Midweek Review

Doval’s questionable regional stock taking

Published

4 months ago

2025/11/12

Gotabaya Rajapaksa meets Ajith Doval in mid-January, 2020, in Colombo ahead of the Covid-19 eruption, and economic crisis, a year later

Indian National Security Advisor (NSA) Ajit Doval recently declared ‘poor governance’ led to uprisings that resulted in change of governments in Bangladesh, Nepal, and Sri Lanka over the past three-and-a-half years.

Doval said so delivering the Sardar Patel Memorial Lecture on governance on the occasion of the National Unity Day on Friday (31 October, 2025). Doval mentioned the countries in that order though the first overthrowing of a government in the region took place in Sri Lanka (2022), Bangladesh (2024) followed by Nepal (2025).

Doval refrained from making reference to Pakistan where Premier Imran Khan was ousted in April 2022 ahead of the violent toppling of the government in Sri Lanka, which began with the violence outside the private residence of President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, at Mirihana, in the previous month.

Imran Khan earned the wrath of the US for going ahead with a planned visit to Moscow, regardless of the Russian offensive against Kiev. Former Bangladeshi Cabinet Minister Mohibul Hasan Chowdhury recently told RT, in an exclusive interview that Hasina’s refusal to condemn Russia over the February 2022 military action angered the US. According to him, Dhaka’s refusal to condemn Russia had been one of the reasons for the 2024 uprising.

Why did Doval wait so long to blame it all on the respective governments? Doval assertion cannot be his own, but the collective servile stand, or thinking, to please the West by the Narendra Modi government once again. Surprisingly, Doval’s debatable statement hadn’t received any swift response from any individual, or political party here, though the top Indian official’s declaration required no holds barred discussion.

Doval, who held the post of NSA since 2014, in one line cleared allegations directed at the US and the general belief that the US influenced the events in Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal. No less a person than ousted Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina alleged that Washington engineered her removal after she refused to hand over St Martin’s Island to the US.

Strategically located in the northeastern region of the Bay of Bengal, the island is close to the border between Bangladesh and Myanmar and stands nine kilometres away from the southern tip of Bangladesh’s Cox’s Bazar-Teknaf peninsula.

Doval declaration should be examined taking into consideration the strategic US-India partnership, though the latter still maintained close relations with Russia. Perhaps the SLPP, that fielded Gotabaya Rajapaksa at the 2019 presidential election, should seek an explanation from India regarding Doval’s declaration.

Unlike his predecessors, Doval, formerly of the intelligence services, wielded immense power and is widely believed to be hostile to China.

Former President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, two years before he successfully contested the presidential election, told Colombo-based journalists how Doval put pressure on him to halt the Chinese funded Colombo Port City and take back the Colombo International Container Terminal (CICT).

During the Yahapalana administration, the wartime Defence Secretary told the writer that Doval insisted Sri Lanka terminate/take back all major Chinese-funded infrastructure projects, including the Colombo Port City, as well as the Hambantota port.

What really made Doval claim ‘poor governance’ caused the uprising? The NSA declaration is of importance as the Congress Chief Rahul Gandhi has been trying to encourage Indians to adopt Nepal-style Gen Z campaign to pressure Modi. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has been furious over Gandhi’s strategy meant to inspire revolt against Modi.

Did Doval want the Indian sub-continent to believe that people took to the streets against President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, Sheikh Hasina and KP Sharma Oli because of poor governance? How could the Indian NSA explain the Nepalis insurgents setting fire to their Parliament, even after Oli resigned?

In Sri Lanka, the JVP, one of the groups that had been involved in the Aragalaya (March to July 2022) made a determined bid to seize control of Parliament. Had that happened, it would have gone up in flames in July 2022. That is the ugly truth. The police and the military thwarted the JVP attempt to take over Parliament, and Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s successor, Ranil Wickremesinghe, visited Parliament to personally thank the Army there, on the ground, ignoring the somewhat tense situation almost soon after.

Bringing Parliament under their control had been part of the overall Aragalaya strategy but the operation went awry when some of those who had been involved in the project refused to provide muscle to the JVP clandestine bid to advance on Parliament. Let me stress that Sri Lanka never really honestly examined the developments that led to Aragalaya, though the Supreme Court found fault with the SLPP leaders and key Treasury officials for bankruptcy.

Sajith in Delhi

Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB) and Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa visited New Delhi soon after the Doval declaration on uprisings in Bangladesh, Nepal and Sri Lanka.

