Midweek Review

A dilemma like no other!

Published

2 years ago

2025/01/22

Indian leader Modi greets President Dissanayake

Two contentious issues that may never be resolved are disagreement between India and Sri Lanka over granting police and land powers to Provincial Councils, arm twisted by New Delhi into establishing them here along with the signing of the Indo-Lanka Accord following the infamous parippu drop over the North in 1987 and organized poaching by Tamil Nadu fishers, a problem that can be addressed only by India deploying its powerful Coast Guard, backed by the Navy, to prevent violation of Indo-Lanka maritime boundary.

By Shamindra Ferdinando

Sri Lanka is in a tight spot. Joint statements issued by India and Sri Lanka on Dec, 16, last year, and China and Sri Lanka on January 16, this year, following President Anura Kumara Dissanayake’s state visits to New Delhi and Beijing, respectively, underscored the daunting foreign policy challenges faced by the new Sri Lankan leader whose National People’s Power (NPP) secured a landslide victory at the Nov. 2024 parliamentary election, promising a literal sea change.

Dissanayake is also the leader of the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP), a once rabidly anti-Indian political movement that waged two unsuccessful insurrections, in 1971 and 1987-1990. Under the JVP’s leadership, the NPP was formed in 2019, just ahead of that year’s presidential election.

Against the backdrop of an unprecedented political environment that had been created by the routing of existing major parties and the emergence of the NPP as the dominant political force here, the Asian giants are determined to consolidate their own separate position here. The joint statements emphasized their agenda.

The issues at hand cannot be examined without taking into consideration the strong and growing US-India relationship, in spite of the latter playing safe in the Russia-Ukraine war and the US-China conflict, as well as the US and India teaming up against Beijing. It appears, however, neither the US nor India trust each other. Their game plan is to try use the other for one’s own benefit in their current marriage of convenience. Washington, without doubt, considers both China and India are a threat to US hegemony.

Whether hapless Sri Lanka likes it or not, or regardless who wields political power here, the major powers won’t change their strategies. That is the unpleasant reality.

In the wake of President Dissanayake’s four-day visit to Beijing (January 14 to 17), a section of the Opposition engaged in the usual criticism of the NPP government, though they generally remained silent on the outcome of his New Delhi visit. China and India dominate major political parties represented in Parliament and the continuing political-economic-social turmoil facilitated their agenda. Our treacherous political party system is obviously incapable of addressing developing challenges. They have pathetically failed to reach consensus on national response to external interventions thereby allowing major powers to manipulate the country.

Having perused the two joint statements, the writer is of the view that in spite of Sri Lanka being party to both, they are contradictory and seem unrealistic to a certain extent. The bottom line is Sri Lanka cannot play ball simultaneously with China and India suspicious of each other. They are hell-bent on undermining each other and Sri Lanka is caught up in an utterly dangerous game. Sri Lanka is stuck in the China-India conflict and obviously there is no way out. Whatever Sri Lanka does may antagonize either party and Colombo seems helpless. The joint statements highlight Sri Lanka’s predicament. Nothing can be as absurd as Sri Lanka declaring a shared future with both India and China. In fact, the 34-point Indo-Lanka joint statement was headlined ‘Fostering partnerships for a shared future.’

While India based its relationship with Sri Lanka on the basis of Premier Narendra Modi’s ‘Neighborhood First Policy’ (read India first policy) and ‘SAGAR’ vision (Security and growth for all in the Indian Ocean region) meaning our giant neighbour is primus inter pares, China focused on what the joint statement described as deepening traditional friendship and advancing high-quality Belt and Road cooperation widely discussed as a massive China-led infrastructure project.

But unlike China, India being our giant neighbour she is overbearing and it would be wise of us to handle India with extreme care. Therefore allowing her to have a monopoly position in any part of our economy is asking for trouble to say the least.

Launched in 2013 the China project is also known as ‘Belt and Road Initiative’ (BRI) and ‘New Silk Road.’ The US and its allies are strongly opposed to the Chinese project, originally called ‘One Belt One Road’.

India strongly opposes any Chinese initiative here hence the joint statement issued following President Dissanayake’s visit must have disappointed New Delhi greatly. The truth is that the statement from Beijing questions the very basis of the joint statement issued on Dec. 16th last year. Regardless of Western and Indian pressure, Beijing has constantly advanced its own project here and elsewhere.

India’s main grouse is the sea and land-based China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) that may give China a strategic advantage over India.

Key points in Jan. 16 statement

President Dissanayake’s delegation to Beijing included two Ministers – Foreign Affairs, Foreign Employment and Tourism Vijitha Herath, and Transport, Highways, Ports and Civil Aviation Minister and Leader of the House Bimal Rathnayake. Both are senior JVPers who stood by Dissanayake during the internal turmoil within that party during Mahinda Rajapaksa’s tenure as the President (2005-2014).

President Dissanayake met President Xi Jinping, Premier of the State Council Li Qiang and Chairman of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress Zhao Leji.

In line with the overall Chinese approach, their focus was on Belt and Road cooperation. Against that background, the joint statement emphasized the pivotal importance of advancing what the Chinese called ‘high quality Belt and Road cooperation.’

They reiterated unwavering commitment to what the joint statement described as expanding China-Sri Lanka strategic cooperative partnership.

