliament on the 31st March, 1989. All this was being done on the basis of assurances given by the Sri Lankan Government and the assumption that the implementation of the Indo-Sri Lanka Agreement especially the devolution of powers to the Provincial Councils – would proceed simultaneously, so that the legitimate aspirations of the Tamils could be met within the framework of the unity and integrity of Sri Lanka. It is pertinent to recall that it was precisely because these aspirations were not being met that a situation was created which threatened the unity and integrity of Sri Lanka.

I have always maintained that the IPKF will not stay in Sri Lanka a day longer than necessary. But we cannot be unmindful of the responsibilities and obligations of the two countries under the Indo-Sri Lanka Agreement. Tamil militant groups were persuaded to support the Indo-Sri Lanka Agreement and to join the democratic process within the framework of a united Sri Lanka only on the basis of assurances that the Tamil majority North-Eastern Province will be given substantial devolution of powers. Our two Governments are, therefore, morally and legally obliged to ensure that the Tamils are given the autonomy they were promised, both in the 13th Amendment to the Sri Lankan Constitution, as also in the additional areas promised in the Agreement signed between former President Jayewardene and myself on the 7th November, 1987. Failure to do so will only lend credence to the claims made by some Tamil groups that Tamils cannot expect justice within a united Sri Lanka. We have to be fully conscious of the dangers of a return to a situation which may be worse than that prevailing prior to the Indo-Sri Lanka Agreement.

We believe that, in the spirit of traditional friendship between our two countriesp we must jointly draw up a mutually agreed schedule for the full implementation of the Indo-Sri Lanka Agreement and the complete withdrawal of the IPKF. The two have to be joint, parallel exercises.

We have no objection to your proposal for a Friendship Treaty. I had told your Special Envoy that we could set dates for commencing discussions with a view to finalising the text of the proposed treaty.

Yours sincerely,

His Excellency

Mr. Ranasinghe Premadasa
President of the Democratic
Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka
Colombo

MOST IMMDT CONFIDENTIAL
No.292
For Kalpage From Tilakaratna

Grateful transmit following message first thing tomorrow morning.

From H.E.President of Sri Lanka
To H.E. Prime Minister of India

Excellency,

I am glad to inform you that the LTTE has announced a complete cessation of hostilities against the Sri Lanka Government with immediate effect.The LTTE which is no longer a proscribed group has in the course of recent discussions with the Government of Sri Lanka agreed to settle whatever problems they have through a process of negotiation.

Under the circumstances it will be appreciated if your Excellency will ensure that the IPKF does not take any offensive action against the LTTE which will tend to prejudice the negotiations that are currently. in progress.Accept Excellency the assurances of my highest consideration.

R. PREMADASA, PRESIDENT

Dear Prime Minister,

I am in receipt of your letter of 20 June in reply to my letter of 2 June 1989.I thank you for reiterating India’s commitment to preserve the unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Sri Lanka as was stated in the Indo-Sri Lanka Agreement.

We appreciate ‘the assistance given by the Indian Government in providing the personnel to assist in the acceptance of arms surrendered by the militants as envisaged by- Article 2.9 of the Agreement. We are also thankful for the assistance provided at our request, in terms of Article 2.16(c) of the Agreement and paragraph 6 of the Annexure in affording military assistance to ensure the cessation of hostilities.

I am unable however to accept the contention that the implementation of the Indo-Sri Lanka Agreement, including the devolution of powers to the Provincial Councils, is in any way linked with the withdrawal of the Indian Armed Forces. They had been invited to Sri Lanka for the specific purpose of guaranteeing and enforcing the cessation of hostilities. The Indo-Sri Lanka Agreement does not provide for continued military activities by the Indian Armed Forces in Sri Lanka after a request has been made by me to have them withdrawn. Continuation of such military activities would also be a violation of peremptory norms of international law.

The Indian Peace Keeping Force came to Sri Lanka at the request of the President of Sri Lanka. Due to the circumstances that arose thereafter the IPKF was requested by the President to afford military assistance to ensure the cessation of hostilities. The only condition that should be satisfied for the withdrawal of the Indian Armed Forces is a decision by the President of Sri Lanka that they should be withdrawn. The request made by me to withdraw the Indian Armed Forces has satisfied this condition. It is therefore incumbent on the Government of India to withdraw the Indian Armed Forces from Sri Lanka.

