Connect with us

Midweek Review

Strengthening bilateral relations or opening doors for competition?

Published

on

President Dissanayake with Indian PM Modi in New Delhi (L) / President Dissanayake with Chinese President Jinping in Beijing (R)

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.



Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

Midweek Review

At the edge of a world war

Published

on

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

His warning hovers over the present war in Iran.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue Reading

Midweek Review

Live Coals Burst Aflame

Published

on

Live coals of decades-long hate,

Are bursting into all-consuming flames,

In lands where ‘Black Gold’ is abundant,

And it’s a matter to be thought about,

If humans anywhere would be safe now,

Unless these enmities dying hard,

With roots in imperialist exploits,

And identity-based, tribal violence,

Are set aside and laid finally to rest,

By an enthronement of the principle,

Of the Equal Dignity of Humans.

By Lynn Ockersz

Continue Reading

Midweek Review

Saga of the arrest of retired intelligence chief

Published

on

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

****

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

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

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

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

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

Ranil hits out at media

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suresh moved to Malaysia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Contradictory stands

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

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

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

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

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

Continue Reading

Trending