Midweek Review
A dilemma like no other!
Two contentious issues that may never be resolved are disagreement between India and Sri Lanka over granting police and land powers to Provincial Councils, arm twisted by New Delhi into establishing them here along with the signing of the Indo-Lanka Accord following the infamous parippu drop over the North in 1987 and organized poaching by Tamil Nadu fishers, a problem that can be addressed only by India deploying its powerful Coast Guard, backed by the Navy, to prevent violation of Indo-Lanka maritime boundary.
By Shamindra Ferdinando
Sri Lanka is in a tight spot. Joint statements issued by India and Sri Lanka on Dec, 16, last year, and China and Sri Lanka on January 16, this year, following President Anura Kumara Dissanayake’s state visits to New Delhi and Beijing, respectively, underscored the daunting foreign policy challenges faced by the new Sri Lankan leader whose National People’s Power (NPP) secured a landslide victory at the Nov. 2024 parliamentary election, promising a literal sea change.
Dissanayake is also the leader of the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP), a once rabidly anti-Indian political movement that waged two unsuccessful insurrections, in 1971 and 1987-1990. Under the JVP’s leadership, the NPP was formed in 2019, just ahead of that year’s presidential election.
Against the backdrop of an unprecedented political environment that had been created by the routing of existing major parties and the emergence of the NPP as the dominant political force here, the Asian giants are determined to consolidate their own separate position here. The joint statements emphasized their agenda.
The issues at hand cannot be examined without taking into consideration the strong and growing US-India relationship, in spite of the latter playing safe in the Russia-Ukraine war and the US-China conflict, as well as the US and India teaming up against Beijing. It appears, however, neither the US nor India trust each other. Their game plan is to try use the other for one’s own benefit in their current marriage of convenience. Washington, without doubt, considers both China and India are a threat to US hegemony.
Whether hapless Sri Lanka likes it or not, or regardless who wields political power here, the major powers won’t change their strategies. That is the unpleasant reality.
In the wake of President Dissanayake’s four-day visit to Beijing (January 14 to 17), a section of the Opposition engaged in the usual criticism of the NPP government, though they generally remained silent on the outcome of his New Delhi visit. China and India dominate major political parties represented in Parliament and the continuing political-economic-social turmoil facilitated their agenda. Our treacherous political party system is obviously incapable of addressing developing challenges. They have pathetically failed to reach consensus on national response to external interventions thereby allowing major powers to manipulate the country.
Having perused the two joint statements, the writer is of the view that in spite of Sri Lanka being party to both, they are contradictory and seem unrealistic to a certain extent. The bottom line is Sri Lanka cannot play ball simultaneously with China and India suspicious of each other. They are hell-bent on undermining each other and Sri Lanka is caught up in an utterly dangerous game. Sri Lanka is stuck in the China-India conflict and obviously there is no way out. Whatever Sri Lanka does may antagonize either party and Colombo seems helpless. The joint statements highlight Sri Lanka’s predicament. Nothing can be as absurd as Sri Lanka declaring a shared future with both India and China. In fact, the 34-point Indo-Lanka joint statement was headlined ‘Fostering partnerships for a shared future.’
While India based its relationship with Sri Lanka on the basis of Premier Narendra Modi’s ‘Neighborhood First Policy’ (read India first policy) and ‘SAGAR’ vision (Security and growth for all in the Indian Ocean region) meaning our giant neighbour is primus inter pares, China focused on what the joint statement described as deepening traditional friendship and advancing high-quality Belt and Road cooperation widely discussed as a massive China-led infrastructure project.
But unlike China, India being our giant neighbour she is overbearing and it would be wise of us to handle India with extreme care. Therefore allowing her to have a monopoly position in any part of our economy is asking for trouble to say the least.
Launched in 2013 the China project is also known as ‘Belt and Road Initiative’ (BRI) and ‘New Silk Road.’ The US and its allies are strongly opposed to the Chinese project, originally called ‘One Belt One Road’.
India strongly opposes any Chinese initiative here hence the joint statement issued following President Dissanayake’s visit must have disappointed New Delhi greatly. The truth is that the statement from Beijing questions the very basis of the joint statement issued on Dec. 16th last year. Regardless of Western and Indian pressure, Beijing has constantly advanced its own project here and elsewhere.
India’s main grouse is the sea and land-based China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) that may give China a strategic advantage over India.
Key points in Jan. 16 statement
President Dissanayake’s delegation to Beijing included two Ministers – Foreign Affairs, Foreign Employment and Tourism Vijitha Herath, and Transport, Highways, Ports and Civil Aviation Minister and Leader of the House Bimal Rathnayake. Both are senior JVPers who stood by Dissanayake during the internal turmoil within that party during Mahinda Rajapaksa’s tenure as the President (2005-2014).
President Dissanayake met President Xi Jinping, Premier of the State Council Li Qiang and Chairman of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress Zhao Leji.
In line with the overall Chinese approach, their focus was on Belt and Road cooperation. Against that background, the joint statement emphasized the pivotal importance of advancing what the Chinese called ‘high quality Belt and Road cooperation.’