The proposals for the political settlement of the ethnic problem negotiated from 4.5.1986 to 19.12.1986 as well as the residual matters to be finalised between the Government of Sri Lanka and the Government of India have all been accepted and incorporated in the relevant amendments to our Constitution and the Provincial Councils Act. The delay in -giving effect to certain proposals within the time frame envisaged by the Agreement had been occasioned by the inability of the Indian Armed Forces to ensure a cessation of hostilities and violence in the North and the East.

The actual functioning of the Provincial Councils in the new system of administration is applicable not only to the North and the East -but to all the Provinces of Sri Lanka. This is entirely a political process in which the military has no role whatsoever. You will no doubt agree that it has been an experience common in many other jurisdictions that the establishment of an entirely. new structure of administration based on devolution, is essentially a long term process. There is neither a legal nor any other rational basis for the presence of any military force to ensure that the administrative structure is fully in place in any Province of Sri Lanka. I have, in consultation with the Ministers of the Cabinet and Chief Ministers of the Provincial Councils, taken all steps to ensure that the administrative structure necessary for the effective exercise of devolved powers is in place as expeditiously as possible.

As I have already intimated to you in my letter of 2 June 1989 one of the important pledges made by me both at the Presidential and at the Parliamentary Elections was to ensure the withdrawal of the Indian Forces. To quote the Manifesto

‘We will seek a Friendship Treaty with India on the lines of the Indo-Soviet Friendship Treaty. If by the time our candidate is elected President the Indian Forces have not left, we will ensure that they are withdrawn.’

The main Opposition Party, the Sri Lanka Freedom Party, in their election manifesto had stated that the Indo-Sri Lanka Agreement would be abrogated and the Indian Forces asked to leave. Thus it will be seen that over 95% of the voters clearly mandated the withdrawal of the Indian Forces. The majority appeared the UNP proposal for the conclusion of a Friendship Treaty with India.

I would also like to mention a most significant development, which may not have been brought to your notice, namely that the majority of the people of all three communities in the North and the East demand the immediate withdrawal of the Indian Forces.

In your letter you have mentioned that there has been a deliberate attempt by the Government of Sri Lanka to alter the Population balance in the Tamil areas by continuing state-sponsored colonisation. I must emphatically refute this. There has been no colonisation whatsoever in these areas since the signing of the Indo-Sri Lanka Agreement.

The ground is now set for the Government to resolve any Outstanding issues relating to the ethnic problem on the basis of consultation, compromise and consensus with all communities and groups concerned. As I have already informed you, the LTTE has announced the cessation of hostilities against the Government of Sri Lanka. They have also resolved to settle any outstanding issues through negotiations and discussions. It is in this context that I have requested you to issue the necessary instructions to the Indian Armed Forces to refrain from offensive operations against the LTTE. The LTTE has already expressed its willingness to put an end to such activities against the Indian Armed Forces on a reciprocal basis. The withdrawal of the Indian Forces within the time frame visualised by me is an essential pre-condition for the Government to proceed with the consolidation .of a political settlement.

Far from being of any assistance in the complete resolution of the ethnic problem, the presence of the Indian Forces is now a serious impediment. In this connection, I must bring to your notice an alarming development that has been taking place in the -Northern and Eastern Provinces. There are complaints that youths mostly of tender age are being forcibly conscripted by certain political groups and are being trained at the hands of the Indian Forces. I need not elaborate on the possible consequences that will follow if this is. not checked forthwith.

Therefore, in consideration of all these circumstances, I again earnestly request an immediate recommencement of the withdrawal of the Indian Armed Forces and an acceleration of this process.

I am glad at your favourable response to my proposal for a Friendship Treaty with India. We have already given our draft to the Ministry of External Affairs in New Delhi. I would request that

discussions should commence without delay, so that this Treaty could give concrete and expeditious expression to the traditional bonds of friendship between our two countries.

Yours sincerely,

High Commissioner for India
Colombo, Sri Lankan
No. COL/SCR/551/48/89
30th June, 1989.

My dear Foreign Secretary,

Please refer to your letter No.DA/MISC/1, of 29th June, 1989 forwarding to me a copy of a message from His Excellency Mr. R. Premadasa, President of Sri Lanka, to His Excellency Sri Rajiv Gandhi, Prime Minister of India.

