Midweek Review

The Western Gaze: Orientalism and Middle East Conflict

Published

1 year ago

2024/10/30

Sahan Weerasooriya

A file photo of Israeli attacks on Gaza

by Amarasiri de Silva

After moving to the United States a decade ago, I quickly noticed how people from Middle Eastern, South Asian, and Muslim backgrounds were often viewed through a peculiar, almost mystifying lens. In conversations, media portrayals, and even school settings, these communities were consistently depicted as fundamentally different—exotic, foreign, and, at times, dangerous.

Hollywood frequently portrayed Middle Eastern landscapes as barren deserts filled with shadowy figures, while news stories reduced entire cultures to images of conflict and chaos. This persistent thread of “otherness” seemed to frame anyone with my skin tone, a similar cultural background, or shared religious beliefs as unfamiliar and fundamentally separate from the Western norm. Over time, particularly after reading Said’s book ‘Orientalism,’ I understood that this wasn’t coincidental but part of a legacy of Orientalism. This framework has long influenced how the West perceives and engages with the Middle East. Examining the origins of this mindset, I began to see how these deeply ingrained misrepresentations continue to fuel political and cultural misunderstandings that shape conflicts to this day.

The Middle East conflict is a deeply rooted and multifaceted struggle involving political, religious, and territorial disputes that have spanned centuries. At the heart of many modern interpretations of this conflict lies the pervasive influence of Western intervention, particularly through the lens of orientalism. Edward Said’s groundbreaking work, Orientalism, provides a theoretical framework for understanding how the West’s imperialistic endeavours shaped perceptions of the East, particularly the Middle East, leading to centuries of misrepresentation, exploitation, and ongoing strife. By examining the Middle East conflict through Said’s concepts of Orientalism, we can better comprehend how Western ideologies of superiority and domination have exacerbated and, in many ways, sustained this protracted crisis.

In this essay, I will explore the historical context of the Middle East conflict, focusing on the influence of European colonialism and its lingering impact on modern-day geopolitics in the region. Drawing on Said’s theory of Orientalism, I will analyze how the West’s misrepresentation and dehumanisation of Middle Eastern peoples have contributed to the perpetuation of violence and instability. Through this exploration, it becomes clear that Orientalism, far from being an abstract academic concept, is central to understanding the ongoing power dynamics and struggles in the Middle East.

Historical Context of Western Involvement in the Middle East

To fully appreciate the relevance of Said’s theory to the Middle East conflict, it is essential first to understand the historical context in which Orientalism emerged. During the 19th and early 20th centuries, European colonial powers such as Britain and France expanded their empires into the Middle East, driven by economic interests, strategic motivations, and a desire for political dominance. The British occupation of Egypt, the French control of Algeria, and the carving up of the Ottoman Empire after World War I are just a few examples of how European imperialism shaped the region’s political and social landscape.

One of Said’s key assertions is that colonialism/orientalism was not just a physical act of territorial expansion but also an intellectual and cultural project. In Orientalism, Said argues that the West constructed an image of the “Orient” as backward, irrational, and barbaric to justify its colonisation. This process of “othering” created a stark dichotomy between the “civilised” West and the “primitive” East, allowing European powers to rationalise their domination over Middle Eastern societies.

The 1916 Sykes-Picot Agreement, which divided the Ottoman territories between Britain and France, exemplifies how colonial powers viewed the Middle East as a region to be divided and controlled for their benefit. The arbitrary borders drawn by Western officials without regard for ethnic, religious, or historical realities have had long-lasting consequences, sowing the seeds for many of the conflicts we see in the Middle East today. For example, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, one of the most enduring and contentious disputes in the region, is deeply rooted in the legacy of colonial intervention and Western-imposed territorial divisions.

Orientalism as a Justification for Colonial Domination

At the heart of Said’s Orientalism is the idea that the West’s representations of the East were shaped not by objective observations but by a desire to assert dominance over a perceived “other.” Said explains that Orientalism served as a justification for colonial domination by portraying Middle Eastern societies as incapable of self-governance and in need of Western intervention to “civilise” them.

