As Sri Lanka approaches the seventh commemoration of the Easter Sunday attacks, the national mood is once again marked by grief, reflection, and an enduring sense of incompleteness. Nearly seven years later, the tragedy continues to cast a long shadow not only over the victims and their families, but over the institutions and narratives that have since emerged.

Commemoration, however, must go beyond ritual. It must be anchored in clarity, accountability, and restraint. What is increasingly evident in the post-Easter landscape is not merely a search for truth, but a contest over how that truth is framed, interpreted, and presented to the public.

In recent times, public discourse has been shaped by book launches, panel discussions, and media interventions that claim to offer new insights into the attacks. While such contributions are not inherently problematic, the manner in which certain narratives are advanced raises legitimate concerns. The selective disclosure of information particularly when it touches on intelligence operations demands careful scrutiny.

Sri Lanka’s legal and institutional framework is clear on the sensitivity of such matters. The Official Secrets Act (No. 32 of 1955) places strict obligations on the handling of information related to national security. Similarly, the Police Ordinance and internal administrative regulations governing intelligence units emphasize confidentiality, chain of command, and the responsible use of information. These are not mere formalities; they exist to safeguard both operational integrity and national interest.

When individual particularly those with prior access to intelligence structures enter the public domain with claims that are not subject to verification, it raises critical questions. Are these disclosures contributing to justice and accountability, or are they inadvertently compromising institutional credibility and future operational capacity?

The challenge lies in distinguishing between constructive transparency and selective exposure.

The Presidential Commission of Inquiry into the Easter Sunday Attacks provided one of the most comprehensive official examinations of the attacks. Its findings highlighted a complex web of failures: lapses in intelligence sharing, breakdowns in inter-agency coordination, and serious deficiencies in political oversight. Importantly, it underscored that the attacks were not the result of a single point of failure, but a systemic collapse across multiple levels of governance.

Yet, despite the existence of such detailed institutional findings, public discourse often gravitates toward simplified narratives. There is a tendency to identify singular “masterminds” or to attribute responsibility in ways that align with prevailing political or ideological positions. While such narratives may be compelling, they risk obscuring the deeper structural issues that enabled the attacks to occur.

Equally significant is the broader socio-political context in which these narratives are unfolding. Sri Lanka today remains a society marked by fragile intercommunal relations. The aftermath of the Easter attacks saw heightened suspicion, polarisation, and, in some instances, collective blame directed at entire communities. Although there have been efforts toward reconciliation, these fault lines have not entirely disappeared.

In this environment, the language and tone of public discourse carry immense weight. The framing of terrorism whether as a localized phenomenon or as part of a broader ideological construct must be handled with precision and responsibility. Overgeneralization or the uncritical use of labels can have far-reaching consequences, including the marginalization of communities and the erosion of social cohesion.

At the same time, it is essential to acknowledge that the global discourse on terrorism is itself contested. Competing narratives, geopolitical interests, and selective historiography often shape how events are interpreted. For Sri Lanka, the challenge is to avoid becoming a passive recipient of external frameworks that may not fully reflect its own realities.

A professional and unbiased approach requires a commitment to evidence-based analysis. This includes:

· Engaging with primary sources, including official reports and judicial findings
·

· Cross-referencing claims with verifiable data
·

· Recognizing the limits of publicly available information, particularly in intelligence matters

It also requires intellectual discipline the willingness to question assumptions, to resist convenient conclusions, and to remain open to complexity.

The role of former officials and subject-matter experts in this discourse is particularly important. Their experience can provide valuable insights, but it also carries a responsibility. Public interventions must be guided by professional ethics, respect for institutional boundaries, and an awareness of the potential impact on national security.

There is a fine balance to be maintained. On one hand, democratic societies require transparency and accountability. On the other, the premature or uncontextualized release of sensitive information can undermine the very systems that are meant to protect the public.

As Sri Lanka reflects on the events of April 2019, it must resist the temptation to reduce a national tragedy into competing narratives or political instruments. The pursuit of truth must be methodical, inclusive, and grounded in law.

Easter is not only a moment of remembrance. It is a test of institutional maturity and societal resilience.

The real question is not whether new narratives will emerge they inevitably will. The question is whether Sri Lanka has the capacity to engage with them critically, responsibly, and in a manner that strengthens, rather than weakens, the foundations of its national security and social harmony.