2. I have pleasure in attaching a message from His Excellency Shri Rajiv Gandhi, Prime Minister of India, to His Excellency Mr. R. Premadasa, President of Sri Lanka, in reply.

3. I shall be grateful if the message is transmitted to its high destination most immediately.

With kind regards,

Yoursi sincerely,
(L.L. Mehrotra)
Mr. B.P.Tilakaratna,
Foreign Secretary,
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Public Building,
Colombo-1.

Text of message received by the High Commissioner for India in Colombo, telephonically from His Excellency Shri Ravijv Gandhi, Prime Minister of India, to His Excellency Mr. R. Premadasa President of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.

June 30, 1989.

Dear Mr. President,

I have your message of the 29th June sent through Your High Commissioner.

The Indo-Sri Lanka Agreement provides for a cessation of hostilities between the Tamil militant groups and the Sri Lankan Forces, and also for the Sri tankan Forces to stay in barracks in the North East Province. Both these were achieved on the 30th July, 1987. Thus there has already been an effective cessation of hostilities between the Sri Lankan Forces and the LTTE. I am glad that the LTTE has now formally conceded this reality.

We hope that the formal agreement of the LTTE to cease hostilities clearly implies their commitment to the unity and integrity of Sri Lanka and to renounce violence and to respect democratic processes. We trust that, consequent to giving up violence, the LTTE will resume surrender of arms through the Sri Lankan Government a process which had started on the 5th of August, 1987 and is not yet complete. Unless the LTTE have undertaken to hand over their arms and to renounce violence not only towards the Sri Lankan Government but towards the other citizens of the North Eastern Province, their announcement of cessation of hostilities would be meaningless.

Since the IPKF has a mandate in terms of India’s role as a guarantor, for ensuring the physical safety and security of all communities of the North Eastern Province, I would appreciate clarifications, on the points I have mentioned above. These clarifications will facilitate an immediate decision on the IPKF’s cessation of offensive action to disarm the LTTE. The earlier we receive your response, the quicker will be the process of initiating suitable action.

Yours sincerely,

H.E. Mr. R. Premadasa,
President,
Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka,
Colombo.

ANNEXURE “G”
CALLING LANKACOM NEW DELHI DATE 4.7.89. MOST IMMEDIATE
MOST IMMEDIATE
CONFIDENTIAL
No. 302

For Kalpage From Tilakaratna.

Please transmit message given below from H.E. the President to H.E. Rajiv Gandhi Prime Minister.Please transmit this tomorrow morning and inform me when you have done so.

QUOTE

Dear Prime Minister,

I have your message of 30th June tent through your High-Commissioner in response to my message requesting you to ensure that the Indian Armed Forces in Sri Lanka do not take any offensive action against the LTTE. Such action or any intensification of operations is liable to prejudice the negotiations currently in progress and prolong the armed conflict.

Your statement that cessation of hostilities took place on 30th July 1987 does not accord with facts. The LTTE ceased hostilities against the Sri Lanka Security only for a few days but resumed violence on 2nd August 1987 and continued until they announced a cessation of hostilities in June – 1989. During the interim 148 service and police personnel were killed and 80 were wounded, 481 cilvilians were killed and 115 were injured.

The LTTE announced a cessation of hostilities’ only in June this year after the commencement of the dialogue With the Government. This cessation covers not only the Government but also the people in the North and the East and in fact the people in the whole of Sri Lanka. At the same time the LTTE re-iterated its commitment to resolve all outstanding problems through negotiation and discussion and indicated their readiness to enter the democratic process.

As stated in your message you have been seeking to disarm the LTTE for the past two years and this process is not yet complete nor have you been able to bring them to the negotiating table. I am confident that I will be able to ensure that the LTTE give up their arms after the Indian Armed Forces have been withdrawn.

The political solution which I seek to provide will not only be within the frame work of our Constitution but must also preserve the sovereignty of our people, the unitary character and the territorial integrity of our country.

The responsiblity of providing safety and security for its citizens within Sri Lanka is solely the responsibility of the Government of Sri Lanka. The Indo-Sri Lanka Agreement does not and indeed cannot in International Law provide a mandate’ for the Government of India or Armed Forces to assume any responsibility for this function otherwise than at the express request of the Lanka Government. In any event during the past two years when the Indian Armed Forces were operating in a the Northern and Eastern Provinces they were unable to prevent the killings of a number of civilians and the displacement of even a larger number from their homes beside the casualties refered to above.