This sense of Western superiority is reflected in many of the cultural artifacts produced during the colonial era, from travel writing to scholarly works. European artists and writers often depicted the Middle East as a mysterious and exotic land, filled with danger and intrigue, but ultimately inferior to Europe’s rational, orderly world. These representations were not mere fantasies; they had real-world implications, shaping public opinion and government policy in ways that reinforced colonial power structures.

Said highlights the work of European scholars and colonial officers who produced knowledge about the Middle East, noting that this knowledge could have been more neutral. Instead, it was designed to reinforce Western hegemony and justify the exploitation of Middle Eastern resources and people. As Said states, “knowledge of the Orient, because generated out of strength, in a sense creates the Orient, the Oriental, and his world” (Said, 1978, p. 40). In this way, Orientalism became a tool for maintaining Western dominance over the region, as it allowed Europeans to assert control over the land and the narrative surrounding its inhabitants.

The Impact of Orientalism on Western Perceptions of the Middle East

Gaza Strip (Image courtesy of BBC, https://www.bbc.
com/news/newsbeat-44124396)

One of the most insidious effects of Orientalism is the way it has shaped Western perceptions of the Middle East and its people. By consistently portraying the region as violent, irrational, and backward, Orientalism has contributed to a widespread dehumanisation of Middle Eastern individuals and cultures. This dehumanisation is evident in the ways that Western media often depicts conflicts in the Middle East, focusing on images of chaos and destruction while ignoring the underlying causes of the violence or the humanity of those affected by it.

This Orientalist framework has played a significant role in shaping Western policies toward the Middle East, particularly in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the broader “War on Terror.” The United States, in particular, has frequently invoked Orientalist tropes to justify military interventions in the region, framing its actions as part of a broader effort to “civilise” or “democratize” the Middle East. However, as Said’s work clarifies, these justifications often mask underlying economic and political motivations, such as securing access to oil or maintaining geopolitical influence.

The American involvement in the Middle East post-World War II is deeply tied to Orientalism. The rise of the United States as a global superpower after 1945 coincided with the decolonisation of much of the Middle East. Still, rather than marking an end to Western domination, this period saw the U.S. take on the region’s ” protector ” role. According to Said, the U.S. approached the Middle East much like Britain and France, viewing the region as a place to exert control for strategic purposes, particularly in terms of oil. This is reflected in America’s foreign policies, which have often involved backing autocratic regimes in the name of stability or supporting Israel without fully addressing the complexities of Palestinian sovereignty.

The Middle East Conflict Through the Lens of Orientalism

One of the central components of the Middle East conflict is the Israeli-Palestinian struggle, a dispute with roots that extend back to the early 20th century, when Zionist migration into Palestine began. Western support for the creation of Israel in 1948 is often seen through a humanitarian lens, especially in the wake of the Holocaust. However, Said’s Orientalism allows us to view the establishment of Israel—and the subsequent displacement of Palestinian people—through the framework of colonialism. The Western powers, particularly Britain and the United States, treated Palestine as another piece of territory to be “managed” and divided without adequately considering the rights and aspirations of the indigenous population.

Moreover, Said’s work draws attention to how Western media and political discourse have framed the conflict. Palestinians, especially during periods of violent uprising, have often been portrayed as irrational and inherently violent, while Israeli actions are justified as necessary for self-defense. This asymmetrical portrayal mirrors the Orientalist dichotomy of a rational West versus an irrational, violent East.

In the broader context of the Middle East, Orientalism has also influenced how the West views and interacts with other nations in the region. The Gulf Wars, the invasion of Afghanistan, and the U.S.-led intervention in Iraq can all be seen as extensions of the Orientalist mindset that views the Middle East as a place in need of Western intervention, whether for “liberation” or “stabilisation.” The dehumanisation of Middle Eastern peoples through Orientalist tropes has allowed Western nations to engage in military actions that have had devastating consequences for the civilian populations of these countries, often with little domestic scrutiny or opposition.