Then they also decided to sustain ‘close high-level exchanges in keeping with ‘strong strategic guidance’ given by the Chinese and Sri Lankan leaders.’

Sri Lanka repeated its longstanding commitment for ‘One-China’ policy or principle in line with the United Nations general assembly Resolution 2758 passed on Oct. 25th, 1971. In other words, that Resolution accepted Taiwan as an inalienable part of China. It would be pertinent to mention that India, too, accepted the ‘One-China’ principle but over the years refrained from reiterating its position. According to the joint statement, Sri Lanka fully backed all efforts by China to achieve national reunification.

Sri Lanka also assured that the country wouldn’t be a platform for anti-China activity and also backed Beijing in respect of issues related to Xizang (Tibet) and the predominantly Muslim Xinjiang regions where China is under Western fire over purported human rights violations.

The UN that often echo Western line saw its Human Rights Chief Volker Turk jumped to criticise Chinese actions in the above-mentioned regions and the Chinese alleged that the UNHRC strategy is meant to undermine China.

In the fifth paragraph of the joint statement with Colombo that dealt with the contentious Xizang and Xinjiang issues, China reiterated its ‘commitment to an independent foreign policy of peace’ whereas Sri Lanka repeated its pledge for ‘an independent non-aligned foreign policy.’

Having been trapped in Chinese, Indian and Western machinations, declaration of ‘an independent non-aligned foreign policy, ‘seemed ridiculous.

The focus on Belt and Road cooperation was underscored with Sri Lanka’s acceptance of President Jinping’s flagship project key to economic and social development. Therefore, the reiteration of the pivotal importance of the Colombo Port City and Hambantota Port, both built by China, didn’t surprise anyone. However, eyebrows were raised that China and Sri Lanka entered into a Belt and Road cooperation plan meant to upgrade/strengthen the Chinese flagship project.

Once Gotabaya Rajapaksa told the writer how Indian National Security Advisor (NSA) Ajit Doval pressed him to cancel major Chinese projects here. Responding to queries raised by the writer in Dec., 2016, Gotabaya Rajapaksa explained the dissimilarity between Doval and his predecessor Shivshankar Menon (January 2010 to May 2014) who had served as Foreign Secretary before receiving the appointment as NSA.

The former Defence Secretary said Menon, in his memoirs, Choices: Inside the Making of India’s Foreign Policy had acknowledged the understanding between the Mahinda Rajapaksa government and India during the war and post-conflict period. However, Menon’s successor Ajit Doval had taken an entirely different stand vis-a-vis Sri Lanka, Rajapaksa said.

Rajapaksa said Doval called for the cancellation of the USD 1.4 bn Chinese flagship project, the Colombo Port City. In addition to that demand which Rajapaksa said was very unfair, India demanded that Sri Lanka take over the Colombo International Container Terminals Limited (CICT), a joint venture between China Merchants Port Holdings Company Limited (CMPH) and the Sri Lanka Ports Authority (SLPA).

CMPH holds 85% of the partnership whilst the balance 15% is with the SLPA.

Rajapaksa quoted Doval as having told him that India wanted all Chinese funded infrastructure projects stopped and for Sri Lanka to have full control of the Hambantota Port. Rajapaksa quoted Doval as having told him: “Sri Lanka is a small country, you don’t need such development projects.”

Maritime issues, etc.

In addition to Sri Lanka seeking early implementation with China of what the joint statement called an agreed debt restructuring plan and early conclusion of a comprehensive free trade agreement, they dealt with maritime cooperation. They agreed to conduct regular bilateral consultations on maritime matters.

China and Sri Lanka decided to sign a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on Ocean Cooperation to pave the way for what the joint communique called Blue Partnership. The Blue Partnership is obviously an integral part of the Belt and Road Cooperation.

The joint statement conveniently refrained from making reference to the contentious issue of Chinese research vessels’ visit to Sri Lanka. Repeated Indian and US protests during the early phase of Ranil Wickremesinghe’s presidency (2022 July-Nov 2024) compelled the beleaguered leader to declare a moratorium on such foreign vessels. That decision was meant to prevent Chinese research vessels entering Sri Lankan waters. The Indian media had routinely categorized all Chinese research vessels as spy ships.

President Dissanayake’s government is yet to announce its stand on Wickremesinghe’s moratorium on such foreign ship visits. In spite of Minister Vijitha Herath’s declaration on Dec., 20, 2024, that a special committee would be established to implement a national policy in respect of foreign vessels seeking to enter Sri Lankan waters nothing has been heard so far of the proposed committee.

Regardless of repeated assurances that Sri Lankan territory won’t be used against India’s security interests, the Modi government is seriously concerned over Chinese moves here. India hardened its stance after the Yahapalana government (2015 January to 2019 November) leased the strategically located Hambantota Port on a 99-year lease to China in 2017. That increased Indian concerns as China consolidated its position here. It would be pertinent to mention that China secured what it wanted in spite of the Yahapalana government initially taking an extremely hostile position towards Beijing. The Yahapalana government went to the extent of suspending the Colombo Port City project in March 2015. But, China Communication Construction Company (CCCC) resumed the project in August 2016 after China and Sri Lanka settled differences over the project that was finalized in Sept. 2014 in the presence of President Jinping in Colombo.