Any interpretation of the Agreement which seeks to provide a mandatory role for the Government of India or its Armed Forces within Sri Lanka otherwise than at express request of the Government of Sri Lanka would constitute a serious interference in the internal affairs a friendly sovereign country and a gross violation of the peremptory norms of International Law. I am sure that such is not your intention.

I trust these clarifications will enable you to ensure that the Indian Armed Forces do not continue any offensive operations against the LTTE.

Yours sincerely,



Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Features

I just wanted to get it stamped: A seven-hour stamp at DIE

Published

on

There is a short story by Gabriel García Márquez, Nobel laureate, master of the human comedy and its agonies, called “I Just Want to Use the Telephone.” A woman breaks down on a Spanish highway, hitches a lift to the nearest town, and simply wants to make a telephone call to tell her husband she will be late. What follows is a Kafkaesque nightmare of misunderstanding, and catastrophic bureaucratic misinterpretation that swallows her whole life. She ends up committed to an asylum. She never makes the call.

Another Nobel laureate, Milan Kundera’s The Joke, in which a Czech student writes a postcard with a harmless witticism, and the machinery of misinterpretation grinds his entire existence to dust. Two writers, two languages, two very different political contexts, and the same essential theme: the terrifying consequences of systems that refuse to think, administered by officials who refuse to listen, imposed on individuals who simply wanted something simple and ordinary.

I thought of both of them, sitting in Room 20 of the Department of Immigration and Emigration (DIE) in Battaramulla, on a perfectly ordinary morning, waiting. I just wanted to get it stamped.

The Stamp

The matter was, on its face, trivially simple. My passport carries an information page stating it is valid until 30 March 2028. It also carries, on the following page, an endorsement, a condition, restricting the passport’s validity to five years, expiring 30 March 2023. This restriction had been imposed, I was informed, because at the time of issuance I did not possess a National Identity Card (NIC) issued by the Department of Registration of Persons (DRP). Once I obtained the NIC, I was told, the condition could be cancelled by a simple further stamp. A straightforward administrative correction. A bureaucratic afterthought.

So, I arrived at the Department of Immigration and Emigration, the DIE, an acronym one cannot help but notice carries its own dark poetry, with the relevant form, the relevant fee, and my NIC. I submitted my application at approximately nine o’clock in the morning. The officer directed me to wait. I waited.

Modern technology is a mercy in such moments. The smartphone, that great time killer, allows us to read, to write, to attend to correspondence, to think. I attended to productive work. The waiting room filled and thinned and filled again around me. The morning gave way to afternoon.

The call came at around four o’clock in the afternoon, a full seven hours, hungry, thirsty, anxious waiting, for a stamp. My NIC had been referred for verification to the DRP which is located in the same building, different floor though, the verification had taken seven hours to travel vertically between floors and return. My passport was finally stamped. The restricting condition was cancelled. I was free to go. Seven hours. One building. Two floors. A stamp.

The Geography of Absurdity

Let us be precise about the geometry of this situation, because precision is what bureaucracy demands of citizens while refusing it for itself.

The information that one department needed from the other, confirmation that a national identity card bearing a specific number belonged to a specific person, is information that both departments already hold, in files, in databases, in the digital records that both institutions have been building for years.

That information was not retrieved electronically. It was not confirmed through an intranet query that would have taken thirty seconds. It was not verified through any of the digital systems that Sri Lanka’s Digital National Strategy 2030 promises to build, or that the World Bank’s $50 million Digital Transformation Project, approved in December 2025, is supposed to finance, or that President Dissanayake, who is himself the minister responsible for digitisation, has repeatedly pledged to accelerate. The information was physically transported, on paper or on foot or through some process that consumed seven hours, between two offices in the same building.

A Retired Banker’s Letter and a Nation’s Pattern

I am not alone in this observation, and I am not the first to make it in print. A well-known retired banker wrote to the letters pages of a national newspaper not long ago with a complaint that has since circulated widely among the professional and business community. His concern was the unnecessary duplication of bureaucratic processes in Sri Lanka’s government agencies, the requirement to submit the same information repeatedly to different departments that have no mechanism for sharing it with each other.