Orientalism and the War on Terror

The events of September 11, 2001, and the subsequent War on Terror offer a stark illustration of the enduring power of Orientalist thought in shaping Western policies and perceptions. In the wake of the attacks, the U.S. government launched a series of military interventions across the Middle East and Central Asia, framing these actions as part of a broader struggle between the civilised, democratic West and the barbaric, extremist forces of the East.

This narrative, deeply rooted in Orientalist tropes, ignored the complex political, economic, and social factors that contributed to the rise of extremist groups like Al-Qaeda and ISIS, instead reducing the conflict to a simple clash of civilisations. The War on Terror not only perpetuated violence and instability in the Middle East but also reinforced negative stereotypes about Muslims and Middle Easterners in general, contributing to a rise in Islamophobia and xenophobia in the West.

Moreover, the War on Terror has had devastating consequences for civilian populations in the Middle East, with millions of people killed, displaced, or otherwise affected by the violence. Yet, these human costs are often downplayed or ignored in Western media, which tends to focus on the actions of “terrorists” rather than the suffering of ordinary people. This selective coverage is a direct result of the dehumanisation of Middle Eastern people fostered by Orientalist discourse.

Conclusion

Edward Said’s Orientalism provides a critical lens through which to examine the Middle East conflict, revealing how Western perceptions of the region have been shaped by centuries of colonialism and cultural imperialism. By constructing the Middle East as the “other,” Western powers have justified their domination and exploitation of the region, often at the expense of its people.

The Middle East conflict, particularly the Israeli-Palestinian struggle and the broader War on Terror, cannot be fully understood without recognising the influence of Orientalism. As long as Western nations continue to view the region through this distorted lens, the cycle of violence and misunderstanding is likely to persist. For true peace and stability to be achieved in the Middle East, it is essential to move beyond Orientalist stereotypes and engage with the region in a way that respects its history, cultures, and people on its own terms.

All News Advertisement

Midweek Review

At the edge of a world war

Published

3 hours ago

2026/03/4

Sahan Weerasooriya

In September 1939, as Europe descended once more into catastrophe, E. H. Carr published The Twenty Years’ Crisis. Twenty years had separated the two great wars—twenty years to reflect, to reconstruct, to restrain. Yet reflection proved fragile. Carr wrote with unsentimental clarity: once the enemy is crushed, the “thereafter” rarely arrives. The illusion that power can come first and morality will follow is as dangerous as the belief that morality alone can command power. Between those illusions, nations lose themselves.

His warning hovers over the present war in Iran.

The “thereafter” has long haunted American interventions—after Afghanistan, after Iraq, after Libya. The enemy can be dismantled with precision; the aftermath resists precision. Iran is not a small theater. It is a civilization-state with a geography three times larger than Iraq. At its southern edge lies the Strait of Hormuz, narrow in width yet immense in consequence. Geography does not argue; it compels.

Long before Carr, in the quiet anxiety of the eighteenth century, James Madison, principal architect of the Constitution, warned that war was the “true nurse of executive aggrandizement.” War concentrates authority in the name of urgency. Madison insisted that the power to declare war must rest with Congress, not the president—so that deliberation might restrain impulse. Republics persuade themselves that emergency powers are temporary. History rarely agrees.

Then, at 2:30 a.m., the abstraction becomes decision.

Donald Trump declares war on Iran. The announcement crosses continents before markets open in Asia. Within twenty-four hours, Ali Khamenei, who ruled for thirty-seven years, is killed. The President calls him one of history’s most evil figures and presents his death as an opening for the Iranian people.

In exile, Reza Pahlavi hails the moment as liberation. In less than forty-eight hours, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps collapses under overwhelming air power. A regime that endured decades falls swiftly. Military efficiency appears absolute. Yet efficiency does not resolve legitimacy.