They reiterated unwavering commitment to what the joint statement described as expanding China-Sri Lanka strategic cooperative partnership.
Then they also decided to sustain ‘close high-level exchanges in keeping with ‘strong strategic guidance’ given by the Chinese and Sri Lankan leaders.’
Sri Lanka repeated its longstanding commitment for ‘One-China’ policy or principle in line with the United Nations general assembly Resolution 2758 passed on Oct. 25th, 1971. In other words, that Resolution accepted Taiwan as an inalienable part of China. It would be pertinent to mention that India, too, accepted the ‘One-China’ principle but over the years refrained from reiterating its position. According to the joint statement, Sri Lanka fully backed all efforts by China to achieve national reunification.
Sri Lanka also assured that the country wouldn’t be a platform for anti-China activity and also backed Beijing in respect of issues related to Xizang (Tibet) and the predominantly Muslim Xinjiang regions where China is under Western fire over purported human rights violations.
The UN that often echo Western line saw its Human Rights Chief Volker Turk jumped to criticise Chinese actions in the above-mentioned regions and the Chinese alleged that the UNHRC strategy is meant to undermine China.
In the fifth paragraph of the joint statement with Colombo that dealt with the contentious Xizang and Xinjiang issues, China reiterated its ‘commitment to an independent foreign policy of peace’ whereas Sri Lanka repeated its pledge for ‘an independent non-aligned foreign policy.’
Having been trapped in Chinese, Indian and Western machinations, declaration of ‘an independent non-aligned foreign policy, ‘seemed ridiculous.
The focus on Belt and Road cooperation was underscored with Sri Lanka’s acceptance of President Jinping’s flagship project key to economic and social development. Therefore, the reiteration of the pivotal importance of the Colombo Port City and Hambantota Port, both built by China, didn’t surprise anyone. However, eyebrows were raised that China and Sri Lanka entered into a Belt and Road cooperation plan meant to upgrade/strengthen the Chinese flagship project.
Once Gotabaya Rajapaksa told the writer how Indian National Security Advisor (NSA) Ajit Doval pressed him to cancel major Chinese projects here. Responding to queries raised by the writer in Dec., 2016, Gotabaya Rajapaksa explained the dissimilarity between Doval and his predecessor Shivshankar Menon (January 2010 to May 2014) who had served as Foreign Secretary before receiving the appointment as NSA.
The former Defence Secretary said Menon, in his memoirs, Choices: Inside the Making of India’s Foreign Policy had acknowledged the understanding between the Mahinda Rajapaksa government and India during the war and post-conflict period. However, Menon’s successor Ajit Doval had taken an entirely different stand vis-a-vis Sri Lanka, Rajapaksa said.
Rajapaksa said Doval called for the cancellation of the USD 1.4 bn Chinese flagship project, the Colombo Port City. In addition to that demand which Rajapaksa said was very unfair, India demanded that Sri Lanka take over the Colombo International Container Terminals Limited (CICT), a joint venture between China Merchants Port Holdings Company Limited (CMPH) and the Sri Lanka Ports Authority (SLPA).
CMPH holds 85% of the partnership whilst the balance 15% is with the SLPA.
Rajapaksa quoted Doval as having told him that India wanted all Chinese funded infrastructure projects stopped and for Sri Lanka to have full control of the Hambantota Port. Rajapaksa quoted Doval as having told him: “Sri Lanka is a small country, you don’t need such development projects.”
Maritime issues, etc.
In addition to Sri Lanka seeking early implementation with China of what the joint statement called an agreed debt restructuring plan and early conclusion of a comprehensive free trade agreement, they dealt with maritime cooperation. They agreed to conduct regular bilateral consultations on maritime matters.
China and Sri Lanka decided to sign a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on Ocean Cooperation to pave the way for what the joint communique called Blue Partnership. The Blue Partnership is obviously an integral part of the Belt and Road Cooperation.
The joint statement conveniently refrained from making reference to the contentious issue of Chinese research vessels’ visit to Sri Lanka. Repeated Indian and US protests during the early phase of Ranil Wickremesinghe’s presidency (2022 July-Nov 2024) compelled the beleaguered leader to declare a moratorium on such foreign vessels. That decision was meant to prevent Chinese research vessels entering Sri Lankan waters. The Indian media had routinely categorized all Chinese research vessels as spy ships.
President Dissanayake’s government is yet to announce its stand on Wickremesinghe’s moratorium on such foreign ship visits. In spite of Minister Vijitha Herath’s declaration on Dec., 20, 2024, that a special committee would be established to implement a national policy in respect of foreign vessels seeking to enter Sri Lankan waters nothing has been heard so far of the proposed committee.
Regardless of repeated assurances that Sri Lankan territory won’t be used against India’s security interests, the Modi government is seriously concerned over Chinese moves here. India hardened its stance after the Yahapalana government (2015 January to 2019 November) leased the strategically located Hambantota Port on a 99-year lease to China in 2017. That increased Indian concerns as China consolidated its position here. It would be pertinent to mention that China secured what it wanted in spite of the Yahapalana government initially taking an extremely hostile position towards Beijing. The Yahapalana government went to the extent of suspending the Colombo Port City project in March 2015. But, China Communication Construction Company (CCCC) resumed the project in August 2016 after China and Sri Lanka settled differences over the project that was finalized in Sept. 2014 in the presence of President Jinping in Colombo.