His example was instructive: a company that changes its registered address must deal separately with the Registrar of Companies (RC) and the Inland Revenue Department (IRD), resubmitting information that both institutions already hold. Two forms, two queues, two sets of fees, two sets of officials who will each process the same fact, that the company has moved, in complete ignorance of the other’s proceedings. He contrasted this with South Korea, where customs efficiency and trade facilitation have been systematically modernised, and where single-window processes allow firms to submit information once and have it flow automatically to all relevant authorities.

The contrast is not merely between administrative cultures. It is between two different philosophies of what government is for. In the South Korean conception, and in Singapore’s, and in Estonia’s, and in the many countries that have successfully digitised their public services, government exists to process the citizen’s legitimate needs with minimum friction. In the Sri Lankan conception, as it is actually practised rather than rhetorically proclaimed, the citizen exists to process the government’s requirements, repeatedly, in person, in queues, with multiple original documents, at multiple counters, on multiple occasions, regardless of how many times the same information has already been submitted.

This is not a trivial inconvenience. It is a structural tax on every productive citizen and every legitimate enterprise in the country.

The Rhetoric and the Reality

Digitalisation is, on paper, precisely the intervention that would have prevented my seven-hour wait: a delay that a single intranet query, a database check, or a digital confirmation could have eliminated. The technology is not exotic. The conceptual framework already exists. The international funding is arriving (USD50 Mn from the World Bank). The President has made the speeches.

That lagging did not happen because Sri Lanka lacked talent, the Senior Advisor to the President on Digitalization, Dr. Hans Wijayasuriya, has stated that Sri Lanka already possesses 75% of the necessary skills to build a strong digital economy. It happened because institutional culture, interdepartmental rivalry, and the chronic prioritisation of process over outcome have conspired to keep the citizen in the queue long after the queue should have ceased to exist.

The Innocent and the System

Here is the cruellest feature of the Sri Lankan bureaucratic condition, and the one that García Márquez and Kundera both understood with novelist’s precision: the systems are designed, or have calcified into designs, that punish the innocent for the sins of the guilty.

The five-year restriction on my passport existed because some applicants, in the past, had submitted fraudulent identity documents to obtain passports. The solution was to restrict all passports issued without NIC verification, regardless of the individual applicant’s circumstances, regardless of whether there was any evidence of fraud, regardless of the disproportionate cost imposed on genuine citizens. A few bad actors found a loophole. The system’s response was to close the loophole by inconveniencing everyone else, permanently, until they proved themselves worthy of having the loophole closed in their particular case.

This is the bureaucratic logic that produced the waiting room in Battaramulla. It is also the logic that produced the multiple-submission requirement for company address changes, and the interminable queue at every government counter in every district of the island. The system never trusts the citizen. The citizen must always prove, again and again, what has already been proved. And the cost of that proof, in time, in money, in lost productive hours, in the quiet erosion of civic dignity, is paid not by the officials who designed the system, nor by the fraudsters whose behaviour prompted it, but by the ordinary person who just wanted something simple.

What a Stamp Can Tell You About a Nation

There is a measure used by international organisations to assess the quality of governance in a given country. It asks, among other things, how many days it takes to start a business, how many procedures are required to register property, how many agencies a citizen must visit to accomplish a routine administrative task. Sri Lanka’s scores on these measures have been a source of persistent embarrassment.

The first is genuine inter-agency data sharing, not a pilot project, not a working committee, not a memorandum of understanding that sits unimplemented, but a functioning intranet infrastructure through which the DRP’s identity records are accessible to the DIE, through which the RC’s records are accessible to the IRD, through which the citizen’s information, once submitted anywhere in the system, does not need to be submitted again. The World Bank project promises exactly this. It must be delivered.

The second is a single-window principle applied without exception to all citizen services. If a process requires verification from another agency, that verification is the government’s problem to obtain, not the citizens’. The citizen submits once. The system talks to itself.

The third, and this is the hardest, because it requires not technology but culture, is the genuine subordination of process to outcome. The process exists to serve the citizen’s legitimate need. When it ceases to do so, the process is broken, not the citizen.

García Márquez’s woman never made her telephone call.

Kundera’s student never recovered from his postcard joke.

I got my stamp — eventually.

(The writer, a senior Chartered Accountant and professional banker, is Professor at SLIIT, Malabe. The views and opinions expressed in this article are personal.)