The joint strike with Israel is framed as necessary and pre-emptive. Retaliation follows across the Gulf. The architecture of energy trade becomes fragile. Shipping routes are recalculated. Markets respond before diplomacy finds its language.

It is measured in the price of petrol in Colombo. In the bus fare in Karachi. In the rising cost of cooking gas in Dhaka. It is heard in the anxious voice of a migrant worker in Doha calling home to Kandy, asking whether contracts will be renewed, whether flights will continue, whether wages will be delayed. It is calculated in foreign reserves already strained, in currencies that tremble at rumor, in budgets forced to choose between subsidy and solvency.

Zaara was the breadwinner of her house in Sri Lanka. Her husband had been unemployed for years. At last, he secured an opportunity to travel to Israel as a foreign worker—like many Sri Lankans who depend on employment in the Middle East. It was to be their turning point: a small house repaired, debts reduced, dignity restored.

Now she lowers her eyes when she speaks. For Zaara, geopolitics is not theory. It is fear measured in distance—between a construction site abroad and a village waiting at home.

The war in Iran has shattered calculations that once felt practical. Nations like Sri Lanka now require strategic foresight to navigate unfolding realities. Reactive responses—whether to natural disasters or external shocks like this conflict—can cripple economies far faster than gradual pressures. Disruptions to energy imports, migrant remittances, and foreign reserves show how distant wars ripple into daily lives.

War among great powers is debated in think tanks. Its consequences are lived in markets—and in quiet kitchens where uncertainty sits heavier than hunger.

The conflict does not unfold in isolation. It enters the strategic calculus of China and Russia, both attentive to precedent. Power projected beyond the Western hemisphere reshapes perceptions in the Eastern theater. Iran’s transformation intersects directly with broader alignments. In 2021, Beijing and Tehran signed a twenty-five-year strategic agreement. By 2025, China was purchasing the majority of Iran’s exported oil at discounted rates. Energy underwrote strategy. That continuity has been disrupted. Yet strategic relationships do not vanish; they adjust.

In Winds of Change, my new book, I reproduce Nicholas Spykman’s 1944 two-theater confrontation map—Europe and the Pacific during the Second World War. Spykman distinguished maritime power from amphibian projection. Control of the Rimland determined balance. Then, the United States fought across two vast theaters. Today, Europe remains unsettled through Ukraine, the Pacific simmers over Taiwan and the South China Sea, Latin America remains sensitive, and the Middle East has been abruptly transformed. The architecture of multi-theater tension reappears.

At this juncture, the reflections of Marwan Bishara acquire weight. America’s ultimate power, he argues, resides in deterrence, not in the habitual use of force. Power, especially when shared, stabilizes. Force, when used with disregard for international law, breeds instability and humiliation. Arrogance creates enemies and narrows judgment. It is no surprise that many Americans themselves believe the United States should not act alone.

America’s strength does not rest solely in its military reach. Its economy constitutes roughly one-third of global output and generates close to 40 percent of the world’s research and development. Structural power—economic, technological, institutional—has historically underwritten deterrence. When force becomes the primary instrument, influence risks becoming coercion.

The United States now confronts simultaneous pressures across continents. The Second World War demonstrated the capacity to sustain multi-theater engagement; the post-9/11 wars revealed the exhaustion that follows prolonged intervention. Iran, larger and geopolitically deeper, presents a scale that cannot be resolved by air power alone.

Carr’s “thereafter” waits patiently. Military victory may be swift; political reconstruction is slow. Bishara reminds us that deterrence sustains stability, while force risks unraveling it.

At the edge of a potential world war, the decisive question is not who strikes first, but who restrains longest.

History watches. And in places far from the battlefield, mothers wait for phone calls that may not come.

