Connect with us

News

Bhandari’s 13A to Shringla’s 13A

Published

on

President Rajapaksa and Indian Foreign Secretary

by Austin Fernando
(Former High Commissioner of
Sri Lanka to India

Continued from yesterday

India’s security first

Lok Sabha Member Brajamohan Mohanty wished that the Sri Lankan Government would not stand any negotiations with foreign countries to invite foreign forces. Member Mohanarangam (Lok Sabha 27-2-1986) criticized Sri Lanka for inviting Americans, training, and President Zia’s visit.

Sri Lankans’ fear of Indians is deep-seated. When the British Cabinet delegation met PM DS Senanayaka, he had conveyed that he regarded the Indian problem as a danger, and therefore signed a military pact with the British in 1948.

The literature further reveals that India’s neighbours “should not seek to invite outside power(s). If anyone of them needed any assistance it should look to India. India’s attitude and relationship with her immediate neighbours depended on their appreciation of India’s regional security concerns; they would serve as buffer states in the event of an extra-regional threat and not proxies of the outside powers…” After 73 years, Indians’ position remains unchanged. This attitude is reflected in the Letters Exchanged in 1987.

Additional benefits to India

While the implementation of the Agreement is further clarified in the only Annexure in the Agreement, the ‘Exchange of Letters’ (not an Annexure) is concerned with security and economic benefits for India. In PM Rajiv Gandhi’s exchanged letter, reference is made to “the agreement reached.” President Jayewardene’s response mentions “the understanding reached.” The wording confuses the legal status, thus requiring interpretation.

However, the contents of the exchanged letters like broadcasting stations, ports, or airports reflect India’s security concerns. The Oil Tanks being serviced by Trincomalee Port will be of much anxiety for India. One may argue that the contents of Letters Exchanged demonstrate that India’s security interests took precedence over Lanka’s political and security issues in the Agreement. PM Gandhi has fished in troubled waters after the Bangalore meeting.

Flashback to 1986 from 2021

Focusing on the past, I refer to Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) stalwart Jaswant Singh (Lok Sabha 13-5-1986). He posed seven questions based on Sri Lankan responses. They are relevant even today.

* What is the Indian stand in the debate on devolution and delegation?

* Where do India and Sri Lanka stand on the amalgamation of the North and Eastern Provinces?

* What is the stand on land use by the Indian Government, GOSL, and the Tamil groups?

* What is the status of the language?

* What is the stand on Law and Order?

* What is the time frame for reaching a solution?

* What is the Indian government’s stand on foreign threats emerging in the context of the Sri Lankan issues?

 Had he lived today, as a former Jawan (Soldier), he would have either joined P Kulandaivelu and V Gopalaswamy in demanding military action or questioned PM Modi and Minister Jaishankar about Indian inefficiency or ineffectiveness.

After 35 years the status in response to Singh is:

* Devolution is ‘paralysed’ by the partial implementation of 13A and delayed elections.

* The amalgamation of Provinces shelved, judicially disfavouring India.

* Land power-sharing, by Sri Lanka’s rejection, is in India’s disfavor.

* The language issue is constitutionally solved but partially failed in implementation.

* Sri Lanka has disfavoured Indians by rejecting the Law and Order issue.

* The time frame for a solution is abstract, even after crushing Tigers 12 years ago.

* Foreign threats have heavily increased in India’s disfavor.

* The background scenarios or environments have changed.

* No military operations in the north and east.

* Ceasing violence and power-sharing, as a remedy, was the then demand. Now the focus is on human rights and humanitarian violations, returning refugees, and participatory development with dignity, equality, and self-respect. One may question whether failed 13A is the best tool for the purpose.

* Interventions were limited to India then, whereas now GOSL is cornered internationally.

* Tamil demands circulated mostly between the TULF and India then, whereas now the Diaspora’s enhanced lobbying has created negative consequences. Nevertheless, the President wishes to discuss with the Diaspora, though some are listed. The need is a mechanism.

* Other than to gain politically in Tamil Nadu because BJP is weak there, the Modi government has much bigger stakes to focus on, for example, ‘Chinese expansionism’, international capital movements, and Indo-Pacific and Indian Ocean Alliance’s interests than to toil for Lankan devolution.

* BJP has alternatives to win the GOSL, e.g. Kushinagar aviation, 15-million-dollar grant for Buddhist affairs, financial swap deals.

Fresh thinking

 Based on Jaswant Singh’s queries, and the current situation, instead of pursuing the 35-year-old demand, will not a new power-sharing approach pay richer dividends? For India, in the present geopolitical context, the Exchanged Letter has more to gain than from 13A or the Agreement.

 President Jayewardene strategised by vacillating until 13A finally happened. President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, a military strategist, must be emulating political veteran President Jayewardene on a different learning curve, i.e., what Sun Tzu said, “In war, practice dissimulation, and you will succeed.”