Indian media conveniently refrained from seeking Premadasa’s response to Doval’s assertion and even if the Sri Lankan lawmaker had been aware of the claim on ‘poor governance’ he chose not to comment on it. New Delhi-based multi-national news channel WION conducted a wide-ranging interview with Premadasa and among the questions posed to him one dealt with the overthrowing of governments in the region.

Let me reproduce the question posed by WION’s Sidhant Sibal and Premadasa’s response without any alteration: Q: Do you have any sense why this region, the Indian subcontinent, has witnessed these protests which have toppled governments? What’s your sense like as a leading politician, as a statesman of this region?

A: “I think it’s different from country to country. I think the economic disaster, coupled with pressures and distress that were put on people due to the consequences of terrorist bombing, Easter Sunday bombing, the Covid-19 crisis, all these came together and created a very, very propitious environment for dissenting opinions to come onto the streets. You had large queues for fuel, for bread, consumer items, gas and various other items that are needed to fulfill basic human needs. So, Sri Lanka’s case, primarily, was predicated upon the economic situation. So, it changes from country to country. I think in democracies; this should not be the case. Primarily this takes place because we don’t have sound policy-making structures and processes that give out positive policy results, because the democracy, the democratic nature and democracies have to be protected. It cannot be subjugated to mob violence or mob rule.

“However, if the very same democratic systems result in constraining the democratic space. If the youth are not given their proper right to voice their opinions in the democratic structures, then we will have a problem. So, it’s very important that the democratic structures are strengthened, strengthened to such an extent that we have sound policy making that results in good policies.”

Perhaps, Premadasa should have made reference to the direct threat the Aragalaya activists posed to his life when he visited the Galle Face protest site, soon after UPFA goons, at the behest of Temple Trees, stormed the place. Premadasa, and a couple of other SJB MPs, had to run for their dear lives as Aragalaya activists set upon them. Economic difficulties caused by the 2019 Easter Sunday attacks and Covid-19, due to disruption of the vital tourism industry, weakened the economy but decades of neglect and reckless as well as irresponsible decisions created an explosive situation.

Both Central Bank Governor Dr. Nandalal Weerasinghe and Mahinda Siriwardena who served as the Secretary to the Ministry of Finance (April 2022 to June 2025) explained the circumstances the then SLPP government caused the unprecedented crisis by failing to address the issues in spite of them being fully aware of developments behind the scene instigated by outsiders. Siriwardena, in “Sri Lanka’s Economic Revival – Reflection on the Journey from Crisis to Recovery,” launched on 08 April, 2025, maintained how the top political leadership and the decision-makers devastated the economy. On that basis Doval is 100 percent right in his assertion that poor governance led to the uprising in Sri Lanka. But such a large scale and meticulously planned political project couldn’t have been mounted without external backing.

In the run-up to the explosion of Aragalaya outside Pangiriwatte, Mirihana, the residence of President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, on the night of 31 March, 2022, to the 09 July storming of Janadhipathi Mandiraya, the country witnessed how interested parties intervened at every level to undermine government authority.

Basil’s December 2021 visit to Delhi

Basil Rajapaksa had been fiercely determined to somehow secure the Finance Ministry portfolio. The developing political and economic crisis gave Basil Rajapaksa the perfect opportunity to secure that prestigious portfolio, though the entire Cabinet, by then, knew the situation was beyond repair. SLPP National List MP Jayantha Ketagoda resigned in July, 2021, to pave the way for Basil Rajapaksa to enter Parliament. The new appointment failed to make any tangible impact. The deterioration continued. By the end of 2021, the country was on the verge of a big eruption which, obviously, instigated mayhem, like, for example, the JVP calling on Lankan expatriate workers not to remit their earnings through the government banking system, which is a vital financial support line to the country, even today.

Basil Rajapaksa’s much-hyped two-day visit to New Delhi, in the first week of December, 2021, should be examined, taking into consideration the explosive situation developing in the country. Former Minister and founder of the Pathfinder organisation, Milinda Moragoda, a key proponent of a fresh arrangement with the IMF, had been Sri Lanka’s High Commissioner in New Delhi.

In Colombo, the government still talked of a so-called home-grown solution to the crisis that finally forced it to declare bankruptcy and reach an agreement with the IMF. It would be pertinent to mention that among those who had received Basil Rajapaksa in New Delhi was Doval. New Delhi knew where the country was heading and advanced its strategy, accordingly.