Asanga Abeyagoonasekera is a Senior Research Fellow at the Millennium Project, Washington, D.C., and the author of Winds of Change: Geopolitics at the Crossroads of South and Southeast Asia, published by World Scientific

Midweek Review

Live Coals Burst Aflame

Published

3 hours ago

2026/03/4

Sahan Weerasooriya

Live coals of decades-long hate,

Are bursting into all-consuming flames,

In lands where ‘Black Gold’ is abundant,

And it’s a matter to be thought about,

If humans anywhere would be safe now,

Unless these enmities dying hard,

With roots in imperialist exploits,

And identity-based, tribal violence,

Are set aside and laid finally to rest,

By an enthronement of the principle,

Of the Equal Dignity of Humans.

By Lynn Ockersz

Midweek Review

Saga of the arrest of retired intelligence chief

Published

2 days ago

2026/03/2

Sahan Weerasooriya

Retired Maj. Gen. Suresh Sallay’s recent arrest attracted internatiattention. His long-expected arrest took place ahead of the seventh anniversary of the bombings. Multiple blasts claimed the lives of nearly 280 people, including 45 foreigners. State-owned international news television network, based in Paris, France 24, declared that arrest was made on the basis of information provided by a whistleblower. The French channel was referring to Hanzeer Azad Moulana, who earlier sought political asylum in the West and one-time close associate of State Minister Sivanesathurai Chandrakanthan aka Pilleyan. May be the fiction he wove against Pilleyan and others may have been to strengthen his asylum claim there. Moulana is on record as having told the British Channel 4 that Sallay allowed the attack to proceed with the intention of influencing the 2019 presidential election. The French news agency quoted an investigating officer as having said: “He was arrested for conspiracy and aiding and abetting the Easter Sunday attacks. He has been in touch with people involved in the attacks, even recently.”

****

Suresh Sallay of the Directorate of Military Intelligence (DMI) received the wrath of Yahapalana Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe, in 2016, over the reportage of what the media called the Chavakachcheri explosives detection made on March 30, 2016. Premier Wickremesinghe found fault with Sallay for the coverage, particularly in The Island. Police arrested ex-LTTE child combatant Edward Julian, alias Ramesh, after the detection of one suicide jacket, four claymore mines, three parcels containing about 12 kilos of explosives, to battery packs and several rounds of 9mm ammunition, from his house, situated at Vallakulam Pillaiyar Kovil Street. Chavakachcheri police made the detection, thanks to information provided by the second wife of Ramesh. Investigations revealed that the deadly cache had been brought by Ramesh from Mannar (Detection of LTTE suicide jacket, mines jolts government: Fleeing Tiger apprehended at checkpoint, The Island, March 31, 2016).

The then Jaffna Security Forces Commander, Maj. Gen. Mahesh Senanayake, told the writer that a thorough inquiry was required to ascertain the apprehended LTTE cadre’s intention. The Chavakachcheri detection received the DMI’s attention. The country’s premier intelligence organisation meticulously dealt with the issue against the backdrop of an alleged aborted bid to revive the LTTE in April 2014. Of those who had been involved in the fresh terror project, three were killed in the Nedunkerny jungles. There hadn’t been any other incidents since the Nedunkerny skirmish, until the Chavakachcheri detection.

Piqued by the media coverage of the Chavakachcheri detection, the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe administration tried to silence the genuine Opposition. As the SLFP had, contrary to the expectations of those who voted for the party at the August 2015 parliamentary elections, formed a treacherous coalition with the UNP, the Joint Opposition (JO) spearheaded the parliamentary opposition.

The Criminal Investigation Department (CID) questioned former External Affairs Minister and top JO spokesman, Prof. G.L. Peiris, over a statement made by him regarding the Chavakachcheri detection. The former law professor questioned the legality of the CID’s move against the backdrop of police declining to furnish him a certified copy of the then acting IGP S.M. Wickremesinghe’s directive that he be summoned to record a statement as regards the Chavakachcheri lethal detection.