Chinese leader Jinping with President Dissanayake

In addition to the USD 1.4 ban Colombo Port City project, China invested USD 1.2 bn in the Hambantota Port. But, President Disanayake’s Office claimed that it secured a fresh investment of USD 3.7 bn for a state-of-the-art oil refinery in Hambantota. That investment declared as the single largest FDI by the President’s Office is part of the Belt and Road cooperation.

However, the UNP has challenged the President’s claim, emphasizing that the agreement on an oil refinery with China was finalized in Nov. 2023 by President Wickremesinghe’s administration.

According to the UNP, Sri Lanka reached consensus on Chinese investment due to the delay in construction undertaken by a consortium that included Silver Park International (Private) Limited of Singapore (controlled by India’s Accord Group) and Oman’s Ministry of Oil and Gas. Interestingly, that agreement had been signed in March 2019 during Maithripala Sirisena’s presidency.

China hasn’t allowed domestic politics here to derail their plans. The Chinese strategy is on track. The Hambantota Port agreement and the proposed oil refinery at Mirijjawila are cases in point. Having signed a deal on the construction of a brand new international port at Hambantota during Mahinda Rajapaksa’s presidency, China secured the port for a mere USD 1.2 bn from the Wickremesinghe regime.

Later President Gotabaya Rajapaksa found fault with the Yahapalana administration for leasing the port to China. Declaring that the leasing of the Hambantota Port was a mistake, Gotabaya Rajapaksa, in his first interview as President with Nitin A. Gokhale, Editor-in-Chief of Bharat Shakti.in and SNI, in late Nov. 2019, said he wanted to renegotiate the deal. The Yahapalana deal covered the port and approximately 15,000 acres around it. China simply dismissed that notion about an agreement concluded with the previous Yahapalana regime. Since then no one dared to take up that issue. China obviously intends to consolidate its position in the South around Hambantota, just as India tightens its grip around Northeast Sri Lanka, which includes the world’s fourth largest natural harbour at Trincomalee earlier coveted by the US.

Post-Aragalaya developments

In the run-up to the presidential election last Sept, India indicated what it desired from the new President. On behalf of India, Pathfinder Foundation presented a comprehensive proposal meant to consolidate Indo-Lanka partnership to all presidential candidates.

During President Disanayake’s visit, India built up on the agreement Premier Modi finalized with President Wickremesinghe in July 2023. Like China, India, too, since the successful conclusion of the war in 2009, advanced its strategy, here, meticulously.

However, China never matched Indian financial assistance during the unprecedented crisis here. India provided assistance posthaste. According to Premier Modi, India extended grants and Lines of Credit worth USD 5 bn to Sri Lanka during the presidencies of Gotabaya Rajapaksa and Ranil Wickremesinghe. In fact, NPP leader Disanayake in the run-up to the presidential election thanked India for unprecedented assistance provided in the hour of Sri Lanka’s need.

New Delhi also paid USD 20.66 mn to settle payments due from Sri Lanka for Indian projects here completed under operational Lines of Credit.

A major difference between India-Sri Lanka joint statement and China-Sri Lanka communique is the former’s focus on defence relations. During a joint media briefing with President Dissanayake in New Delhi Premier Modi declared that he and President Dissanayake decided to quickly finalize the Security Cooperation Agreement. However, the Indo-Lanka joint statement differed from Premier Modi’s declaration in respect of the proposed Security Cooperation Agreement.

According to the joint communique, India and Sri Lanka agreed to explore the possibility of concluding a framework agreement on defence cooperation. Under a section headlined ‘Strategic & Defence Cooperation’, the communique dealt comprehensively with Sri Lanka’s needs. India addressed the issues at hand while assuring backing for defence needs. But, entering into a Security Cooperation Agreement /Defence Cooperation Agreement as mentioned in the joint communique, cannot under any circumstances be taken by the government without having consensus with all political parties represented in Parliament.

India’s offer should be examined keeping in mind Sri Lanka never sought a defence agreement with any particular country, even during the difficult war to defeat LTTE terrorism that lasted for about 30 years, but somehow procured arms, ammunition and equipment as well as training from a wide range of suppliers, including China, Israel, Pakistan, Czechoslovakia, Ukraine as well as Russia. The matter is definitely bone of contention for obvious reasons.

Although India caused terrorism here in the ’80s and should be held responsible for massive death and destruction caused, the war couldn’t have been brought to a successful conclusion without New Delhi’s silent, but invaluable backing to defeat the LTTE during the final Eelam War (2006 Aug. to 2009 May). That is the hard truth. Many people may find that hard to accept. With the LTTE getting too big for its shoes, with subtle backing from the West, especially by turning a blind eye to its terror infrastructure like drug running and arms smuggling from their countries, India, too, was left with no other option, especially after it daringly assassinated its beloved former Premier Rajiv Gandhi on its own soil.

All News Advertisement

Midweek Review

Legacy of enforced disappearances: Vital facts conveniently forgotten to whitewash LTTE and India

Published

1 day ago

2026/09/9

Sahan Weerasooriya

One-time child soldier Jesuthasan Antonythasan poses with actresses Claudine Vinasithamby and Kalieaswari Srinivasan during a photocall for the film "Dheepan" at the 68th Cannes Film Festival in Cannes. The movie won the Palme d'Or in 2015. Antonythasan fought for the LTTE terrorist group before fleeing Sri Lanka and reached France in 1993. Of those categorised as missing, perhaps he is the most famous.

