Midweek Review
Strengthening bilateral relations or opening doors for competition?
President Dissanayake’s historic visits to India and China:
by Prof. Amarasiri de Silva
From December 15 to 17, 2024, President Anura Kumara Dissanayake’s government took steps to ameliorate the geopolitical issues in the Indian Ocean region by paying diplomatic visits to India and China. The parliamentary election win by the NPP/JVP has raised suspicions that the new government might struggle to gain international confidence, partly due to the opposition’s portrayal of the NPP/JVP as stated by the president AKD at a rally in Maharagama recently. To move forward, one of the first steps the new government should take is to win over international confidence, especially from powerful neighbours like India and China. The visit made to India under invitation by the Indian government marked a significant advancement in this regard in the relationship between Sri Lanka and India. During his visit to India, President Dissanayake engaged in one-on-one discussions with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and President Droupadi Murmu, the first person from a tribal community and the second woman to hold this position. The conversations centred on enhancing collaboration in energy partnerships, regional security, trade, investment, and infrastructure development. Several agreements were signed, including a Memorandum of Understanding for the training and capacity-building of Sri Lankan civil servants and a Protocol to amend the Agreement on Avoidance of Double Taxation.
Additionally, they released a joint statement titled ‘India-Sri Lanka Joint Statement-Fostering Partnerships for a Shared Future,’ which underscored their commitment to advancing the bilateral relationship. The Sri Lankan president gave an assurance that Sri Lanka would not allow any nation to engage in espionage against India within Sri Lankan Ocean waters.
Trip to China
Following his visit to India, Dissanayake’s trip to China is seen as a move to balance the influence of these two crucial regional powers, this journey reflects Sri Lanka’s strategic efforts to manage the influences of both China and India, which are critical for its economic revival. The Hambantota Port, leased to China Merchants Port Holdings in 2017 under a 99-year agreement, plays a key role in this context. The port’s strategic position along major shipping routes enhances China’s regional influence and illustrates the country’s Belt and Road Initiative.
Both leaders affirmed their commitment to a mutually beneficial comprehensive partnership in their Joint Statement. India will train 1,500 Sri Lankan civil servants over five years, and a new passenger ferry service will start between Rameshwaram (India) and Talaimannar (Sri Lanka), complementing the existing service between Nagapattinam (India) and Kankesanthurai (Sri Lanka). Additionally, the Kankesanthurai port in Sri Lanka will be redeveloped with grant assistance from the Government of India.
Regarding energy cooperation, the two countries will establish a high-capacity power grid interconnection, and India will supply liquified natural gas (LNG) to Sri Lanka. India, the United Arab Emirates, and Sri Lanka will jointly build a multiproduct pipeline from India to Sri Lanka to ensure safe and reliable energy. India will also support the Sampur solar power project in Sri Lanka and participate in the joint development of offshore wind power in the Palk Straits. Furthermore, the Trincomalee Tank Farms in Sri Lanka will be developed as a regional energy and industrial hub. A Joint Working Group will be set up to implement a Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI) stack in Sri Lanka with Indian assistance, and another Joint Working Group will focus on agriculture. In terms of defence, India will train Sri Lankan defence forces, provide defence equipment, and conduct joint military exercises, maritime surveillance, and defence dialogue and exchanges with Sri Lanka. India will also help Sri Lanka develop disaster mitigation, relief, and rehabilitation capabilities and cooperate in hydrography. Both countries signed an agreement on the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) to boost investment in each other’s count. On the part of India this is a big undertaking.
‘Big Brother behaviour’
The steps taken by India during the visit of President Dissanayake were an example of ‘big brother’ behaviour for some groups and politicians, meaning that India tried to lead and shape the policies of the newly elected president of Sri Lanka through its strategic interests. India has long been involved in Sri Lanka’s affairs as a dominant regional power. While some political analysts, including journalist Nirupama Subramaniam, claim that India’s influence over neighbouring countries like Sri Lanka has diminished over time, we believe the situation is quite different. The historical context indicates that India still plays a crucial role in shaping Sri Lanka’s policies and decisions. Some experts even argue that due to India’s significant economic assistance and support—especially during Sri Lanka’s recent financial crisis—the country has become increasingly reliant on India. This reliance gives India the ability to influence and guide Sri Lankan politics.
The substantial economic aid and backing from India have led to a scenario where Sri Lanka’s economic stability is closely linked to its relationship with India, further reinforcing India’s influence in the region. India has a rich history of engagement in Sri Lanka’s affairs as a leading regional power.