One-time LTTE propagandist Velayutham Dayanidhi, a.k.a. Daya Master, raised with President Maithripala Sirisena the spate of arrests made by law enforcement authorities, in the wake of the Chavakachcheri detection. Daya Master took advantage of a meeting called by Sirisena, on 28 April, 2016, at the President’s House, with the proprietors of media organisations and journalists, to raise the issue. The writer having been among the journalists present on that occasion, inquired from the ex-LETTer whom he represented there. Daya Master had been there on behalf of DAN TV, Tamil language satellite TV, based in Jaffna. Among those who had been detained was Subramaniam Sivakaran, at that time Youth Wing leader of the Illankai Thamil Arasu Kadchi (ITAK), the main constituent of the now defunct Tamil National Alliance. In addition to Sivakaran, the police apprehended several hardcore ex-LTTE cadres (LTTE revival bid confirmed: TNA youth leader arrested, The Island April 20, 2016).

Ranil hits out at media

Subsequent inquiries revealed the role played by Sivakaran in some of those wanted in connection with the Chavakachcheri detection taking refuge in India. When the writer sought an explanation from the then TNA lawmaker, M.A. Sumanthiran, regarding Sivakaran’s arrest, the lawyer disowned the Youth Wing leader. Sumanthiran emphasised that the party suspended Sivakumaran and Northern Provincial Council member Ananthi Sasitharan for publicly condemning the TNA’s decision to endorse Maithripala Sirisena’s candidature at the 2015 presidential election (Chava explosives: Key suspects flee to India, The Island, May 2, 2016).

Premier Wickremesinghe went ballistic on May 30, 2016. Addressing the 20th anniversary event of the Sri Lanka Muslim Media Forum, at the Sports Ministry auditorium, the UNP leader castigated the DMI. Alleging that the DMI had been pursuing an agenda meant to undermine the Yahapalana administration, Wickremesinghe, in order to make his bogus claim look genuine, repeatedly named the writer as part of that plot. Only Wickremesinghe knows the identity of the idiot who influenced him to make such unsubstantiated allegations. The top UNPer went on to allege that The Island, and its sister paper Divaina, were working overtime to bring back Dutugemunu, a reference to war-winning President Mahinda Rajapaksa. A few days later, sleuths from the Colombo Crime Detection Bureau (CCD) visited The Island editorial to question the writer where lengthy statements were recorded. The police were acting on the instructions of the then Premier, who earlier publicly threatened to send police to question the writer.

In response to police queries about Sallay passing information to the media regarding the Chavakachcheri detection and subsequent related articles, the writer pointed out that the reportage was based on response of the then ASP Ruwan Gunasekera, AAL and Sumanthiran, as had been reported.

Wickremesinghe alleged, at the Muslim media event, that a section of the media manipulated coverage of certain incidents, ahead of the May Day celebrations.

In early May 2016 Wickremesinghe disclosed that he received assurances from the police, and the DMI, that as the LTTE had been wiped out the group couldn’t stage a comeback. The declaration was made at the Lakshman Kadirgamar Institute for International Relations and Strategic Studies (LKIIRIS) on 3 May 2016. Wickremesinghe said that he sought clarifications from the police and the DMI in the wake of the reportage of the Chavakachcheri detection and related developments (PM: LTTE threat no longer exists, The Island, May 5, 2016).

The LTTE couldn’t stage a comeback as a result of measures taken by the then government. It would be a grave mistake, on our part, to believe that the eradication of the LTTE’s conventional military capacity automatically influenced them to give up arms. The successful rehabilitation project, that had been undertaken by the Rajapaksa government and continued by successive governments, ensured that those who once took up arms weren’t interested in returning to the same deadly path.