Continue Reading

Features

Sri Lanka’s vanishing wetlands put elusive otter under growing threat

Published

on

International Eurasian Otter Workshop-Colchester, United Kingdom

The world marked World Otter Day 2026 recently. Conservationists are warning that Sri Lanka’s rapidly disappearing wetlands, polluted waterways and unplanned development are placing increasing pressure on one of the island’s most elusive freshwater predators, the Eurasian otter (Lutra lutra).

The species, locally known as “Diya Balla”, is the only otter found in Sri Lanka and is regarded as a key indicator of healthy freshwater ecosystems. Yet despite its ecological importance, experts say the animal remains poorly studied and largely overlooked in national conservation planning.

Naturalist and conservationist Chaminda Jayasekara, who has spent years documenting otters in Sri Lanka, said the species is facing mounting environmental pressures across the island.

Speaking to The Island, Jayasekara said habitat destruction, chemical pollution, road kills, sand mining, and increasing human disturbance are fragmenting the waterways on which otters depend.

“Otters are extremely sensitive animals. When wetlands are degraded or rivers become polluted, they disappear very quickly. Their survival is directly linked to the health of freshwater ecosystems,” he said.

Jayasekara, who specialised in MSc Environmental Management at the University of Hertfordshire, noted that while the species has been recorded across Sri Lanka’s wet zone, dry zone and coastal wetlands, scientific data on population numbers and distribution remain limited.

According to him, the decline of wetlands has become one of the most serious environmental issues facing Sri Lanka. Marshes, mangroves, irrigation tanks and riverine habitats are increasingly being altered by urban expansion, tourism infrastructure, encroachment and agricultural runoff.

He warns that the loss of these habitats not only threatens otters, but also weakens flood control systems, freshwater security and biodiversity resilience at a time when climate-related disasters are becoming more frequent.

Jayasekara said otters play a vital ecological role by helping maintain balanced fish populations and healthy aquatic ecosystems.

“When otters thrive, it tells us the river system is functioning properly. Their presence is a sign that water quality, fish diversity and habitat conditions remain healthy,” he explained.

One of the best-known locations for otter sightings in Sri Lanka is Aranga Pond, within the Horton Plains National Park, where the species has adapted to the island’s cold montane ecosystem.

However, conservationists stress that even protected areas are not immune to broader environmental degradation occurring outside park boundaries.

Jayasekara’s own work on otters gained prominence through long-term conservation efforts at Jetwing Vil Uyana, where a former degraded chena landscape was restored into a functioning wetland ecosystem.

The restored habitat eventually attracted Eurasian otters, fishing cats, grey slender lorises and numerous wetland bird species.

Over 14 years, Jayasekara carried out field observations, camera trapping and awareness programmes involving hotel staff, surrounding schools and local communities.

“What happened at Vil Uyana clearly showed that habitat restoration works. If degraded ecosystems are given time to recover, wildlife can return naturally,” he said.

He added that wetland restoration should become a central component of Sri Lanka’s environmental policy, particularly as climate change intensifies droughts, floods and biodiversity loss.

Chaminda collecting scat for research purposes in Sigiriya

He says wetlands are among the planet’s most productive ecosystems, functioning as natural water filters and carbon sinks while providing breeding grounds for fish, amphibians and aquatic mammals.

Yet globally, wetlands are disappearing at an alarming rate, and Sri Lanka is no exception.

Conservation groups have repeatedly warned that illegal waste disposal, pesticide contamination and poorly planned infrastructure projects are severely affecting freshwater ecosystems throughout the country.

Jayasekara also highlighted the importance of stronger environmental education and community participation in conservation.

“Awareness is still very limited. Many people living close to wetlands do not realise the ecological importance of otters or the threats they face,” he said.

According to him, involving local communities in conservation monitoring is essential if Sri Lanka hopes to safeguard the species in the long term.

He also pointed to the growing international interest in otter conservation.

In November 2025, Jayasekara represented Sri Lanka at the International Eurasian Otter Conservation Workshop held at Colchester Zoo and organised by the International Otter Survival Fund.

The workshop brought together nearly 100 researchers, conservationists and wildlife experts from 33 countries to discuss emerging threats facing Eurasian otter populations.