In the end, justice is not served by noise or conjecture. It is served by patience, rigor, and an unwavering commitment to truth.

Mahil Dole is a former senior law enforcement officer and national security analyst, with over four decades of experience in policing and intelligence, including serving as Head of Counter-Intelligence at the State Intelligence Service of Sri Lanka and a graduate of the Asia Pacific Center for Security Studies in Hawai, USA.

by Mahil Dole
Former Senior Law Enforcement Officer National Security Analyst; Former Head of Counter-Intelligence, State Intelligence Service)

Delivering the keynote address at the 54th Memorial of the late Minister Philip Gunawardena, former Foreign Secretary HMGS Palihakkara, called for a culture of consensus on key public policy issues in the country as the way forward from recovery to sustainable growth in a world of deepening violence and diminishing cooperation.

Excerpts.

Today, we gather to honour and remember the late Hon. Philip Gunawardena—virtually a household name to my generation, fondly known to the ordinary folks just as Philip ‘Mathithuma’- a leader whose life was woven into the very fabric of Sri Lanka’s struggle for justice, dignity, and independence.

Philip Gunawardena was not merely a political leader; he was a visionary, a reformer, and a fearless voice for the common people. While he was an iconic figure and a staunch socialist, he remained a pragmatic modernist as well. This, obviously, is quite a complex and difficult political binary to maintain. As history has it, he did acquit himself doing it. At a time when speaking truth to power demanded immense courage, he stood unwavering. He believed deeply that a nation’s strength lies not in privilege, but in equality—in uplifting farmers, workers, and the forgotten voices of society. The famous Paddy Land Act and the concept of Apex Cooperative Bank which later transformed into the present-day Peoples Bank and many other public policy and institutional creations are emblematic of his deep knowledge of the economic challenges and his holistic approach to development.

On the other hand, others saw Philip demonstrating hard-nosed pragmatism, not a naïve ideological bent.

Dr. Sarath Amunugama, a friend and a public servant turned politician said of Philip:

“On Socialism itself Philip had a different perspective – You talk of Socialism. You cannot socialise poverty. You can only socialise plenty. And if people cannot work, if they cannot produce, you cannot have Socialism.” *

The volume being launched today contains Philip Gunawardena’s speeches and initiatives, documents in great detail the drive and substance he deployed to deliver social justice and economic outcomes to those working classes.

He was aptly called the “Father of Socialism” in Sri Lanka, even lionised as the Boralugoda Sinhaya. But titles and appellations alone cannot capture the spirit of the man. People were captivated not only by the inimitable force of his articulation and commitment but perhaps equally or even more, by substance and cogency of his argument.

He was a bridge between the ideal and the actionable.

In my official work overlap with his capacity as the Minister of Industries in the 1960s, I personally experienced Minister Philip’s ability to refurbish concepts in relation to ground realities. His work in land reform and his commitment to social justice were not abstract ideas—they were real, tangible efforts to improve lives and reshape the nation’s future. The analysis Philip presented and prescriptions he passionately advocated, in both legislative and policy realms, are touched upon in good detail here in this book being launched today. I must say it is a trove for a researcher.

Beyond his public life, Philip Gunawardena was a man of conviction and principle. He carried with him a profound sense of responsibility to his people, and he never wavered from his beliefs, even when it came at great personal cost. That is a legacy not easily measured, but deeply felt.

Today, as we reflect on his life, we are reminded that true leadership is not about power, but about purpose. It is about working tirelessly for the greater good of the Nation State and its people while standing firm in one’s values

Philip’s words -more importantly his deed- brought into sharp relief a truism prevalent in divisive politics

esp. here in Sri Lanka. It is that while blinkered politicians build opinions, only true leaders can build consensus. The former does it for parochial transactional gain the latter does it for strategic and sustainable national gain.

Philip of course was emblematic of the latter.