In spite of the TNA and others shedding crocodile tears for the defeated Tigers, while making a desperate effort to mobilise public opinion against the government, the public never wanted the violence to return. Some interested parties propagated the lie that regardless of the crushing defeat suffered in the hands of the military, the LTTE could resume guerilla-type operations, paving the way for a new conflict. But by the end of 2014, and in the run-up to the presidential election in January following year, the situation seemed under control, especially with Western countries not wanting to upset things here with a pliant administration in the immediate horizon. Soon after the presidential election, the government targeted the armed forces. Remember Sumanthiran’s declaration that the ITAK Youth Wing leader Sivakaran had been opposed to the TNA backing Sirisena at the presidential poll.

The US-led accountability resolution had been co-sponsored by the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe duo to appease the TNA and Tamil Diaspora. The Oct. 01, 2016, resolution delivered a knockout blow to the war-winning armed forces. The UNP pursued an agenda severely inimical to national interests. It would be pertinent to mention that those who now represent the main Opposition, Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB), were part of the treacherous UNP.

Suresh moved to Malaysia

The Yahapalana leadership resented Sallay’s work. They wanted him out of the country at a time a new threat was emerging. The government attacked the then Justice Minister Dr. Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe, PC, who warned of the emerging threat from foreign-manipulated local Islamic fanatics on 11 Nov. 2016, in Parliament. Rajapakshe didn’t mince his words when he underscored the threat posed by some Sri Lanka Muslim families taking refuge in Syria where ISIS was running the show. The then government, of which he was part o,f ridiculed their own Justice Minister. Both Sirisena and Wickremesinghe feared action against extremism may cause erosion of Muslim support. By then Sallay, who had been investigating the deadly plot, was out of the country. The Yahapalana government believed that the best way to deal with Sallay was to grant him a diplomatic posting. Sally ended up in Malaysia, a country where the DMI played a significant role in the repatriation of Kumaran Pathmanathan, alias KP, after his arrest there.

Having served the military for over three cadres, Sallay retired in 2024 in the rank of Major General. Against the backdrop of his recent arrest, in connection with the ongoing investigation into the 2019 Easter Sunday carnage, The Island felt the need to examine the circumstances Sallay ended up in Malaysia at the time. Now, remanded in terms of the Prevention of terrorism Act (PTA), he is being accused of directing the Easter Sunday operation from Malaysia.

Pivithuru Hela Urumaya leader and former Minister Udaya Gammanpila has alleged that Sallay was apprehended in a bid to divert attention away from the deepening coal scam. Having campaigned on an anti-corruption platformm in the run up to the previous presidential election, in September 2024, the Parliament election, in November of the same year, and local government polls last year, the incumbent dispensation is struggling to cope up with massive corruption issues, particularly the coal scam, which has not only implicated the Energy Minister but the entire Cabinet of Ministers as well.

The crux of the matter is whether Sallay actually met would-be suicide bombers, in February 2018, in an estate, in the Puttalam district, as alleged by the UK’s Channel 4 television, like the BBC is, quite famous for doing hatchet jobs for the West. This is the primary issue at hand. Did Sallay clandestinely leave Malaysia to meet suicide bombers in the presence of Hanzeer Azad Moulana, one-time close associate of State Minister Sivanesathurai Chandrakanthan, aka Pilleyan, former LTTE member?

The British channel raised this issue with Sallay, in 2023, at the time he served as Director, State Intelligence (SIS). Sallay is on record as having told Channel 4 Television that he was not in Sri Lanka the whole of 2018 as he was in Malaysia serving in the Sri Lankan Embassy there as Minister Counsellor.

Therefore, the accusation that he met several members of the National Thowheeth Jamaath (NTJ), including Mohamed Hashim Mohamed Zahran, in Karadipuval, Puttalam, in Feb. 2018, was baseless, he has said.

The intelligence officer has asked the British television station to verify his claim with the Malaysian authorities.

Responding to another query, Sallay had told Channel 4 that on April 21, 2019, the day of the Easter Sunday blasts, he was in India, where he was accommodated at the National Defence College (NDC). That could be verified with the Indian authorities, Sallay has said, strongly denying Channel 4’s claim that he contacted one of Pilleyan’s cadres, over, the phone and directed him to pick a person outside Hotel Taj Samudra.