Some perceive these assurances—including the commitment to prevent Sri Lankan territory from being used against India’s interests—as indicative of President Dissanayake kowtowing to India’s position. This perception is rooted in the notion that such assurances are not merely diplomatic gestures but rather significant concessions aligning Sri Lanka’s strategic interests closely with India’s. Critics argue this alignment could undermine Sri Lanka’s sovereignty and ability to pursue an independent foreign policy. They view these assurances as a reflection of President Dissanayake’s willingness to prioritise India’s concerns, possibly at the expense of Sri Lanka’s national interests. The dynamics of this relationship highlight the complex and often contentious nature of regional geopolitics, where smaller nations must navigate the pressures exerted by larger, more powerful neighbours. President Dissanayake’s stance, therefore, can be seen as a balancing act, attempting to maintain favourable relations with India while also managing domestic and international perceptions of sovereignty and independence. The view here holds that the actions of President Dissanayake represent a first in the region and a unique brand of diplomacy that is at variance with the policies pursued by all the other countries bordering India. These assurances are a strategic effort to maintain a positive relationship with India. However, they also raise concerns regarding Sri Lanka’s sovereignty and independence in foreign policy matters.
Power balance in SA
The consequences of these assurances could greatly influence regional dynamics and the power balance in South Asia. Some opposition groups and politicians in Sri Lanka have voiced their criticism of the agreements and policies stemming from the visit, claiming that they excessively favour India and compromise Sri Lanka’s autonomy. They argue that the new administration is too eager to meet India’s demands, which could jeopardize Sri Lanka’s national interests.
When reviewing the history of India’s diplomatic relations with Sri Lanka, India’s hostility and competitive stance over Sri Lanka becomes apparent. The year 1977 saw Sri Lanka take more extraordinary leaps toward a more market-oriented economy during the presidency of J.R. Jayewardene. This again made Sri Lanka the first among the South Asian countries to embark on broad-based economic liberalisation.
At the funeral of Ronnie de Mel, the then president Ranil Wickremesinghe said ‘Today, however, we witnessed a proliferation of shops, establishment of factories, and emergence of new urban centres—all thanks to the open economy policy. Moreover, following this economic liberalisation, Late President J.R. Jayawardena secured funding for major development projects. The construction of the Mahaweli scheme, large reservoirs, land development for agriculture, the Sri Jayewardenepura Kotte Parliament Complex, new infrastructure, roads, trade zones and housing programs all became possible due to his adept management of resources. He demonstrated remarkable skill in funding and overseeing these endeavors’
Economic transition
The regime of Jayewardene adopted a policy package that reconverted the country from a state-controlled economy to a market-oriented economy characterised by deregulation, privatisation, and foreign investment. This was contrary to the earlier socialist policies of state control and economic self-sufficiency. The government that preceded J.R. Jayewardene was headed by Sirimavo Bandaranaike, who led the country between 1970 and 1977. Her governance had been in the hands of a coalition set by the participation of leftist parties such as the Communist Party, and Lanka Sama Samaja party of Sri Lanka. The economic policy during the Bandaranaike regime focused on state-led development and self-sufficiency, primarily influenced by leftist politicians within the coalition government. The administration introduced measures to decrease reliance on imports, foster local industries, and nationalize essential sectors. However, these policies led to economic challenges, including high inflation and public dissatisfaction, and finally to an electoral defeat.
In opening the economy, Jayewardene sought to attract foreign investment, increase exports, and modernse sectors to align with Western economic principles of liberalisation, deregulation, and privatization, integrating Sri Lanka into the global economy. During the same period, under the leadership of Indira Gandhi, India pursued a more diverse and multi-layered policy concerning Sri Lanka in response to Jayewardene’s open economic policy. Thus, Sri Lanka replaced its earlier socialism-oriented policies with one oriented toward modernisation and opening its economy to the global market. Such a policy led to geopolitical tensions. India was apprehensive about the consequences of Sri Lanka’s economic liberalisation, especially Jayewardene’s adherence to Western economic principles and his cozy relations with the United States. JR was nicknamed “Yanki Dickie”. India was not particularly pleased with this change. The Indian government under Indira Gandhi saw the growing Western influence in its neighbour as an ominous portent. Jayewardene’s foreign policy, like American policy, earned him the sobriquet “Yankie Dickie.” The pro-Western stance of Jayewardene was an eyesore for India, and it carried geopolitical implications. The open economic policy was in contrast with India’s. Colombo thus viewed it as an invitation to all who would be considered a potential competitor for its regional strategic interests. Therefore, Sri Lanka’s new economic orientation constituted a departure from the traditional non-aligned stance, which had earlier been the hallmark of Colombo’s foreign policy.