Doval had been involved in the Sri Lankan situation from the very beginning. India made swift intervention, with assistance running into billions of USD and the country had been trapped in post-Aragalaya debt. Those who portrayed the agreement that had been finalized by President Ranil Wickremesinghe, in 2023, and accepted by Parliament, by way of the controversial Economic Transformation Act, in July 2024, seemed to have turned a blind eye to the difficulties ahead.

If Doval felt that ‘poor governance’ caused the uprisings in Bangladesh, Nepal and Sri Lanka, what is his (read Indian) assessment of their current governments now? The NPP that had just three seats in Parliament, at the time of the Aragalaya, comfortably won both presidential and parliamentary elections in 2024. Established in 2019 to contest the presidential election in that year, the JVP-led NPP hadn’t been a force to be reckoned with, but Aragalaya changed things upside down.

NPP and JVP leader Anura Kumara Dissanayake began his five-year term in September, 2024, and his first overseas visit was to New Delhi as was with his predecessor Gotabaya Rajapaksa. In fact, India had been the first overseas destination of other Sri Lankan presidents, as well.

India-SL MoUs

Did signing of seven Memorandums of Understanding (MoUs) in April this year, in Colombo, underscored India’s confidence in Anura Kumara Dissanayake’s government? Or was New Delhi taking advantage of the situation here, and globally, especially with the dwindling financial state of Uncle Sam, to extract the maximum out of our ruling compromised comrades? The MoU covered defence, energy, digitalisation, healthcare, and development assistance. Some of these agreements had been the subject of legal challenges which were dismissed by the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka in August this year.

In spite of the SJB, both in and outside Parliament, requesting the NPP government to reveal the MoUs, particularly the one on defence, the administration declined to do so. It would be interesting to know whether SJB leader Premadasa had received a briefing about the MoUs or he at least raised the issue with India during the three-day visit. However, Indian media seemed to have been careful during interviews not to touch any raw nerves, like the “independent” Western media. India-NPP relations must be examined also taking into consideration New Delhi rescuing JVP leader Somawansa Amarasinghe, in the late ’80s when the UNP government was hunting for him. Amarasinghe publicly acknowledged India’s role in saving his life when he returned to the country, in 2001, following 12-year self exile.

Against the backdrop of the Indo-Lanka defence MoU, India’s premier warship and submarine builder Mazagon Dock Shipbuilders Limited (MDL) acquired controlling 51% stake in the Colombo Dockyard PLC (CDPLC), the largest shipyard in Sri Lanka, once carefully nurtured by our late National Security, and Trade and Shipping Minister Lalith Athulathmudali, who was assassinated by an LTTE hit man at an election rally during the Premadasa regime. The deal, valued at approximately $52.96 million, was finalised in June 2025. The MDL is affiliated with the Indian Ministry of Defence. India replaced the partnership with Japanese Onomichi Dockyard Co., Ltd. of Japan.

Onomichi’s decision to sell its shares was blamed on financial difficulties-impact of shipbuilding market conditions, the 2019 Easter Sunday Attack, Covid-19 pandemic, European inflation, energy crisis in Sri Lanka, bankruptcy of Sri Lanka, abnormal interest rates and inflation, etc., according to statement posted by the CDL under change of management. (https://www.cdl.lk/mazagon-dock-shipbuilders-simited-of-India.html)

The CDL statement gave the impression that the above-mentioned factors didn’t affect the MDL. India seems to be happy with the way the new government, as well as the main Opposition, addressed issues at hand. In spite of on and off minor public criticism, none of the Opposition political parties, in the current Parliament, are very much unlikely to take a nationalistic stand on any of the contentious issues involving India. Their silence on the NPP’s continuing silence on the one-year moratorium imposed on foreign research vessels visiting Sri Lankan ports during 2024 by the then President Ranil Wickremesinghe is a case in point. That ban was meant to discourage China from seeking permission from Colombo to dock their state-of-the-art research vessels here.

Wickremesinghe imposed that ban under heavy American and Indian pressure against the backdrop of intense Indian media assault on Chinese ship visits here. The people haven’t forgotten how the Indian media reacted to Chinese research ship Yuan Wang 5 docking at the Chinese-managed Hambantota port in August 2022 soon after Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s ouster. The reportage of the Yung Wang 5 visit had been entirely based on US and Indian allegations that it was a satellite and missile-tracking capable vessel and, therefore, threatened Indian security. Although the NPP government promised to formally announce a decision on Wickremesinghe’s ban that was to be effective during 2024, it was yet to do so.