According to Sallay, during his entire assignment in Malaysia, from Dec. 2016 to Dec. 2018, he had been to Colombo only once, for one week, in Dec. 2017, to assist in an official inquiry.

Having returned to Colombo, Sallay had left for NDC, in late Dec. 2018, and returned only after the conclusion of the course, in November 2019.

Sallay has said so in response to questions posed by Ben de Pear, founder, Basement Films, tasked with producing a film for Channel 4 on the Easter Sunday bombings.

The producer has offered Sallay an opportunity to address the issues in terms of Broadcasting Code while inquiring into fresh evidence regarding the officer’s alleged involvement in the Easter Sunday conspiracy.

The producer sought Sallay’s response, in August 2023, in the wake of political upheaval following the ouster of Gotabaya Rajapaksa, elected at the November 2019 presidential election.

At the time, the Yahapalana government granted a diplomatic appointment to Sallay, he had been head of the Directorate of Military Intelligence (DMI). After the 2019 presidential election, President Gotabaya Rajapaksa named him the Head of SIS.

The Basement Films has posed several questions to Sallay on the basis of accusations made by Hanzeer Azad Moulana.

In response to the film producer’s query regarding Sallay’s alleged secret meeting with six NTJ cadres who blasted themselves a year later, Sallay has questioned the very basis of the so called new evidence as he was not even in the country during the period the clandestine meeting is alleged to have taken place.

Contradictory stands

Following Sajith Premadasa’s anticipated defeat at the 2019 presidential election, Harin Fernando accused the Catholic Church of facilitating Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s victory. Fernando, who is also on record as having disclosed that his father knew of the impending Easter Sunday attacks, pointed finger at the Archbishop of Colombo, Rt. Rev Malcolm Cardinal Ranjith, for ensuring Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s victory.

Former President Maithripala Sirisena, as well as JVP frontliner Dr. Nalinda Jayathissa, accused India of masterminding the Easter Sunday bombings. Then there were claims of Sara Jasmin, wife of Katuwapitiya suicide bomber Mohammed Hastun, being an Indian agent who was secretly removed after the Army assaulted extremists’ hideout at Sainthamaruthu in the East. What really had happened to Sara Jasmin who, some believe, is key to the Easter Sunday puzzle.

Then there was huge controversy over the arrest of Attorney-at-Law Hejaaz Hizbullah over his alleged links with the Easter Sunday bombers. Hizbullah, who had been arrested in April 2020, served as lawyer to the extremely wealthy spice trader Mohamed Yusuf Ibrahim’s family that had been deeply involved in the Easter Sunday plot. Mohamed Yusuf Ibrahim had been on the JVP’s National List at the 2015 parliamentary elections. The lawyer received bail after two years. Two of the spice trader’s sons launched suicide attacks, whereas his daughter-in-law triggered a suicide blast when police raided their Dematagoda mansion, several hours after the Easter Sunday blasts.

Investigations also revealed that the suicide vests had been assembled at a factory owned by the family and the project was funded by them. It would be pertinent to mention that President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s government never really bothered to conduct a comprehensive investigation to identify the Easter Sunday terror project. Perhaps, their biggest failure had been to act on the Presidential Commission of Inquiry (PCoI) recommendations. Instead, President Rajapaksa appointed a six-member committee, headed by his elder brother, Chamal Rajapaksa, to examine the recommendations, probably in a foolish attempt to improve estranged relations with the influential Muslim community. That move caused irreparable damage and influenced the Church to initiate a campaign against the government. The Catholic Church played quite a significant role in the India- and US-backed 2022 Aragalaya that forced President Rajapaksa to flee the country.

Interested parties exploited the deterioration of the national economy, leading to unprecedented declaration of the bankruptcy of the country in April 2022, to mobilie public anger that was used to achieve political change.