Those demanding accountability from Sri Lanka for war crimes allegations are strangely silent on atrocities committed by the LTTE. On the orders of its leader Velupillai Prabhakaran, the LTTE killed hundreds of members belonging to rival terrorist groups. It assassinated President Ranasinghe Premadsasa, almost succeeded in assassinating President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga and made attempts on President Mahinda Rajapaksa. But, the indiscriminate use of children as cannon fodder went unnoticed. How many children, forcibly recruited into their ranks, perished in fighting? And, lastly, shouldn’t the Tamil community hold the Illankai Thamil Arasu Kadchi (ITAK)-led now defunct Tamil National Alliance, that recognised the LTTE in 2001 as the sole representative of the Tamil speaking people, responsible for death and destruction caused since 2001?

By Shamindra Ferdinando

Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances (WGEID) representative Ana Lorena Delgadillo Pérez, and head of the Association of Relatives of Enforced Disappearances (ARED) Yogarasa Kanagaranjini, on 30 August, opened an exhibition at the Thanthai Selva Auditorium in Jaffna. The exhibition, appropriately named ‘Long Road for Justice,’ coincided with the International Day for Victims of Enforced Disappearances.

Pérez later addressed a conference held therein where the responsibility on the part of Sri Lanka was stressed.

Civil society activist Sunanda Deshapriya, in an article titled ‘Sri Lanka’s Disappeared: Where Do We Go from Here?’ carried in Jaffna Monitor, dealt with missing persons issue. Deshapriya focused on the North-East war (https://www.jaffnamonitor.com/sri-lankas-disappeared-where-do-we-go-from-here/)

The ICRC, Colombo, issued a statement regarding the International Day of the Disappeared. When the writer sought the number of missing persons in the country, Ruwanthi Jayasundare, Head of Communications, said that they had a caseload of 15,000 registered tracing requests (1983-2009) but she asserted that the actual number of missing was far bigger (https://island.lk/icrs-sustained-and-collective-efforts-critical-to-address-issue-of-missing-persons/)

Perhaps, many people wouldn’t know that the ICRC arrived here in 1989 during the second Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) terror campaign in the wake of Indian military intervention here. The much discussed issue of disappearances must be appropriately dealt with, taking into consideration the relevant factors. At the time of their deployment here, President Ranasinghe Premadasa had been engaged in direct talks with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) and the Geneva-headquartered body never expected a gruesome outbreak of violence. It would be pertinent to mention that within weeks after the ICRC’s arrival here, the JVP was crushed with brute force as it, too, resorted to senseless violence. The counter violence unleashed by the state apparatus was such that the then Marxist group’s top leadership was killed, except for Somawansa Amarasinghe, who escaped, with Indian help, in February 1990, and remained in exile till late 2001.

The ICRC deployment took place in mid October, 1989, and JVP leader Rohana Wijeweera was captured in the second week of November, at Ulapone, and shot in custody, and was allegedly cremated alive at the Borella cemetery.

In fact, at the time the ICRC arrived here, the JVP was on its last legs. The UNP government never bothered to hand over the bodies of slain JVP cadres to their families. Those who had been listed missing at that time were no longer in the land of the living, by the time the ICRC brought its operation in the South to an end.

What the country never expected was a fresh flare-up in the northern and eastern regions. The LTTE resumed large-scale hostilities, in June, after the Indian Army pulled out from Sri Lanka in late March 1990. Interestingly, some of those demanding justice for the missing/disappeared are conveniently silent about the disappearances during the Indian Army deployment here (July 1987 to March 1990).

Soon after hostilities erupted in the northern and eastern regions, following a 14-month truce between President Ranasinghe Premadasa and LTTE leader Velupillai Prabhakaran (May 1989 to June 1990), the ICRC was invited to open offices in that region. There had been excesses on the part of the military and law enforcement authorities as the government battled the LTTE, the world’s most ruthless terrorist organisation as assessed by none other than the US Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Yet Sri Lanka must earnestly address accountability issues and take meaningful measures to compensate the families of the innocents.

However, the Tamil community must come to terms with the reality that the vast majority of dead were members of the LTTE. The LTTE enjoyed considerable firepower as it literally wielded a conventional fighting capability, which even included a fledgling air force and directly challenged the government, and the armed forces had no option but to fight back. Obviously, the LTTE, that achieved significant battlefield successes over the years, never expected the almost non-stop three-year-long offensive that brought the war to an end in May 2009. Disappearances became exceptionally an important issue in the overall agenda pursued by the Tamil Diaspora and Tamil speaking political parties here only after the LTTE’s eradication.

Multiple reasons

In September 1990, several months after the Indian Army was literally forced to pull out from Sri Lanka as Tigers fought back the mighty IPKF to a standstill, while President Premadasa, too, made it clear that they were no longer welcome here, Amnesty International (AI) documented 43 cases of disappearances. According to the London headquartered AI, the majority of these disappearances happened in the Jaffna peninsula, following the outbreak of fighting in October 1989. The Indian Army launched ‘Operation Pawan’ meant to disarm the LTTE in line with the Indo-Lanka Accord, signed on 29 July, 1987.