 I believe the President’s terminology: “must look at” plusses and minuses of 13A is an excuse for procrastination. If Secretary Shringla has gauged this behaviour correctly, he may have the last laugh as his goal must be to gain from Trincomalee Oil Tanks, ports, and aviation, etc, (contents of Exchanged Letters) while pleasing Tamil Nadu and our Tamil groups with 13A.

 Sri Lanka won the conflict in 2009, but still, devolutionary goals set in 1987 are yet to be achieved. Prabhakaran was unhappy and felt he was tricked and revenged. Successive governments have not pursued devolution and debilitated the PCs. The incumbent government must be thinking about new strategies. Therefore, Secretary Shringla’s ‘full implementation of 13A’ demand is likely to be listed for operations.

 Since the war and 13A have not resolved the reconciliation issues, what remains from Secretary Shringla’s demand is what Rajiv Gandhi said in Lok Sabha (4-3-1987.) “We know that no ethnic problem such as this has a military solution.” War victory and peace efforts have not relieved the affected. The tool (13A) has failed to succeed with and without war. To consider it as an all-season remedy may not stand the test.

 Therefore, PM Modi, Minister Jaishankar, and Secretary Shringla can repeat PM Gandhi’s quote to President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, 35- years later! What was considered appropriate during the war must be adjusted to suit the emerged environments.

Mahinda Rajapaksa and Maithripala Sirisena-Ranil Wickremesinghe governments and the incumbent administration have wasted 12 years from 2009. From Bhandari to Shringla, and Rajiv Gandhi to Narendra Modi, India also has failed in moving the politico-development process to success. Best wishes Secretary Shringla’s turn!

(Concluded)



Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Latest News

ITS Giuseppe Garibaldi’ departs Colombo

Published

on

By

The Italian Naval Vessel ‘ITS Giuseppe Garibaldi’ departed the Port of Colombo today, 12 September 2026, after completing a replenishment stop for logistics and services.

During the ship’s stay, the Commanding Officer of ITS Giuseppe Garibaldi, Captain Marco GUERRIERO, called on the Commander Western Naval Area, Rear Admiral Harsha De Silva, at the Western Naval Command Headquarters.

Members of the visiting crew also toured several tourist attractions across the Colombo area during their port call.

Continue Reading

News

Green Climate Fund (GCF) Regional Dialogue for East and South Asia will be held from 14 to 17 September 2026 at Cinnamon Life at City of Dreams Hotel, Colombo

Published

on

By

The Green Climate Fund (GCF) Regional Dialogue for Eastern and Southern Asia is scheduled to be held from September 14 to 17, 2026, at Cinnamon Life at City of Dreams, Colombo.

The Dialogue is hosted by the Government of Sri Lanka. The Green Climate Fund is the world’s largest dedicated climate fund established under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change to assist developing countries in responding to the challenges of climate change.

The Green Climate Fund aims to promote a paradigm shift towards low-emission and climate-resilient development
pathways by supporting developing countries in reducing their greenhouse gas emissions and adapting to the impacts of climate change.

The Ministry of Environment of Sri Lanka serves as the country’s National Designated Authority for the Green Climate Fund, playing a critical role in coordinating access to climate finance, nominating institutions for accreditation to the Green Climate Fund and approving funding proposals, and ensuring that activities supported by the Green Climate Fund are aligned with national development objectives.

More than 120 delegates from 10 countries are expected to participate. The participating countries are Bangladesh, Bhutan, China, India, the Maldives, Mongolia, Nepal, Pakistan, the Republic of Korea, and Sri Lanka.

Participants will include representatives of National Designated Authorities of the above countries, Direct Access Entities, Accredited Entities, civil society organizations, the private sector, development partners, and technical institutions across the region.

Sri Lanka’s delegation comprises Dr. Dammika Patabendi,  Minister of Environment,  Anton Jayakody, Deputy Minister of Environment, K.R. Uduwawala, Secretary, Ministry of Environment, and high-level government officials.

The Dialogue will provide a platform to:

Share challenges, experiences, and lessons learned from the implementation of climate change projects and programmes.

Strengthen regional cooperation and partnerships on climate finance.

Discuss the Green Climate Fund’s evolving strategies, policies, and approaches.

Identify opportunities to accelerate climate investments across East and South Asia.

Hosting the Regional Dialogue in Colombo will provide Sri Lanka with an important opportunity to engage with senior government officials, private-sector representatives, development partners, technical experts, and international climate finance institutions.

The event is expected to support Sri Lanka’s efforts to improve access to climate finance and international grants, showcase national climate action initiatives and achievements, and strengthen the country’s engagement with the global climate community.

The Dialogue will also offer a strategic platform for Sri Lankan institutions that have applied for direct accreditation to present their project concepts and engage directly with representatives of the Green Climate Fund. These engagements are expected to support the accreditation process and contribute to the expansion of Sri Lanka’s network of Direct Access Entities through stronger regional partnerships and increased cooperation on climate finance, the Regional Dialogue will
contribute to positioning Sri Lanka as a credible and reliable partner for climate investment.