Reportage of Premadasa’s three-day visit to New Delhi didn’t indicate the two sides at least make a passing reference to continuing Indian poaching in Sri Lankan territorial waters that has led to deterioration of relations between Sri Lanka and Tamil Nadu. But during an interview with media, in response to a query Premadasa elaborated how he expected the two countries to address the issue. But the issue here is India brazenly allowing its virtual armada of South Indian fishing fleet to cross the international maritime boundary to steal the catch of poor local fishermen.

President Dissanayake and Prime Minister Dr. Harini Amarasuriya should receive the appreciation for taking a firm stand in respect of Indian poaching. Unfortunately, the main Opposition seems to be not sure of its stand. There is absolutely no point in trying to appease India as New Delhi, under any circumstances, cannot turn a blind eye to her huge fishing fleet preying on the catch of humble local northern fishermen.

Another issue that had been forgotten is India’s accountability for the Sri Lanka war. The Indian media hadn’t raised the issue nor did Premadasa offer his views, a grave mistake on his part, particularly against the backdrop of the Valvettiturai Citizens Committee, with the backing of Yasmin Sooka’s (member of the Darusman Committee that investigated war crimes here) seeking compensation for VVT massacre, perpetrated by the Indian Army.

Sooka’s International Truth and Justice Project (ITJP) recently backed the VVT Citizens Committee appeal made to Sri Lanka’s Office of Reparations asking for millions of USD in compensation. Political parties represented in Parliament, including the NPP, remained tight-lipped, with Dr. Jehan Perera, on behalf of the National Peace Council, offering his opinion in response to a query posed by the writer.

Those who had been demanding accountability and the full implementation of the 13th Amendment forced down on our country should keep in mind that India cannot, under any circumstances, absolve itself of the responsibility for the massive terrorism project it unleashed here. Let me put it in a different way. If not for the disastrous Indian decision that also cost them the lives of nearly 1,500 military personnel, double that amount wounded, and Congress leader Rajiv Gandhi being assassinated during 1987-1991 period, the LTTE would never have achieved the status as a conventional fighting force.

The transformation of the LTTE from an essentially a guerilla group to a conventional fighting force genuinely began after the withdrawal of the Indian Army in March 1990. The combat experience the group gained fighting one of the largest and formidable armies gave them the much-needed fillip required to form into a conventional-type fighting formations. Unfortunately, Sri Lanka never made an honest effort to record the conflict by examining the gradual transformation of terrorist strength and affiliated developments to ensure the world knew what really happened here.

Having watched/read reportage of Opposition Leader Premadasa’s recently concluded visit to New Delhi, the absence of a cohesive Sri Lankan approach to India relations and other geo-political developments against the backdrop of China further consolidating its global position and Russia-Ukraine conflict is disappointing.

Sri Lankan political parties seem to be blind to what is happening in neighbouring India, regionally and globally, and simply trying to appease regional and world powers, depending on the situations.

By Shamindra Ferdinando

All News Advertisement

Midweek Review

Fonseka clears Rajapaksas of committing war crimes he himself once accused them of

Published

11 hours ago

2026/02/25

Sahan Weerasooriya

With Sri Lanka’s 17th annual war victory over separatist Tamil terrorism just months away, warwinning Army Chief, Field Marshal Sarath Fonseka (Dec. 06, 2005, to July 15, 2009) has significantly changed his war narrative pertaining to the final phase of the offensive that was brought to an end on May 18, 2009.

The armed forces declared the conclusion of ground operations on that day after the entire northern region was brought back under their control. LTTE leader Velupillai Prabhakaran, hiding within the secured area, was killed on the following day. His body was recovered from the banks of the Nanthikadal lagoon.

With the war a foregone conclusion, with nothing to save the increasingly hedged in Tigers taking refuge among hapless Tamil civilians, Fonseka left for Beijing on May 11, and returned to Colombo, around midnight, on May 17, 2009. The LTTE, in its last desperate bid to facilitate Prabhakatan’s escape, breached one flank of the 53 Division, around 2.30 am, on May 18. But they failed to bring the assault to a successful conclusion and by noon the following day those fanatical followers of Tiger Supremo, who had been trapped within the territory, under military control, died in confrontations.