During the Indian Army deployment here (1987 July to 1990 March), the Sri Lankan armed forces were confined to their barracks in the North and East. The AI accused the Indian Army of torture, extrajudicial executions and disappearances. The deaths of nearly 1,500 Indian officers and men, and injuries to approximately 3,000 others during the Indian deployment here, underscored the ferocity of the situation.

The Indian Army carried out reprisals, following LTTE attacks in both provinces. The Indian Army was also accused of sexual violence. Perhaps, the August 1989 Valvettithurai orgy of violence, during which Indian soldiers killed civilians, tortured detainees, committed sexual violence, and systematically destroyed homes and businesses, while the town was under curfew, was the worst case.

In October, 2025, the International Truth and Justice Project (ITJP) presented a detailed reparations claim, in association with the Valvettithurai Citizens’ Committee, to the Sri Lankan Office for Reparations, requesting USD $15 million (LKR 4.5 billion) for victims of a 1989 orgy of violence committed by the IPKF where at least 66 civilians were killed and 34 injured.

There hadn’t been a previous instance of a comprehensive compensation claim for such a wartime crime. Thousands of LTTE cadres, some of them trained in India, and civilians, perished in Indian Army action. The Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF) earned such a bad reputation it came to be dubbed the Indian People Killing Force.

The war in Sri Lanka, or whatever one chooses to call it, should be examined in the context of a high profile Indian destabilisation project ordered by Premier Indira Gandhi. Over a year after the Indian Army pullout, the LTTE assassinated Rajiv Gandhi, by then out of power, but he was the person Velupillai Prabhakaran held responsible for the Indian Army deployment in Sri Lanka. Following Gandhi’s assassination, India hunted down the LTTE team, involved in the operation, carried out by a female suicide cadre.

The LTTE forgot the Indian role in the transformation of the Tamil separatist terrorist movement to a deadly conventional threat. If not for the despicable Indian action, Sri Lanka wouldn’t have been hauled up before the Geneva-based United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC). That is the unpalatable truth.

How many Sri Lankan Tamils disappeared during weapons training in India? Did India investigate such disappearances as well as deaths caused by fighting among rival Tamil terrorist groups operating in India at that time? Among the groups that had been armed by India were PLOTE (People’s Liberation Organisation of Tamil Eelam), EPRLF (Eelam People’s Revolutionary Liberation Front) and TELO (Tamil Eelam Liberation Organisation) responsible for quite a significant number of killings and human rights violations.

India never accepted responsibility for the PLOTE raid on the Maldives on a contract to topple the then Maldivian PM Gayoom’s government given by a domestic rival in early November, 1988. Shouldn’t New Delhi at least apologise for the sea borne raid on the Maldives that resulted in deaths of Maldivians, as well as raiders? The Indian Navy sank a ship commandeered by the attackers fleeing the Maldives after air borne Indian troops brought the situation under control.

The Indian and global media praised swift Indian intervention but ignored two key factors, namely (i) the operation targeting Maldivian President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom was mounted by one of the groups trained, armed and deployed by India and (ii) two trawlers carrying the raiding party left the northern part of Sri Lanka, at that time held by the Indian Army.

The writer had the opportunity, in November, 2011, to interview the Maldivian businessman, Abdullah Luthufee, who convinced the PLOTE leader Uma Maheswaran to carry out the operation. (Male plot leader speaks out 3 November, 2011, Rajiv saved us from Gayoom-Male coup leader 4 November 2011 and How Luthufee moved SAARC venue from Male to Addu 11 Nov 2011) dealt with the operation that should have drawn international attention to the Indian destabilisation project. Let me stress that some PLOTE cadres perished when the Indian Navy sank the vessel commandeered by the fleeing PLOTE cadres. They were among those who had been listed missing during the conflict.

Australian and US interventions

One-time top JVPer Kumar Gunaratnam secret arrival in Sri Lanka as an Australian Citizen Noel Mudalige, in early September, 2011, emphasised the issuance of foreign passports in assumed names to Sri Lankans under controversial circumstances. The writer exclusively reported how the head of the breakaway JVP faction, known as the Frontline Socialist Party (FSP), arrived here. The Australian High Commission in Sri Lanka acted swiftly and decisively when Gunaratnam disappeared after entering the country, using Australian passport bearing number N 1016123 on September 4, 2011 (https://dbsjeyaraj.com/dbsj/?p=43914). The writer dealt with the same issue again in August 2016 (https://dbsjeyaraj.com/dbsj/?p=47936).

Among thousands of Sri Lankans, now having foreign citizenship, there can be many people listed here as “missing/forcibly” disappeared. Western governments never helped Sri Lanka to establish the real identities of Sri Lankans living abroad, under assumed names. If Gunaratnam never acted in a manner inimical to the JVP, he could have easily lived a comfortable life in Australia as Sinhala Buddhist Noel Mudalige.

There had been many interesting stories of those categorised as missing/dead turning up in the West, under new identities. One of the most intriguing ones, is about an ex-LTTE terrorist turned Frenchman Antonythasan Jesuthasan, the lead actor in Dheepen that won the prestigious Palme d’Or at the 2015 Cannes Film Festival.