Chinese leader Jinping with President Dissanayake
In addition to the USD 1.4 ban Colombo Port City project, China invested USD 1.2 bn in the Hambantota Port. But, President Disanayake’s Office claimed that it secured a fresh investment of USD 3.7 bn for a state-of-the-art oil refinery in Hambantota. That investment declared as the single largest FDI by the President’s Office is part of the Belt and Road cooperation.
However, the UNP has challenged the President’s claim, emphasizing that the agreement on an oil refinery with China was finalized in Nov. 2023 by President Wickremesinghe’s administration.
According to the UNP, Sri Lanka reached consensus on Chinese investment due to the delay in construction undertaken by a consortium that included Silver Park International (Private) Limited of Singapore (controlled by India’s Accord Group) and Oman’s Ministry of Oil and Gas. Interestingly, that agreement had been signed in March 2019 during Maithripala Sirisena’s presidency.
China hasn’t allowed domestic politics here to derail their plans. The Chinese strategy is on track. The Hambantota Port agreement and the proposed oil refinery at Mirijjawila are cases in point. Having signed a deal on the construction of a brand new international port at Hambantota during Mahinda Rajapaksa’s presidency, China secured the port for a mere USD 1.2 bn from the Wickremesinghe regime.
Later President Gotabaya Rajapaksa found fault with the Yahapalana administration for leasing the port to China. Declaring that the leasing of the Hambantota Port was a mistake, Gotabaya Rajapaksa, in his first interview as President with Nitin A. Gokhale, Editor-in-Chief of Bharat Shakti.in and SNI, in late Nov. 2019, said he wanted to renegotiate the deal. The Yahapalana deal covered the port and approximately 15,000 acres around it. China simply dismissed that notion about an agreement concluded with the previous Yahapalana regime. Since then no one dared to take up that issue. China obviously intends to consolidate its position in the South around Hambantota, just as India tightens its grip around Northeast Sri Lanka, which includes the world’s fourth largest natural harbour at Trincomalee earlier coveted by the US.
Post-Aragalaya developments
In the run-up to the presidential election last Sept, India indicated what it desired from the new President. On behalf of India, Pathfinder Foundation presented a comprehensive proposal meant to consolidate Indo-Lanka partnership to all presidential candidates.
During President Disanayake’s visit, India built up on the agreement Premier Modi finalized with President Wickremesinghe in July 2023. Like China, India, too, since the successful conclusion of the war in 2009, advanced its strategy, here, meticulously.
However, China never matched Indian financial assistance during the unprecedented crisis here. India provided assistance posthaste. According to Premier Modi, India extended grants and Lines of Credit worth USD 5 bn to Sri Lanka during the presidencies of Gotabaya Rajapaksa and Ranil Wickremesinghe. In fact, NPP leader Disanayake in the run-up to the presidential election thanked India for unprecedented assistance provided in the hour of Sri Lanka’s need.
New Delhi also paid USD 20.66 mn to settle payments due from Sri Lanka for Indian projects here completed under operational Lines of Credit.
A major difference between India-Sri Lanka joint statement and China-Sri Lanka communique is the former’s focus on defence relations. During a joint media briefing with President Dissanayake in New Delhi Premier Modi declared that he and President Dissanayake decided to quickly finalize the Security Cooperation Agreement. However, the Indo-Lanka joint statement differed from Premier Modi’s declaration in respect of the proposed Security Cooperation Agreement.
According to the joint communique, India and Sri Lanka agreed to explore the possibility of concluding a framework agreement on defence cooperation. Under a section headlined ‘Strategic & Defence Cooperation’, the communique dealt comprehensively with Sri Lanka’s needs. India addressed the issues at hand while assuring backing for defence needs. But, entering into a Security Cooperation Agreement /Defence Cooperation Agreement as mentioned in the joint communique, cannot under any circumstances be taken by the government without having consensus with all political parties represented in Parliament.
India’s offer should be examined keeping in mind Sri Lanka never sought a defence agreement with any particular country, even during the difficult war to defeat LTTE terrorism that lasted for about 30 years, but somehow procured arms, ammunition and equipment as well as training from a wide range of suppliers, including China, Israel, Pakistan, Czechoslovakia, Ukraine as well as Russia. The matter is definitely bone of contention for obvious reasons.
Although India caused terrorism here in the ’80s and should be held responsible for massive death and destruction caused, the war couldn’t have been brought to a successful conclusion without New Delhi’s silent, but invaluable backing to defeat the LTTE during the final Eelam War (2006 Aug. to 2009 May). That is the hard truth. Many people may find that hard to accept. With the LTTE getting too big for its shoes, with subtle backing from the West, especially by turning a blind eye to its terror infrastructure like drug running and arms smuggling from their countries, India, too, was left with no other option, especially after it daringly assassinated its beloved former Premier Rajiv Gandhi on its own soil.