The decision by Philip to join the ‘National Govt’ of Dudley Senanayake was a much debated but little understood affair. – Optics were basically reduced to a celebrated Socialist icon joining a gentle Capitalist to form a

National Government. It was inevitably a controversial move. Equally, it was also a bold manifestation of that consensus building spirit. More so because his decision was predicated on his unwavering support for a fundamental human right- the freedom of expression, and opposition to nationalisation of the free press- a fundamental tenet of the democratic-socialist binary. Leave aside the unfinished or open-ended debate about democracy or socialism. Philip was signalling that consensual statecraft is the way forward for the nation’s progress and prosperity of its people. The motto was that what is best ideologically should not stand in the way of what is consensually good for the nation and the common man. When Philip famously said that I will work with the ‘Devil or even his grandmother if that brings about common good’, he in a way articulated the inherent quality of consensus on key public policy matters like the press freedom and other foundational things.

That certainly is the interpretation in my Book!

Consensus is not about making any or all contending parties absolutely happy about the issue at hand- it is about dispensing managed unhappiness among all parties in order to advance a common cause benefitting the people at large. It is the ‘equitable distribution of reasonable unhappiness’ among all parties concerned. When that occurs, consensus happens. It is the most potent algorithm to produce win-win solutions in human relations within or among states.

This is a great lesson in statecraft and public policy making for present day politicians in our country who seem to quarrel like street vendors on a rainy day, on all issues. They have thus reduced the grave responsibility of democratic governance to a trivial zero-sum formula of the Government proposing and the Opposition opposing most of the time- if not all the time! They are either unable or unwilling to explore and reach a consensual middle ground to advance the national interests on a host of public policy issues ranging from economic reforms, security and foreign policies, the rule of law, accountability, reconciliation and so on.

All issues are thus a game for the govt toppling game.

This is a lesson for some of the current crop of politicians in this country who easily conflate polemics with substance and verbiage with eloquence.

All this ignores the national interest of building consensus as opposed to building polarisation for vote winning.

May I express the hope that all of us, especially those involved in that dreadful art form called politics in this country, revisit the thought processes of Philip Gunawardena documented in this volume to understand that compromise and consensus is possible in this country- especially on key public policy issues that profoundly touch our fundamental national interests.

Speaking of a culture of consensus the likes of Philip Gunawardena advocated in eloquent words and courageous deeds more than half a century ago, let me conclude with a brief comment on their relevance and resonance with the inventory of sri Lanka’s foreign policy and diplomacy challenges.

We all know that Sri Lanka’s overriding national priority in recent times was and remains the process of recovery from a crippling economic crisis and dovetailing it into a sustainable growth pathway. For this we must carefully prepare ourselves to prudently navigate the critical gauntlet of 2028 when we have to resume debt repayment- a challenge looming larger and larger every single day. Especially so in a world convulsed by violent conflict and economic and financial disruption like what is unfolding in West Asia right now. The violent spiral that has peaked there now will impact our foreign relations and recovery effort in most profound ways. If one is serious about making our recovery and growth stable and sustainable in this volatility, it must therefore be firmly anchored in a domestic political consensus on economic reform and foreign policy framework that is programmed towards three things:

– first, liberate the indispensable economic reforms from the destructive politics of government toppling,

– second, insulate us from the adversities of the ongoing geopolitical violence,

-third, guide us towards securing opportunities for our economic interests in this evolving geopolitical vortex.

Of course, the ‘prime-mover’ responsibility of this common ground building process lies with the government which has an unprecedented and strong voter’ mandate to do it. It must therefore stop acting as if it is still in an election campaign mode and must take cognizance of the fact that they are governing now. The Opposition must understand too that their job is not to oppose everything that the govt proposes and that they are the ‘shadow govt.,’ in the best traditions of parliamentary democracy. They must therefore stop acting like a shadow of the Opposition bent on Govt toppling game 24/7 but behave like a true ‘shadow government’ promoting consensus until the voters in due course do the regime change, when necessary.

Both sides should therefore consult, compromise and reach optimal common ground on critical issues of vital national interest. If our politicians don’t embrace a culture of consensus on such public policy issues of foundational importance, yet another crisis will embrace us in due course, perhaps sooner than they expect. Templates of statesmanship provided by the likes of Philip to reach consensual grounds through informed and timely compromises shedding ideological or parochial interests, might come in handy here.

In memoriam of PHILIP GUNAWARDENA, 26 March 2026. National Library Auditorium

The ongoing case pertaining to Minister of Energy, Kumara Jayakody has become a key bone of contention for President Anura Kumara Dissanayake and his government with the public. The government has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that it will look after its own at any cost.  It is not that Jayakody has been proven guilty yet.  And he may not be.  But this matter is also about public perception and the government’s rhetoric on zero tolerance on corruption.