Internationally acclaimed Jacques Audiard directed the movie about three Sri Lankans who formed a fake family to escape the war and to secure asylum in France. Antonythasan Jesuthasan’s performance in Dheepan earned him a Best Actor nomination at the 2016 César Awards (the French equivalent of the Oscars). Jesuthasan is the only ex-LTTE terrorist to receive international acclaim as an actor.

In an interview with Tom Seymour (Dheepan’s Antonythasan Jesuthasan: from Tamil Tiger to star of a Palme d’Or winner in The Guardian) posted online on March 31, 2016, transformed Frenchman Jesuthasan, unwittingly revealed how he deceived the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) to secure political asylum. Seymour reported that Jesuthasan, after having shown him a dense lattice of scars on his forearm, declared: “I did those to myself. I was 22, and I had spent years trying to come to the west. I wanted to get a fake French passport, but I had to be accepted as a refugee. I went to the UNHCR [the UN High Commissioner for Refugees], but they wouldn’t believe my story. So I cut myself, and held up my arm, and said to them: ‘Look at my blood. This is my word.”

Jesuthasan is just one among thousands who obtained political asylum on false claims. Jesuthasan ended up as the star of Dheepan, directed by Jacques Audiard, possibly France’s most celebrated modern director. There cannot be a better example than Jesuthasan to highlight the web of deceit pertaining to the vast majority of those who successfully secured political asylum. But, the Sri Lanka Foreign Ministry never bothered to set the record straight. Born in Allaipiddy, on the Velanaitivu islet, Jesuthasan claimed he fought the Sri Lanka Army in August 1990 and subsequently fled the country and managed to reach France.

But, the case of Kathiravel Thayapararajah is one of the most controversial cases. Thayapararajah had been involved in a Tamil Diaspora funded project in Kilinochchi during Eelam war IV. He couldn’t have secured the Diaspora assignment without the approval of the LTTE and remained in the Vanni during the war. He disappeared in September 2009.

His disappearance prompted a section of the media, as well as some international NGOs, to accuse the Directorate of Military Intelligence (DMI) of executing him. No less a person than the then US Assistant Secretary of State for South Asian Affairs and one-time US Ambassador in Colombo, Robert O. Blake, inquired about the missing person.

The University Teachers for Human Rights (Jaffna), the Australian Government Refugee Review Tribunal, Tamilnet and the European Centre for Constitutional and Human Rights among others blamed the Sri Lankan intelligence for the disappearance. However, the Indian media, in May, 2014, revealed Thayapararajah’s arrest though they didn’t know at the time that he was the person who was supposed to have been killed by the Sri Lankan Intelligence. At the time Indian police apprehended Thayapararajah, at Arichamunai off Dhanuskodi, after arriving there in a boat from Sri Lanka, he had been with notorious female human smuggler Uthayakala. She claimed Thayapararajah was her second husband.

That chance detection exposed a blatant lie propagated over the years. The then Head of Missing Persons Commission, retired High Court Judge Maxwell Paranagama, is also on record as having called for international cooperation to trace persons living overseas under new identities. Paranagama told the writer that at that time both the international community, including the ICRC, had declined to help Sri Lanka identify those taking cover behind new identities.

Chemmani mass graves

Sri Lanka needs to investigate war crimes allegations, particularly the high profile Chemmani mass grave. The country cannot ignore the continuing accusations with the international media taking advantage of the situation to tarnish the country, especially the Rajapaksa rule. It must be a way of the West taking revenge from the Rajapaksas for going against their wish to save the bold thirsty Tigers. It is like their logic that Israel can do no wrong!

The CNN dealt with the Chemmani issue while the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), in July last year, called for what it claimed as victim-centred investigation into the alleged mass graves in compliance with international law and standards.

Tamil political parties, too, repeatedly demanded tangible action against the perpetrators. The Chemmani mass grave site drew national and international attention in 1998 following the confession of a soldier implicated in the rape and murder of schoolgirl Krishanthy Kumaraswamy. Chemmani has become a powerful and painful symbol of the country’s war-torn past.

Krishanthy Kumaraswamy was raped and killed by soldiers on the 7th of September, 1996. The same group of soldiers later killed her mother, her younger brother and a family friend who went out searching for the teenager.

An excavation, in 1999, led to the recovery of 15 sets of remains, and then the matter was allowed to rest for about a quarter of a century. On the orders of the Jaffna Magistrate’s court, a fresh excavation was ordered last year, following the chance recovery of some skeletal remains and so far nearly 600 sets of human remains have been found, among them children and infants. Tamil media have declared Chemmani as the largest mass grave found in Sri Lanka.

It would be pertinent to mention that some time back the Army was accused of the Mannar mass graves but investigations undertaken by the Office of Missing Persons (OMP), with international expertise, proved the claims false. Bone fragment samples were submitted to Beta Analytic, a specialised US radiocarbon-dating laboratory. This happened during the Yahapalana administration (2015-2019) Later, the lab indicated that the tested bone samples dated back to the period between 1499 and 1719 AD (the 15th to 18th century). That brought an end to the Mannar mass graves hoax.