Jayasekara presented Sri Lanka’s experience under the theme Rewilding Through Hospitality, focusing on how habitat restoration and sustainable tourism practices at Vil Uyana contributed to otter conservation.

“The international response was extremely encouraging. Many delegates were surprised that a tourism property in Sri Lanka had quietly carried out wetland conservation work for more than a decade,” he said.

Discussions at the workshop also examined wider environmental concerns including river pollution, declining fish stocks, illegal killings and habitat fragmentation affecting otter populations across Europe and Asia.

New conservation technologies such as AI-assisted wildlife tracking and environmental DNA surveys were also highlighted as emerging tools for monitoring elusive species.

Jayasekara said Sri Lanka urgently requires more scientific surveys, stronger environmental law enforcement and greater investment in freshwater conservation research.

He warned that unless wetlands and waterways are protected, several lesser-known freshwater species could face severe decline in the coming decades.

Environmentalists say otter conservation should not be viewed in isolation but as part of a broader effort to protect entire freshwater ecosystems that millions of Sri Lankans depend on for drinking water, irrigation and livelihoods.

He further noted that healthy wetlands also strengthen climate resilience by absorbing floodwaters, reducing soil erosion and supporting groundwater recharge.

As Sri Lanka experiences increasingly erratic weather patterns linked to climate change, conservationists argue that protecting wetlands is becoming both an ecological and economic necessity.

Jayasekara believes Sri Lanka still has an opportunity to become a regional example in balancing tourism, biodiversity conservation and habitat restoration.

“The otter teaches us an important lesson,” he said. “If rivers are protected and wetlands are respected, nature has an incredible ability to recover.”

This year’s observance of World Otter Day 2026 is, therefore, serving not only as a celebration of one of the world’s most charismatic mammals, but also as a reminder of the urgent need to conserve the fragile freshwater ecosystems upon which both wildlife and human communities ultimately depend.

Eurasian otter

By Ifham Nizam

Continue Reading

Features

Malaiyaha Tamil people: Healing the Oldest Wound of Independence

Published

on

Hands of a Maliayaha tea estate worker

In their Vesak messages this year, President Anura Kumara Dissanayake and Prime Minister Harini Amarasuriya highlighted the values of reconciliation, coexistence and justice as essential to Sri Lanka’s future. President Dissanayake emphasised that Buddhism’s teachings remain deeply relevant to contemporary society and described Vesak as a symbol of “mutual understanding, unity and coexistence among all communities” and of reconciliation itself. Prime Minister Amarasuriya similarly called for the building of a society in which justice is assured to all irrespective of caste, race or religion. These messages were not merely religious aspirations, they were a direct challenge to the most serious failures in Sri Lanka’s post-independence history. These include the three-decade-long war, its human rights violations and the inability to implement a political solution.

These have been and continue to be the challenges that have prevented Sri Lanka from reaching its full potential. Added to this have been the persistence of social and economic inequalities that continue to marginalise communities at the bottom of the social hierarchy. One of the most enduring examples of such injustice is the experience of the Malaiyaha Tamil community. The scale of the original exclusion is worth understanding clearly. According to the 1946 Census, the Malaiyaha Tamil community numbered approximately 780,600 persons and constituted 11.73 percent of the country’s population making them the second largest ethnic community, larger than the Sri Lankan Tamil community who numbered 733,700 or 11.02 percent of the population at the time

The denial of citizenship and voting rights to the Malaiyaha Tamil community was the first major injustice inflicted on an ethnic minority in post-independence Sri Lanka. The consequences were devastating and long-lasting. A community that had contributed enormously to the country’s economy through its labour on the plantations was excluded from political participation and denied basic rights. This was a political and moral failure that cast a long shadow over the country’s post-independence history. Responsibility for that injustice needs to be shared widely. Political leaders across ethnic lines failed to resist it. The result was the marginalisation of a community whose contribution to national prosperity far exceeded the recognition it received. Today, nearly eight decades later, Sri Lanka has an opportunity to correct that historic wrong but only if economic reform is matched by genuine social inclusion.