In the case so far, Jayakody has been served indictments by the Colombo High Court on 27 March 2026, based on charges filed by the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption pertaining to a situation between 2014 to 2016 when he was the Procurement Manager of the state-run Ceylon Fertilizer Company. He is accused of influencing the procurement process resulting in financial losses to the tune of Rs. 8.86 million to the country’s coffers.

The Minister is of course innocent until proven guilty. But this is not only a matter of law or procedure, but also of ethics and the optics of ethical conduct. Against the backdrop of the anti-corruption drive of the current government, it should have been simple enough for Jayakody to resign from his ministerial portfolio and formally remove himself from parliamentary proceedings until the case was resolved.  However, given that accountability in Sri Lankan politics has been effectively eliminated since the 1970s, this kind of voluntary action is hardly expected. Therefore, the government itself could have called for his resignation until his case was resolved by the courts one way or the other.  This has also not happened.  While there may be nothing illegal, the optics do not look ‘clean’.  It has given ammunition to the country’s ragtag opposition and cause for anxiety to those who remain sympathetic to the government and supported its ascent to office.

The president and the government bigwigs have been historically vocal when it comes to zero tolerance of corruption. But it is also clear, the president’s public reactions to Jayakody’s indictment, mirrored by his colleagues in the government have been characterised more by what might be called ‘procedural adherence’ rather than the immediate removal of the minister allowing the case to resolve itself and more importantly, cementing public confidence and depriving the ostensibly future-less opposition avoidable ammunition. The president and the government have shown yet again, their inability to understand ethics and optics when it comes to friends.  This said, we must concede that the levels of corruption in the country have decreased significantly in recent times.  According to Transparency International’s ‘Transparency of International Corruption Perceptions’ Sri Lanka’s corruption index has improved to 107 in 2025 from 121 in 2024.

It is also clear, compared to the JR Jayewardene, R Premadasa, Mahinda Rajapaksa and Ranil Wickremesinghe eras, the government so far has created space for ‘judicial independence’.  It is precisely in this context that the government’s own narrative has been presented. That is, a sitting cabinet minister has been indicted by a state commission, and the court date has been fixed for early May 2026, while the Minister is out on bail.  The argument is, this indicates that the law is applied equally to all.

The more vocal public apologists for the government have argued that as the alleged corruption case took place over ten years ago – at a time Jayakody was not a Minister or part of the current government – those actions should not reflect on his current performance or the integrity of the present government.

It is truly unfortunate that supporters do not see that such blind faith and loyalty can only harm the government in the long term, as it has the potential to paint them in the same colour as already delegitimised former regimes. The bottom line is that an indictment in the High Court, irrespective of when the alleged crime occurred, should disqualify an individual from holding public office, under the ‘highest standards of integrity’ promoted by the National People’s Power that constitutes the present government.  In my view, it remains an interim measure that the government should take until the case is concluded.  Again, this is part and parcel of ethics, optics and upholding public trust and not the cold facts of law or procedure.

The present events bring to mind another case involving ethics and optics early in the government’s tenure. The then Speaker Asoka Ranwala who was forced to resign in December 2024 after his claims to have a PhD from Japan’s Waseda University turned out to be fiction.  That by all accounts was an outright lie.  Ranwala is yet to show his certificates as promised. Though he was forced to resign as Speaker due to massive public outrage at the time, he still remains a Member of Parliament.  My argument then was that he should be removed from parliament, too, because he lied about his qualifications during the entire election process and then, as Speaker.  But the government protected its man by allowing him to retain his parliamentary seat when to keep him in the position of the Speaker attracted considerable public disapproval.  The criterion was, that he is a friend, as is Jayakody. Clearly, this logic is dictated by the almost omnipresent Orwellian logic that “some animals are more equal than others”, especially when they serve in the NPP government.

This inaction and its atrocious public performance do not inject confidence into the government’s slogan of ‘system change’. One cannot pick and choose principles when they suit them and discard them when they are not convenient.

While the government walks open-eyed into yet another avoidable scandal, I can only leave it with the following words on ethics by Albert II, the Prince of Monaco (2005 -): “I want to place morality, honesty and ethics at the centre of my government’s preoccupations, of its councilors or all the principality’s decisions.”