Whatever the circumstances, the government cannot remain silent regarding the Chemmani mass graves. The area that had been under Security Forces Headquarters, Jaffna continues to receive public attention, both here and abroad. The Army will have to address the issue without further delay. Let me stress the importance of investigating the atrocities perpetrated by others, namely the Indian Army for which the responsibility lies with the government of India as well as the LTTE, and over half a dozen other terrorist groups that subsequently entered the political mainstream.

The formation of Tamil National Army (TNA) by India before the Indian Army pullout by March 1990, too, must receive the attention of Sri Lanka as well the concerned international community. Having totally destabilised the smaller neighbouring county by arming scores of terrorist groups, New Delhi went a step further by the formation of the TNA meant to protect Varatharaja Perumal’s North-East provincial administration.

In spite of President Ranasinghe Premadasa drawing strong criticism for arming the LTTE against the Indian Army, in hindsight, if not for his controversial decision, India’s proxy, TNA may have taken root. Whatever various parties say today, the TNA had been formed to ensure the continuation of the deeply unpopular Perumal’s administration that went to the extent of forcible conscription. India can never absolve itself of responsibility for what it did in Sri Lanka. The destabilisation project, largely influenced by the then Premier Indira Gandhi’s concerns over the developing situation in Tamil Nadu, caused massive death and destruction. No less a person than J.N. Dixit, who served as their High Commissioner in Colombo (1985 to 1989), and later appointed National Security Advisor (2004 to 2005) disclosed in his memoirs ‘Makers of India’s Foreign Policy: Raja Ram Mohun to Yashwant Sinha’, Indira’s Gandhi’s intervention. The late Dixit in no uncertain terms blamed her for Indian intervention in Sri Lanka.

Midweek Review

A street where Sri Lankan stories found their readers

Published

1 day ago

2026/09/9

Sahan Weerasooriya

Margaret Richardson and Asanka de Mel / Ashok Ferrey

By Ifham Nizam

Pictures by Nishan S Priyantha and Kamal Bogoda

Ashok Ferrey took readers into an older Colombo through Colpetty People. Vivimarie Vanderpoorten opened the door to the personal stories behind her poetry. Andrew Fidel Fernando brought cricket, culture and the distinctive world of Sri Lankan school cricket into the conversation, while Ramya Jirasinghe spoke candidly about the long and often difficult road from writing a manuscript to seeing it published.

Then came Margaret Richardson and Asanka de Mel, whose conversation moved from literature to the question of where Sri Lanka should be by 2048.

These were among the voices that gave life to Fairway Street of Stories, a new initiative that sought to bring Sri Lankan English-language writers closer to their readers.

But behind the gathering of authors, readers, books, children, book clubs and aspiring writers was a bigger idea—the brainchild of Amendra Haputhanthri, Director of Sarasavi Bookshop (Pvt) Ltd.

For Haputhanthri, Fairway Street of Stories is not merely another literary event. It is part of a much larger attempt to create a marketplace for Sri Lankan talent and to persuade readers to discover stories that are unmistakably their own.

“Usually, when we have exhibitions, such as the Colombo Book Fair, we always think about what sells the most. Here, we wanted to create a niche market for people who want to read Sri Lankan writing,” she said.

And the first event demonstrated just how wide that literary world can be.

Stories from a Sri Lanka we know

Haputhanthri believes one of the greatest strengths of Sri Lankan English writing is its sense of place.

A thriller set in an unfamiliar foreign city may be entertaining. But a thriller unfolding at the Galle Face Hotel or Mount Lavinia Hotel carries another kind of intimacy for a Sri Lankan reader.

“You have familiar words and actual real-world places that we have been to. There will be a connection with the book,” she said.

That connection can be even more powerful when the story takes readers into places and experiences that are disappearing.

This is one reason she admires Ferrey’s work.

During his Fairway session, Ferrey, together with Tanya de Mel, offered readers an engaging glimpse into the world behind Colpetty People and the Colombo it captures.

Amendra Haputhanthri (extreme left) with winners

For Haputhanthri, Ferrey’s writing is also a record of a rapidly changing city.

“Even Sri Lanka is changing very rapidly. Within Colombo also, the environment is rapidly changing, and that is being addressed nicely in the books of Ashok Ferrey,” she said.

Literature, in that sense, becomes more than entertainment.

It becomes memory.

The stories behind the poems

Vivimarie Vanderpoorten offered a very different literary experience.

Haputhanthri describes her as one of the country’s outstanding contemporary talents, particularly because of the personal histories embedded in her poetry.

A poem on a page may be only a few lines long. But behind those lines can lie an entire life.

Vanderpoorten spoke about those experiences at Fairway, including deeply disturbing events she had witnessed during her university years.

For Haputhanthri, hearing those stories transformed the poems.

“All her stories, there is a back story. All her poems, there is a back story,” she said.

She believes such conversations are precisely what literary events should create—a space where readers can move beyond the printed page and understand the human experience that produced it.

She also encouraged people to read poetry, even if only one poetry collection a year.

Poetry, she believes, forces readers to think beyond what is immediately presented.

“It gives you the ability to think out of the box,” she said.

Cricket is more than a score

Andrew Fidel Fernando brought yet another dimension to the event.

For someone who writes and comments on international cricket, his work naturally takes readers into the world of the game. But Haputhanthri noted that Fernando’s writing also captures the culture surrounding cricket in different countries.