Midweek Review
Daya Pathirana killing and transformation of the JVP
JVP leader Somawansa Amarasinghe, who returned to Sri Lanka in late Nov, 2001, ending a 12-year self-imposed exile in Europe, declared that India helped him flee certain death as the government crushed his party’s second insurrection against the state in the ’80s, using even death squads. Amarasinghe, sole surviving member of the original politburo of the JVP, profusely thanked India and former Prime Minister V.P. Singh for helping him survive the crackdown. Neither the JVP nor India never explained the circumstances New Delhi facilitated Amarasinghe’s escape, particularly against the backdrop of the JVP’s frenzied anti-India campaign. The JVP has claimed to have killed Indian soldiers in the East during the 1987-1989 period. Addressing his first public meeting at Kalutara, a day after his arrival, Amarasinghe showed signs that the party had shed its anti-India policy of yesteryears. The JVPer paid tribute to the people of India, PM Singh and Indian officials who helped him escape.
By Shamindra Ferdinando
Forty years after the killing of Daya Pathirana, the third head of the Independent Student Union (ISU) by the Socialist Students’ Union (SSU), affiliated with the JVP, one-time Divaina journalist Dharman Wickremaretne has dealt with the ISU’s connections with some Tamil terrorist groups. The LTTE (Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam) hadn’t been among them, according to Wickremaretne’s Daya Pathirana Ghathanaye Nodutu Peththa (The Unseen Side of Daya Pathirana Killing), the fifth of a series of books that discussed the two abortive insurgencies launched by the JVP in 1971 and the early ’80s.
Pathirana was killed on 15 December, 1986. His body was found at Hirana, Panadura. Pathirana’s associate, Punchiralalage Somasiri, also of the ISU, who had been abducted, along with Pathirana, was brutally attacked but, almost by a miracle, survived to tell the tale. Daya Pathirana was the second person killed after the formation of the Deshapremi Janatha Vyaparaya (DJV), the macabre wing of the JVP, in early March 1986. The DJV’s first head had been JVP politburo member Saman Piyasiri Fernando.
Its first victim was H. Jayawickrema, Principal of Middeniya Gonahena Vidyalaya, killed on 05 December, 1986. The JVP found fault with him for suspending several students for putting up JVP posters.
Wickremaretne, who had been relentlessly searching for information, regarding the violent student movements for two decades, was lucky to receive obviously unconditional support of those who were involved with the SSU and ISU as well as other outfits. Somasiri was among them.
Deepthi Lamaheva had been ISU’s first leader. Warnakulasooriya succeeded Lamahewa and was replaced by Pathirana. After Pathirana’s killing K.L. Dharmasiri took over. Interestingly, the author justified Daya Pathirana’s killing on the basis that those who believed in violence died by it.
Wickremaretne’s latest book, the fifth of the series on the JVP, discussed hitherto largely untouched subject – the links between undergraduates in the South and northern terrorists, even before the July 1983 violence in the wake of the LTTE killing 12 soldiers, and an officer, while on a routine patrol at Thinnavely, Jaffna.
The LTTE emerged as the main terrorist group, after the Jaffna killings, while other groups plotted to cause mayhem. The emergence of the LTTE compelled the then JRJ government to transfer all available police and military resources to the North, due to the constant attacks that gradually weakened government authority there. In Colombo, ISU and Tamil groups, including the PLOTE (People’s Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam) enhanced cooperation. Wickremaretne shed light on a disturbing ISU-PLOTE connection that hadn’t ever been examined or discussed or received sufficient public attention.
In fact, EROS (Eelam Revolutionary Organisation of Students), too, had been involved with the ISU. According to the author, the ISU had its first meeting on 10 April, 1980. In the following year, ISU established contact with the EPRLF (Eelam People’s Revolutionary Liberation Front). The involvement of ISU with the PLOTE and Wickremaretne revealed how the SSU probed that link and went to the extent of secretly interrogating ISU members in a bid to ascertain the details of that connection. ISU activist Pradeep Udayakumara Thenuwara had been forcibly taken to Sri Jayewardenepura University where he was subjected to strenuous interrogation by SSU in a bid to identify those who were involved in a high profile PLOTE operation.
The author ascertained that the SSU suspected Pathirana’s direct involvement in the PLOTE attack on the Nikaweratiya Police Station, and the Nikaweratiya branch of the People’s Bank, on April 26, 1985. The SSU believed that out of a 16-member gang that carried out the twin attacks, two were ISU members, namely Pathirana, and another identified as Thalathu Oya Seneviratne, aka Captain Senevi.
The SSU received information regarding ISU’s direct involvement in the Nikaweratiya attacks from hardcore PLOTE cadre Nagalingam Manikkadasan, whose mother was a Sinhalese and closely related to JVP’s Upatissa Gamanayake. The LTTE killed Manikkadasan in a bomb attack on a PLOTE office, in Vavuniya, in September, 1999. The writer met Manikkadasan, at Bambapalitiya, in 1997, in the company of Dharmalingham Siddharthan. The PLOTE had been involved in operations in support of President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga’s administration.