India’s suspicions
India’s suspicions led it to attempt to influence Sri Lanka through various methods, including backing Tamil separatist groups in the northern districts. This support for Tamil separatists was a strategic decision by India aimed at countering the perceived threat posed by Sri Lanka’s economic liberalization. India provided training and support to these groups to create instability in the northern province of Sri Lanka, which had concentrated Tamil populations. This included training camps for guerrilla warfare and other combat techniques in India. The trained militants were sent back to Sri Lanka for combat actions to have a separate Tamil state, thus extending violence and unrest in the region, which destabilized Sri Lanka for nearly 30 years.
This support formed part of India’s broader geopolitical strategy of maintaining its influence in South Asia and deterring any perceived threats to its strategic interests. In supporting Tamil separatist groups, India sought to exercise influence over the Sri Lankan government to ensure that Sri Lanka would not act as a conduit for extra-regional influences that could undermine India’s regional hegemony. However, this support came with a significant cost to Sri Lanka in terms of internal stability and economic development. The violence and unrest in this northern province drew away resources and attention from economic reforms and other development projects. They created an environment of uncertainty and instability that discouraged foreign investment and hindered growth.
In other words, India viewed the new open economic policy under the leadership of JR Jayewardene as a perceived threat to its influence in the region. It continued its support for the Tamil separatist groups in Sri Lanka as part of a broad geopolitical strategy to counter it. However, this came at the expense of significant internal costs for stability and economic development in Sri Lanka, which underlines the complex interaction of geopolitics and monetary policy in the region. India’s role in Sri Lanka’s civil conflict, had its own cost as well, primarily through the deployment of the Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF) to fight against the Tamil Tigers (LTTE), led to considerable tensions. The LTTE, feeling betrayed by India’s actions, grew increasingly hostile towards the country. This animosity reached a tragic peak with the assassination of Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi on May 21, 1991, carried out by a suicide bomber linked to the LTTE named Kalaivani Rajaratnam, alias Thenmozhi Rajaratnam, who was a member of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). Gandhi’s assassination was a direct result of India’s intervention in Sri Lanka, underscoring the complex and often perilous consequences of geopolitical involvement in regional disputes.
Sri Lanka and Singapore
The case of Sri Lanka is often compared with Singapore’s in economic development discussions because of their similarities in strategic location, population size, and historical context. Both island nations have the potential to emerge as economic powerhouses. It was in 1977 that the economy took a concrete turn towards market-oriented economic development under the open economic policy introduced by President J.R. Jayewardene. This considerable leap was intended to bring more foreign investment and higher exports by modernizing different sectors of the economy. If the subsequent governments had carried on with the open economic policy of JR, Sri Lanka might have achieved economic success comparable to Singapore’s.
One of the reasons for Singapore’s economic success has been its consistent liberalisation and openness to foreign investment. Had Sri Lanka not deviated from Jayewardene’s policies, it could have joined the rapid industrialisation and infrastructural modernization. The continuous inflow of foreign capital would have promoted technological advancements, improved public services, and enhanced the quality of life for many Sri Lankans.
Sri Lanka is well-placed in the Indian Ocean to perform the role of an international hub for trade. If it had continuously pursued open economy policies, the country could have emerged as a significant trading hub like Singapore. This would have brought substantial port facilities with free trade zones and efficient logistical networks that house companies from most parts of the world to boost their exporting capabilities and bring rapid economic growth.
In this regard, political stability is paramount for sustained economic development. Consistent and stable governance, in the form of well-defined policies and efficient institutions, would create an enabling environment wherein the business sector could flourish. This would encourage long-term investment and innovation, leading to a better distribution of economic benefits within the populace. What is required is investment in education and enhancement of skills for a competitive workforce. With more substantial investment in education and vocational training, Sri Lanka could have developed a highly skilled labour force to support high-tech industries and services, thus developing its human capital to ease the transition into a productivity-driven and knowledge-based economy. The situation was very well studied by India, whose plans were to disrupt the process that would lead to financial leadership of Sri Lanka in the region.