Projects that Sri Lanka has received funding from this fund are:
• The main projects that Sri Lanka has received support from the Green Climate Fund at present include the Wevu Gam Pubuduwa Project (52.1 USD Million) and the GCF Knuckles Project (49 USD Million).

7.5 USD Million has been allocated from GCF for 5 National Designated Authority Readiness Projects (NDA Readiness Projects) and for the National Adaptation Plan Readiness Project (NAP Readiness Project).

Approval has also been obtained for 3 regional projects. (Cooling Facility Programme, Global Fund for Coral Reef Investment Window, PEEB COOL Programme)

Sri Lanka has also identified 5 project concepts as priority projects for the Green Climate Fund period 2024-2027 and has taken steps to submit those project concepts (Concept Notes) for
approval by the Green Climate Fund.

The “Climate-resilient Fisheries in Sri Lanka” project concept (USD 107.5 million) submitted by DFCC Bank has already received approval.

Continue Reading

News

Prof. Pieris says Buddha Dhamma recognised as source of law under Constitution

Published

on

G.L. Peiris

Former Minister and People’s Joint Opposition Convener Prof. G.L. Peiris has challenged the assertion that the Supreme Court’s determination on the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution would be based solely on law and not Buddhist teachings, arguing that such a position is inconsistent with Article 9 of the Constitution and established judicial precedent.

In a special statement, titled “Buddhist Doctrine as a Source of Law in Sri Lanka”, Prof. Peiris has said the issue had arisen during the 22nd Amendment determination proceedings when Ven. Balangoda Kassapa referred to the Buddha Dhamma in his submissions.

According to Prof. Peiris, the Chief Justice responded that the determination would be made on the basis of the law and not Buddhist teachings.

Describing this as a “cavalier dismissal” of the Buddha Dhamma. Prof. Peiris has said it is contrary to Article 9, which gives Buddhism the foremost place and requires the State to protect and foster the Buddha Sasana.

Full text of the statement: In the 22nd Amendment determination proceedings, Venerable Balangoda Kassapa, in his submissions, made reference to the Buddha Dhamma. His Lordship the Chief Justice, in reply, made the strong assertion that the determination would be made on the basis of the law and not Buddhist teachings. This cavalier dismissal of the Buddha Dhamma is totally inconsistent with Article 9 of the Constitution and its authoritative interpretation in judicial decisions.

I. Authoritative Sri Lankan Judicial Authority A few examples may be cited.

In the Antiquities Amendment Bill, the Supreme Court, in its determination, observed: “The expression Buddha Sasana is wider than Buddhism and includes the entire establishment, together with objects and places of religious practices and worship of Buddhists”.

In Re the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution and the Provincial Councils Bill, 1987 2 Sri Lanka LR 312, Wanasundera J, referring to the term Buddha Sasana, said that it was “a compendious term encompassing all ancient, historic and sacred objects and places which have from ancient times been associated with the religious practices and worship of Sinhala Buddhists”.

It is clear that the Buddha Sasana is not confined to matters of ritual or practice, but includes the substance of Buddhist teachings. This is borne out clearly in other judgments of the Supreme Court.

An explicit example is the determination of the Supreme Court in the Ayurveda Amendment Bill, SCSD, numbers 22-35/2023, where the Court declared: “We hold that Buddha Sasana in Article 9 of the Constitution includes the dhamma, principles and teachings of Buddhism, including in particular recognized and undisputed codifications of the teachings of Lord Buddha”.

There are several other passages in the judgment which offer strong authority on the point.

The Court declared: “We determine that the word Buddha Sasana in Article 9 is a compendious term and includes the entire establishment of Buddhism as defined above. We conclude that the Tripitaka, consisting of the Vinaya Pitaka, the Sutta Pitaka and the Abhidhamma Pitaka, falls within the word Buddha Sasana. Hence the State has a duty inter alia to protect and foster the Tripitaka”.

The Court was uncompromising in its declaration that “While retaining the word Buddhism to denote the religion to which foremost place has been accorded in the Republic, the word Buddha Sasana was used to impose a duty on the State to protect and foster the entire establishment of Buddhism”.

The Court’s approach is very clear from the following passage: “We must proceed to interpret Article 9 of the Constitution on the basis that this change was intentional on the part of the legislature. It was meant to cover an area wider than Buddhism”.

II. International Judicial Authority

There is valuable material in the jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice at The Hague.

Judge C. G. Weeramantry, in his dissenting opinion in the ICJ’s 1996 advisory opinion on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons, said that Buddhism could provide an important humanitarian perspective when considering the legality of nuclear weapons. The judge cited as his source the work by Walpola Rahula, entitled What the Buddha Taught, 1959.

Similarly, Judge Weeramantry, in his separate opinion in the maritime delimitation in the area between Greenland and Jan Mayen case, 1993, commented on the international legal concept of equity. In this connection, he referred to “the elaborately researched concept of fairness and justice in Buddhism”.

Continue Reading

Trending