It was President Premadasa who first paved the way for Tamil groups to enter the political mainstream. In spite of some of his own advisors expressing concern over Premadasa’s handling of negotiations with the LTTE, he ordered the then Elections Commissioner Chandrananda de Silva to grant political recognition to the LTTE. The LTTE’s political wing PFLT (People’s Front of Liberation Tigers) received recognition in early December, 1989, seven months before Eelam War II erupted.
Transformation of ISU
The author discussed the formation of the ISU, its key members, links with Tamil groups, and the murderous role in the overall counter insurgency campaign during JRJ and Ranasinghe Premadasa presidencies. Some of those who had been involved with the ISU may have ended up with various other groups, even civil society groups. Somasiri, who was abducted along with Pathirana at Thunmulla and attacked with the same specialised knife, but survived, is such a person.
Somasiri contested the 06 May Local Government elections, on the Jana Aragala Sandhanaya ticket. Jana Aragala Sandhanaya is a front organisation of the Frontline Socialist Party/ Peratugaami pakshaya, a breakaway faction of the JVP that also played a critical role in the violent protest campaign Aragalaya against President Gotabaya Rajapaksa. That break-up happened in April 2012, The wartime Defence Secretary, who secured the presidency at the 2019 presidential election, with 6.9 mn votes, was forced to give up office, in July 2022, and flee the country.
Somasiri and Jana Aragala Sandhanaya were unsuccessful; the group contested 154 Local Government bodies and only managed to secure only 16 seats whereas the ruling party JVP comfortably won the vast majority of Municipal Councils, Urban Councils and Pradeshiya Sabhas.
Let us get back to the period of terror when the ISU was an integral part of the UNP’s bloody response to the JVP challenge. The signing of the Indo-Lanka accord, in late July 1987, resulted in the intensification of violence by both parties. Wickremaretne disclosed secret talks between ISU leader K.L. Dharmasiri and the then Senior SSP (Colombo South) Abdul Cader Abdul Gafoor to plan a major operation to apprehend undergraduates likely to lead protests against the Indo-Lanka accord. Among those arrested were Gevindu Cumaratunga and Anupa Pasqual. Cumaratunga, in his capacity as the leader of civil society group Yuthukama, that contributed to the campaign against Yahapalanaya, was accommodated on the SLPP National List (2020 to 2024) whereas Pasqual, also of Yuthukama, entered Parliament on the SLPP ticket, having contested Kalutara. Pasqual switched his allegiance to Ranil Wickremesinghe after Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s ouster in July 2022.
SSU/JVP killed K.L. Dharmasiri on 19 August, 1989, in Colomba Kochchikade just a few months before the Army apprehended and killed JVP leader Rohana Wijeweera. Towards the end of the counter insurgency campaign, a section of the ISU was integrated with the military (National Guard). The UNP government had no qualms in granting them a monthly payment.
Referring to torture chambers operated at the Law Faculty of the Colombo University and Yataro operations centre, Havelock Town, author Wickremaretne underscored the direct involvement of the ISU in running them.
Maj. Tuan Nizam Muthaliff, who had been in charge of the Yataro ‘facility,’ located near State Defence Minister Ranjan Wijeratne’s residence, is widely believed to have shot Wijeweera in November, 1989. Muthaliff earned the wrath of the LTTE for his ‘work’ and was shot dead on May 3, 2005, at Polhengoda junction, Narahenpita. At the time of Muthaliff’s assassination, he served in the Military Intelligence.
Premadasa-SSU/JVP link
Ex-lawmaker and Jathika Chinthanaya Kandayama stalwart Gevindu Cumaratunga, in his brief address to the gathering, at Wickremaretne’s book launch, in Colombo, compared Daya Pathirana’s killing with the recent death of Nandana Gunatilleke, one-time frontline JVPer.
Questioning the suspicious circumstances surrounding Gunatilleke’s demise, Cumaratunga strongly emphasised that assassinations shouldn’t be used as a political tool or a weapon to achieve objectives. The outspoken political activist discussed the Pathirana killing and Gunatilleke’s demise, recalling the false accusations directed at the then UNPer Gamini Lokuge regarding the high profile 1986 hit.
Cumaratunga alleged that the SSU/JVP having killed Daya Pathirana made a despicable bid to pass the blame to others. Turning towards the author, Cumaratunga heaped praise on Wickremaretne for naming the SSU/JVP hit team and for the print media coverage provided to the student movements, particularly those based at the Colombo University.
Cumaratunga didn’t hold back. He tore into SSU/JVP while questioning their current strategies. At one point a section of the audience interrupted Cumaratunga as he made references to JVP-led Jathika Jana Balawegaya (JJB) and JJB strategist Prof. Nirmal Dewasiri, who had been with the SSU during those dark days. Cumaratunga recalled him attending Daya Pathirana’s funeral in Matara though he felt that they could be targeted.