And Sri Lanka has a particularly richstory to tell.

Andrew Fidel Fernando / Dr. Vivimarie Vanderpoorten

For Haputhanthri, the island’s school-cricket culture is something the world should know more about.

“We are the best in the world when it comes to having a culture for school cricket. It is something very unique to our country,” she said.

She even suggested that writers interested in Sri Lankan cricket should explore this largely distinctive phenomenon in greater depth.

Because literature can sometimes reveal what statistics cannot.

A schoolboy walking onto a cricket ground carries with him a school, a city, friendships, rivalries, family expectations and an entire culture.

From manuscript to book

Ramya Jirasinghe’s contribution was particularly relevant to aspiring writers.

She spoke about her own journey and the realities of getting a book published.

Her experience demonstrated that literary success rarely happens overnight.

Winning recognition is one thing. Turning a manuscript into an internationally published book is another.

For emerging writers listening to her, the message was clear: writing requires patience, revision and persistence.

Haputhanthri knows that process well.

Writers, she said, can be rejected repeatedly—even at international level.

And translations create another layer of difficulty.

Sometimes an author reads a translation of his or her work and says: “This doesn’t have my voice.”

That, Haputhanthri acknowledged, illustrates how complex the journey from an original manuscript to another language can be.

A speech from the future

Carmel Miranda

Asanka de Mel and Margaret Richardson brought another perspective to Fairway.

De Mel’s 2048: A Speech from 2048 looks towards the centenary of Sri Lanka’s independence and asks why the country has not yet become a developed nation.

But his message, as Haputhanthri interpreted it, was not one of resignation.

Sri Lanka should not allow its small geographical size to become a psychological limitation.

De Mel’s own journey—from two decades in Silicon Valley to returning to Sri Lanka and embarking on entrepreneurial ventures—was offered as an example of what persistence and confidence can achieve.

For Haputhanthri, it reinforced one of the central lessons of both writing and life.

“There is no shortcut in life,” she said.

Stories that preserve a country

Fairway Street of Stories also reflected Haputhanthri’s belief that literature can preserve aspects of Sri Lankan identity that are increasingly vulnerable.

She spoke about Angampora, Beeralu weaving, traditional culture and historical stories.

Even the country’s royal heritage can become a gateway for a new generation to understand the island’s past.

She recalled seeing foreign visitors browsing books about Sri Lankan kings.

Those books were doing more than recounting history. They were presenting the story of a country with a long and complicated heritage.

Haputhanthri believes Sri Lankan literature can perform a similar role internationally.

“Our stories should also reach people in the same way our food and cultural experiences have reached the world,” she said.

She recalled meeting two foreigners who had visited Sri Lanka around 156 times.

Their extraordinary attachment to the country reminded her that Sri Lanka’s culture has an ability to attract people repeatedly.

The stories of the country, she believes, deserve the same reach.

The problem is not the e-book

Ramya Jirasinghe (third from left)

Yet while Haputhanthri is passionate about books, she is equally concerned about the future of reading.

She does not believe e-books are necessarily the enemy.

“If people are reading an e-version, as long as they are reading something valuable, that will add something to you,” she said.

The bigger threat, in her view, is the endless scrolling culture of the smartphone.

“Scrolling on the phone reduces your attention span and you can’t do any sort of deep work,” she said.

She has observed this challenge among young people entering the workplace and believes sustained concentration is increasingly difficult.

But her answer is not to blame young people.

It is to begin much earlier—with parents and teachers.

“Whatever the parents read, the children also will read,” she said.

‘Readers Are Not Born, They Are Created’

That belief is now developing into another initiative.

Haputhanthri is working on a programme titled ‘Readers Are Not Born, They Are Created’, which she hopes to take from school to school and community to community.

The target will be parents as much as children.

The message is that reading habits are cultivated. They are demonstrated, encouraged and nurtured.

She also hopes to involve children who have themselves developed through reading, allowing them to share their experiences with others.

For Haputhanthri, the issue is deeply personal.

“I would credit everything that I have today, and everything I am today, because of reading,” she said.

She believes avid readers develop empathy, creativity and critical thinking—qualities that are increasingly valuable in a world dominated by information but often short on attention.

Beyond one literary weekend

Fairway Street of Stories, therefore, is not intended to remain a once-a-year literary celebration.

Haputhanthri wants to see activities connected with reading and books continue throughout the year.

A bargain book sale is among the ideas being considered, making use of books from Sarasavi’s extensive network of branches that may have suffered minor damage or discolouration while remaining on shelves.

The next major event will be the book fair, followed by further initiatives.

But the larger ambition goes beyond sales.

It is about discovery.

A reader discovering a Sri Lankan writer.

A child discovering poetry.

An aspiring author discovering that rejection is not the end.

A foreign visitor discovering that Sri Lanka’s stories are as rich as its food, landscapes and traditions.

And a country discovering itself in its own books.

That is perhaps the most significant contribution of Fairway Street of Stories.

Because the authors who gathered there did more than talk about their books.

They demonstrated the many ways in which Sri Lanka can be written, remembered and imagined.

And behind that gathering was Amendra Haputhanthri’s conviction that these stories deserve not only a place on a bookshelf, but a place in the minds of readers—and eventually, a place in the wider world.