Longstanding Grievances

The NPP government has repeatedly acknowledged the need to address the longstanding grievances of the Malaiyaha Tamil people. In its election manifesto, the NPP pledged to improve living conditions in plantation areas, strengthen land and housing rights, ensure equal access to education and public services, and integrate plantation communities more fully into national development. The NPP’s Nuwara Eliya Declaration of 2023 similarly recognised that the plantation community had suffered generations of exclusion and promised measures to address disparities in housing, land ownership, infrastructure, education and economic opportunity. The need for such action is plain to see. While citizenship issues have largely been resolved over time, the socio-economic consequences of decades of exclusion remain deeply entrenched and continue to shape daily life in plantation communities.  A conference organised by the Institute of Social Development to mark International Tea Day on May 21 at the BMICH brought out this and many other salient issues.  Headed by P Muthulingam the organisation has advocated for the rights of the Malaiyaha Tamil people for the past 35 years to be equal citizens who enjoy social and economic justice.

The central problem facing many plantation workers is the low level of income they receive. Daily wages remain among the lowest in the country relative to the difficulty and intensity of the work. Plantation labour continues to depend heavily on methods that have changed little over generations. Productivity remains low compared to competing tea-producing countries — not because workers lack capability, but because sustained investment in their welfare, skills and economic mobility has been withheld. Workers consequently remain trapped in a cycle of low wages and limited economic mobility. Their housing situation compounds these difficulties. Many plantation families continue to live in housing owned either by plantation companies or the state. Lack of secure ownership limits their ability to accumulate assets, access credit or make independent decisions regarding their future. When Cyclone Ditwah damaged plantation housing, it exposed the inability of those living in that housing to access state compensation as they did not own the housing in which they lived.

The problems extend beyond the central highlands. Plantation workers living in private estates and smallholdings in other parts of the country face similar challenges. A recent Amnesty International report documented serious abuses affecting Malaiyaha Tamil workers in private tea estates in the Southern Province.  These include wage withholding, debt dependency, restrictions on movement and intimidation and practices the report argued correspond to internationally recognised indicators of forced labour. These findings are not peripheral. They reveal that the structural exclusion of the Malaiyaha Tamil community is not a relic of the past but an active, ongoing condition. Economic vulnerability and social marginalisation continue to leave many plantation workers without effective protection or access to justice. It is against this backdrop that the government’s recent plantation reform initiative assumes special significance.

Second Phase

The government has announced the second phase of a programme to make underutilised plantation lands and assets available for investment. The objective is to transform underperforming assets into productive enterprises capable of generating employment, attracting investment and revitalising regional economies. The programme seeks to modernise the plantation sector, improve productivity and create new opportunities in tourism, renewable energy and export-oriented industries. These objectives are necessary and welcome. However, economic reform alone will not be sufficient and Sri Lanka’s own history provides the warning. Previous rounds of plantation modernisation pursued productivity gains without addressing the structural disempowerment of the people at the centre of the industry. The result was investment that generated wealth without distributing it.  The workers who produced the wealth were once again treated as labour inputs rather than as beneficiaries. If the current reform follows the same logic, it risks reproducing the same failure.

For reform to succeed, plantation workers must be recognised not merely as a labour force but as stakeholders with rights, aspirations and a legitimate claim to share in the benefits of development. Housing ownership, secure land tenure, quality education, vocational training and entrepreneurship need to be built into the reform process from the outset. The government’s commitments to the Malaiyaha Tamil community therefore need to be incorporated into every stage of the reform process. On the contentious question of land, the government should consider establishing an independent national land commission. Such a body should include respected government officials, professionals and representatives from all ethnic and religious communities. It should review land policy comprehensively, develop transparent principles for allocation and use, ensure fairness in decision making and provide a trusted mechanism for resolving disputes. A credible land commission would help build public confidence that land reforms are being undertaken in the national interest rather than for the benefit of particular groups.

The correction of historic injustices should not be viewed as a concession to one community. It should be understood as an investment in national unity, because societies do not become stronger by maintaining the exclusion of those they have wronged.  On the contrary, they become stronger by ending it. The first great injustice committed against an ethnic minority after independence cannot be undone. But its consequences can be addressed, and doing so would strengthen reconciliation, enhance social cohesion and bring Sri Lanka closer to the vision of a country in which all communities live with equal dignity and equal hope. This is what the Vesak messages of the President and Prime Minister promised. The plantation reform now underway is the moment to make good on that promise not in words alone, but in sustained policy that endures beyond any single government and reaches the people who have waited longest for it.

by Jehan Perera

Continue Reading

Trending