Perhaps the most controversial and contentious issue raised by Cumaratunga was Ranasinghe Premadasa’s alleged links with the SSU/JVP. The ex-lawmaker reminded the SSU/JVP continuing with anti-JRJ campaign even after the UNP named Ranasinghe Premadasa as their candidature for the December 1988 presidential election. His inference was clear. By the time Premadasa secured the presidential nomination he had already reached a consensus with the SSU/JVP as he feared JRJ would double cross him and give the nomination to one of his other favourites, like Gamini Dissanayake or Lalith Athulathmudali.
There had been intense discussions involving various factions, especially among the most powerful SSU cadre that led to putting up posters targeting Premadasa at the Colombo University. Premadasa had expressed surprise at the appearance of such posters amidst his high profile ‘Me Kawuda’ ‘Monawada Karanne’poster campaign. Having questioned the appearance of posters against him at the Colombo University, Premadasa told Parliament he would inquire into such claims and respond. Cumaratunga alleged that night UNP goons entered the Colombo University to clean up the place.
The speaker suggested that the SSU/JVP backed Premadasa’s presidential bid and the UNP leader may have failed to emerge victorious without their support. He seemed quite confident of his assertion. Did the SSU/JVP contribute to Premadasa’s victory at one of the bloodiest post-independence elections in our history.
Cumaratunga didn’t forget to comment on his erstwhile comrade Anupa Pasqual. Alleging that Pasqual betrayed Yuthukama when he switched allegiance to Wickremesinghe, Cumaratunga, however, paid a glowing tribute to him for being a courageous responder, as a student leader.
SSU accepts Eelam
One of the most interesting chapters was the one that dealt with the Viplawadi Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna/Revolutionary Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (RJVP), widely known as the Vikalpa Kandaya/Alternative Group and the ISU mount joint campaigns with Tamil groups. Both University groups received weapons training, courtesy PLOTE and EPRLF, both here, and in India, in the run-up to the so-called Indo-Lanka Peace Accord. In short, they accepted Tamils’ right to self-determination.
The author also claimed that the late Dharmeratnam Sivaram had been in touch with ISU and was directly involved in arranging weapons training for ISU. No less a person than PLOTE Chief Uma Maheswaran had told the author that PLOTE provided weapons training to ISU, free of charge ,and the JVP for a fee. Sivaram, later contributed to several English newspapers, under the pen name Taraki, beginning with The Island. By then, he propagated the LTTE line that the war couldn’t be brought to a successful conclusion through military means. Taraki was abducted near the Bambalapitiya Police Station on the night of 28 April, 2005, and his body was found the following day.
The LTTE conferred the “Maamanithar” title upon the journalist, the highest civilian honour of the movement.
In the run up to the Indo-Lanka Peace Accord, India freely distributed weapons to Tamil terrorist groups here who in turn trained Sinhala youth.
Had it been part of the overall Indian destabilisation project, directed at Sri Lanka? PLOTE and EPRLF couldn’t have arranged weapons training in India as well as terrorist camps here without India’s knowledge. Unfortunately, Sri Lanka never sought to examine the origins of terrorism here and identified those who propagated and promoted separatist ideals.
Exactly a year before Daya Pathirana’s killing, arrangements had been made by ISU to dispatch a 15-member group to India. But, that move had been cancelled after law enforcement authorities apprehended some of those who received weapons training in India earlier. Wickremaretne’s narrative of the students’ movement, with the primary focus of the University of Colombo, is a must read. The author shed light on the despicable Indian destabilisation project that, if succeeded, could have caused and equally destructive war in the South. In a way, Daya Pathirana’s killing preempted possible wider conflict in the South.
Gevindu Cumaratunga, in his thought-provoking speech, commented on Daya Pathirana. At the time Cumaratunga entered Colombo University, he hadn’t been interested at all in politics. But, the way the ISU strongman promoted separatism, influenced Cumaratunga to counter those arguments. The ex-MP recollected how Daya Pathirana, a heavy smoker (almost always with a cigarette in his hand) warned of dire consequences if he persisted with his counter views.
In fact, Gevindu Cumaratunga ensured that the ’80s terror period was appropriately discussed at the book launch. Unfortunately, Wickremaretne’s book didn’t cause the anticipated response, and a dialogue involving various interested parties. It would be pertinent to mention that at the time the SSU/JVP decided to eliminate Daya Pathirana, it automatically received the tacit support of other student factions, affiliated to other political parties, including the UNP.