Yet, the reality is considerably more complex. Political change combined with civil war and economic dynamics shaped the financial fortunes of Sri Lanka. The successive regimes failed to pursue Jayewardene’s open economic policy to its logical conclusion. Lack of political will, instability, and the protracted civil war siphoned resources and interest from economic development. The interplay of factors such as major trade union action initiated by leftist politicians and the then JVP has destroyed the country’s economic journey. The international outlook and local economic policies of the new Sri Lankan government indicate that they have reconstituted the policies where Jayewardene (JRJ) left.
This indicates a continuation and revitalization of the economic strategies and international relations initiated during JRJ’s tenure, with the goal of further integrating Sri Lanka into the global economy while addressing contemporary challenges and opportunities. It represents a significant shift from the former JVP stance on Indian expansion that Wijeweera advocated.
India and open economy
India adopted the open economic policy in 1991, popularly known as the New Economic Policy, during the Prime Ministership of P. V. Narasimha Rao and the Finance Ministership of Dr. Manmohan Singh. Narasimha Rao was the first person from South India and the second person from a non-Hindi-speaking background to be the prime minister. His open economic policy reforms rescued the country from going towards bankruptcy during the economic crisis of 1991. This policy opened the Indian economy to the world, boosting the importation of raw materials, deregulating markets, and attracting foreign investment. Unlike in Sri Lanka, this policy was pursued and developed by successive governments, which led to India’s robust economy. The 1991 reforms addressed the immediate balance of payments crisis by opting for market-oriented, globally integrated reform. This constituted a sharp turnaround from the protectionist policy stance of yesteryears and provided an opportunity for all-round future development.
J.R. Jayewardene’s Open Economic Policy engendered tremendous criticism from politicians and scholars inclined toward the Left. They said his policies facilitated the privatization and sale of state-owned enterprises to hinder the country’s economic sovereignty and its people’s well-being. They say such a liberalization policy favours foreign investors and local elites while the masses struggle because of economic stringencies and the withdrawal of public services.
One of the most frequently cited remarks in discussions about President Jayewardene’s bold and sometimes controversial economic liberalization in Sri Lanka is his declaration: ‘Let the robber barons come!’ This statement represents the decision to open Sri Lanka’s economy to foreign investors and private enterprises, even at the risk of exploitation by large foreign business interests, particularly from the USA. The reforms initiated by Jayewardene marked a significant shift from the previous socialist orientation of the economy, specifically aimed at attracting foreign capital to drive rapid economic growth. The Accelerated Mahaweli program serves as a prime example of this initiative.
Geopolitical landscape
In today’s geopolitical landscape, where India is rising as a global power, Jayewardene’s quote becomes particularly relevant considering India’s assertive stance towards Sri Lanka. The parallels between Jayewardene’s era and the current situation under President Anura Kumara Dissanayake highlight the influence of powerful nations, especially India, on Sri Lanka’s economic and political strategies. The NPP government’s development initiatives, such as the oil refinery project supported by Chinese investment, which aims to sell or export surplus oil, could challenge India’s economic dominance, given that India refines and exports Russian crude oil. In this context, the NPP government must remain vigilant about potential threats from India, reminiscent of those faced during Jayewardene’s administration. India will likely hold Dissanayake accountable for strengthening ties with China, India’s most significant regional competitor, particularly regarding the oil refinery project. AKD’s government should cautiously approach the various overtures from India, as they often serve India’s interests rather than being motivated by genuine concern for Sri Lanka.
Midweek Review
Legacy of enforced disappearances: Vital facts conveniently forgotten to whitewash LTTE and India
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
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.
Midweek Review
Life Prisoner on the Run
By Lynn Ockersz
Just for a fleeting moment is this sense of relief,
As he eases himself heavily into his airline seat,
Hoping to leave no trace behind of his criminal self,
But he’s dragged down by a guilty conscience,
Which will dog him at heel from now onward,
And this is verily a cast-in-stone life sentence.
-
News7 days agoDenied of promotion to SC despite vacancies, justice Gurusinghe retires
-
News7 days ago22A: SC urged to suspend hearing, appoint full bench
-
News5 days agoNamal remanded until Sept. 18 over Airbus deal investigation
-
Latest News4 days agoTharanga creates history with Diamond League crown in Brussels
-
News7 days agoGovt. seeks NATO assistance
-
News4 days agoDispute which triggered listed company director being detained at BIA resolved
-
Editorial7 days agoStrange arithmetic goes unchallenged
-
Features3 days agoAfter the parade: What a traffic OIC’s walk-out tells us