Soon after Anura Kumara Dissanayake received the leadership of the JVP from Somawansa Amarasinghe, in December 2014, he, in an interview with Saroj Pathirana of BBC Sandeshaya, regretted their actions during the second insurgency. Responding to Pathirana’s query, Dissanayake not only regretted but asked for forgiveness for nearly 6,000 killings perpetrated by the party during that period. Author Wickremaretne cleverly used FSP leader Kumar Gunaratnam’s interview with Upul Shantha Sannasgala, aired on Rupavahini on 21 November, 2019, to remind the reader that he, too, had been with the JVP at the time the decision was taken to eliminate Daya Pathirana. Gunaratnam moved out of the JVP, in April 2012, after years of turmoil. It would be pertinent to mention that Wimal Weerawansa-Nandana Gunatilleke led a group that sided with President Mahinda Rajapaksa during his first term, too, and had been with the party by that time. Although the party split over the years, those who served the interests of the JVP, during the 1980-1990 period, cannot absolve themselves of the violence perpetrated by the party. This should apply to the JVPers now in the Jathika Jana Balawegaya (JJB), a political party formed in July 2019 to create a platform for Dissanayake to contest the 2019 presidential election. Dissanayake secured a distant third place (418,553 votes [3.16%])
However, the JVP terrorism cannot be examined without taking into JRJ’s overall political strategy meant to suppress political opposition. The utterly disgusting strategy led to the rigged December 1982 referendum that gave JRJ the opportunity to postpone the parliamentary elections, scheduled for August 1983. JRJ feared his party would lose the super majority in Parliament, hence the irresponsible violence marred referendum, the only referendum ever held here to put off the election. On 30 July, 1983, JRJ proscribed the JVP, along with the Nawa Sama Samaja Party and the Communist Party, on the false pretext of carrying out attacks on the Tamil community, following the killing of 13 soldiers in Jaffna.
Under Dissanayake’s leadership, the JVP underwent total a overhaul but it was Somawansa Amarasinghe who paved the way. Under Somawansa’s leadership, the party took the most controversial decision to throw its weight behind warwinning Army Chief General (retd) Sarath Fonseka at the 2010 presidential election. That decision, the writer feels, can be compared only with the decision to launch its second terror campaign in response to JRJ’s political strategy. How could we forget Somawansa Amarasinghe joining hands with the UNP and one-time LTTE ally, the Tamil National Alliance (TNA), to field Fonseka? Although they failed in that US-backed vile scheme, in 2010, success was achieved at the 2015 presidential election when Maithripala Sirisena was elected.
Perhaps, the JVP took advantage of the developing situation (post-Indo-Lanka Peace Accord), particularly the induction of the Indian Army here, in July 1987, to intensify their campaign. In the aftermath of that, the JVP attacked the UNP parliamentary group with hand grenades in Parliament. The August 1987 attack killed Matara District MP Keerthi Abeywickrema and staffer Nobert Senadheera while 16 received injuries. Both President JRJ and Prime Minister Ranasinghe Premadasa had been present at the time the two hand grenades were thrown at the group.
Had the JVP plot to assassinate JRJ and Premadasa succeeded in August 1987, what would have happened? Gevindu Cumaratunga, during his speech also raised a very interesting question. The nationalist asked where ISU Daya Pathirana would have been if he survived the murderous JVP.
Midweek Review
Reaping a late harvest Musings of an Old Man
I am an old man, having reached “four score and five” years, to describe my age in archaic terms. From a biological perspective, I have “grown old.” However, I believe that for those with sufficient inner resources, old age provides fertile ground to cultivate a new outlook and reap a late harvest before the sun sets on life.
Negative Characterisation of Old Age
My early medical education and training familiarised me with the concept of biological ageing: that every living organism inevitably undergoes progressive degeneration of its tissues over time. Old age is often associated with disease, disability, cognitive decline, and dependence. There is an inkling of futility, alienation, and despair as one approaches death. Losses accumulate. As Shakespeare wrote in Hamlet, “When sorrows come, they come not single spies, but in battalions.” Doctors may experience difficulty in treating older people and sometimes adopt an attitude of therapeutic nihilism toward a life perceived to be in decline.
Categorical assignment of symptoms is essential in medical practice when arriving at a diagnosis. However, placing an individual into the box of a “geriatric” is another matter, often resulting in unintended age segregation and stigmatisation rather than liberation of the elderly. Such labelling may amount to ageism. It is interesting to note that etymologically, the English word geriatric and the Sanskrit word jara both stem from the Indo-European root geront, meaning old age and decay, leading to death (jara-marana).
Even Sigmund Freud (1875–1961), the doyen of psychoanalysis, who influenced my understanding of personality structure and development during my psychiatric training, focused primarily on early development and youth, giving comparatively little attention to the psychology of old age. He believed that instinctual drives lost their impetus with ageing and famously remarked that “ageing is the castration of youth,” implying infertility not only in the biological sense. It is perhaps not surprising that Freud began his career as a neurologist and studied cerebral palsy.
Potential for Growth in Old Age
The model of human development proposed by the psychologist Erik Erikson (1902–1994), which he termed the “eight stages of man,” is far more appealing to me. His theory spans the entire life cycle, with each stage presenting a developmental task involving the negotiation of opposing forces; success or failure influences the trajectory of later life. The task of old age is to reconcile the polarity between “ego integrity” and “ego despair,” determining the emotional life of the elderly.
Ego integrity, according to Erikson, is the sense of self developed through working through the crises (challenges) of earlier stages and accruing psychological assets through lived experience. Ego despair, in contrast, results from the cumulative impact of multiple physical and emotional losses, especially during the final stage of life. A major task of old age is to maintain dignity amidst such emotionally debilitating forces. Negotiating between these polarities offers the potential for continued growth in old age, leading to what might be called a “meaningful finish.”
I do not dispute the concept of biological ageing. However, I do not regard old age as a terminal phase in which growth ceases and one is simply destined to wither and die. Though shadowed by physical frailty, diminishing sensory capacities and an apparent waning of vitality, there persists a proactive human spirit that endures well into late life. There is a need in old age to rekindle that spirit. Ageing itself can provide creative opportunities and avenues for productivity. The aim is to bring life to a meaningful close.
To generate such change despite the obstacles of ageing — disability and stigmatisation — the elderly require a sense of agency, a gleam of hope, and a sustaining aspiration. This may sound illusory; yet if such illusions are benign and life-affirming, why not allow them?
Sharon Kaufman, in her book The Ageless Self: Sources of Meaning in Late Life, argues that “old age” is a social construct resisted by many elders. Rather than identifying with decline, they perceive identity as a lifelong process despite physical and social change. They find meaning in remaining authentically themselves, assimilating and reformulating diverse life experiences through family relationships, professional achievements, and personal values.
Creative Living in Old Age
We can think of many artists, writers, and thinkers who produced their most iconic, mature, or ground-breaking work in later years, demonstrating that creativity can deepen and flourish with age. I do not suggest that we should all aspire to become a Monet, Picasso, or Chomsky. Rather, I use the term “creativity” in a broader sense — to illuminate its relevance to ordinary, everyday living.
Endowed with wisdom accumulated through life’s experiences, the elderly have the opportunity for developmental self-transformation — to connect with new identities, perspectives, and aspirations, and to engage in a continuing quest for purpose and meaning. Such a quest serves an essential function in sustaining mental health and well-being.
Old age offers opportunities for psychological adaptation and renewal. Many elders use the additional time afforded by retirement to broaden their knowledge, pursue new goals, and cultivate creativity — an old age characterised by wholeness, purpose, and coherence that keeps the human spirit alive and growing even as one’s days draw to a close.
Creative living in old age requires remaining physically, cognitively, emotionally, and socially engaged, and experiencing life as meaningful. It is important to sustain an optimistic perception of health, while distancing oneself from excessive preoccupation with pain and trauma. Positive perceptions of oneself and of the future help sustain well-being. Engage in lifelong learning, maintain curiosity, challenge assumptions — for learning itself is a meaning-making process. Nurture meaningful relationships to avoid disengagement, and enter into respectful dialogue, not only with those who agree with you. Cultivate a spiritual orientation and come to terms with mortality.
The developmental task of old age is to continue growing even as one approaches death — to reap a late harvest. As Rabindranath Tagore expressed evocatively in Gitanjali [‘Song Offerings’], which won him the Nobel Prize:: “On the day when death will knock at thy door, what wilt thou offer to him?
Oh, I will set before my guest the full vessel of my life — I will never let him go with empty hands.”
by Dr Siri Galhenage
Psychiatrist (Retired)
[sirigalhenage@gmail.com]
Midweek Review
Left’s Voice of Ethnic Peace
Multi-gifted Prof. Tissa Vitarana in passing,
Leaves a glowing gem of a memory comforting,
Of him putting his best foot forward in public,
Alongside fellow peace-makers in the nineties,
In the name of a just peace in bloodied Sri Lanka,
Caring not for personal gain, barbs or brickbats,
And for such humanity he’ll be remembered….
Verily a standard bearer of value-based politics.
By Lynn Ockersz
-
Features1 day agoWhy does the state threaten Its people with yet another anti-terror law?
-
Features1 day agoVictor Melder turns 90: Railwayman and bibliophile extraordinary
-
Features1 day agoReconciliation, Mood of the Nation and the NPP Government
-
Features1 day agoVictor, the Friend of the Foreign Press
-
Latest News2 days agoNew Zealand meet familiar opponents Pakistan at spin-friendly Premadasa
-
Latest News2 days agoTariffs ruling is major blow to Trump’s second-term agenda
-
Latest News3 days agoECB push back at Pakistan ‘shadow-ban’ reports ahead of Hundred auction
-
Features1 day agoBarking up the wrong tree

JVP leader Somawansa Amarasinghe, who returned to Sri Lanka in late Nov, 2001, ending a 12-year self-imposed exile in Europe, declared that India helped him flee certain death as the government crushed his party’s second insurrection against the state in the ’80s, using even death squads. Amarasinghe, sole surviving member of the original politburo of the JVP, profusely thanked India and former Prime Minister V.P. Singh for helping him survive the crackdown. Neither the JVP nor India never explained the circumstances New Delhi facilitated Amarasinghe’s escape, particularly against the backdrop of the JVP’s frenzied anti-India campaign. The JVP has claimed to have killed Indian soldiers in the East during the 1987-1989 period. Addressing his first public meeting at Kalutara, a day after his arrival, Amarasinghe showed signs that the party had shed its anti-India policy of yesteryears. The JVPer paid tribute to the people of India, PM Singh and Indian officials who helped him escape.