During Fonseka’s absence, the celebrated 58 Division (formerly Task Force 1), commanded by the then Maj. Gen. Shavendra Silva, advanced 31/2 to 4 kms and was appropriately positioned with Maj. Gen. Kamal Gunaratne’s 53 Division. The LTTE never had an opportunity to save its leader by breaching several lines held by frontline troops on the Vanni east front. There couldn’t have been any other option than surrendering to the Army.

The Sinha Regiment veteran, who had repeatedly accused the Rajapaksas of war crimes, and betraying the war effort by providing USD 2 mn, ahead of the 2005 presidential election, to the LTTE, in return for ordering the polls boycott that enabled Mahinda Rajapaksa’s victory, last week made noteworthy changes to his much disputed narrative.

GR’s call to Shavendra What did the former Army Commander say?

* The Rajapaksas wanted to sabotage the war effort, beginning January 2008.

* In January 2008, Mahinda Rajapaksa, Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa and Navy Commander VA Wasantha Karannagoda, proposed to the National Security Council that the Army should advance from Vavuniya to Mullithivu, on a straight line, to rapidly bring the war to a successful conclusion. They asserted that Fonseka’s strategy (fighting the enemy on multiple fronts) caused a lot of casualties.

* They tried to discourage the then Lt. Gen. Fonseka

* Fonseka produced purported video evidence to prove decisive intervention made by Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa on the afternoon of May 17. The ex-Army Chief’s assertion was based on a telephone call received by Maj. Gen. Shavendra Silva from Gotabaya Rajapaksa. That conversation had been captured on video by Swarnavahini’s Shanaka de Silva who now resides in the US. He had been one of the few persons, from the media, authorised by the Army Headquarters and the Defence Ministry to be with the Army leadership on the battlefield. Fonseka claimed that the videographer fled the country to escape death in the hands of the Rajapaksas. It was somewhat reminiscent of Maithripala Sirisena’s claim that if Rajapaksas win the 2015 Presidential election against him he would be killed by them.

* Shanaka captured Shavendra Silva disclosing three conditions laid down by the LTTE to surrender namely (a) Their casualties should be evacuated to Colombo by road (b) They were ready to exchange six captured Army personnel with those in military custody and (c) and the rest were ready to surrender.

* Then Fonseka received a call from Gotabaya Rajapaksa, on a CDMA phone. The Defence Secretary issued specific instructions to the effect that if the LTTE was to surrender that should be to the military and definitely not to the ICRC or any other third party. Gotabaya Rajapaksa, one-time Commanding Officer of the 1st battalion of the Gajaba Regiment, ordered that irrespective of any new developments and talks with the international community, offensive action shouldn’t be halted. That declaration directly contradicted Fonseka’s claim that the Rajapaksas conspired to throw a lifeline to the LTTE.

Fonseka declared that the Rajapaksa brothers, in consultation with the ICRC, and Amnesty International, offered an opportunity for the LTTE leadership to surrender, whereas his order was to annihilate the LTTE. The overall plan was to eliminate all, Fonseka declared, alleging that the Rajapaksa initiated talks with the LTTE and other parties to save those who had been trapped by ground forces in a 400 m x 400 m area by the night of May 16, among a Tamil civilian human shield held by force.

If the LTTE had agreed to surrender to the Army, Mahinda Rajapaksa would have saved their lives. If that happened Velupillai Prabhakaran would have ended up as the Chief Minister of the Northern Province, he said. Fonseka shocked everyone when he declared that he never accused the 58 Division of executing prisoners of war (white flag killings) but the issue was created by those media people embedded with the military leadership. Fonseka declared that accusations regarding white flag killings never happened. That story, according to Fonseka, had been developed on the basis of the Rajapaksas’ failed bid to save the lives of the LTTE leaders.

Before we discuss the issues at hand, and various assertions, claims and allegations made by Fonseka, it would be pertinent to remind readers of wartime US Defence Advisor in Colombo Lt. Col. Lawrence Smith’s June 2011 denial of white flag killings. The US State Department promptly declared that the officer hadn’t spoken at the inaugural Colombo seminar on behalf of the US. Smith’s declaration, made two years after the end of the war, and within months after the release of the Darusman report, dealt a massive blow to false war crimes allegations.

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, in 2010, appointed a three-member Panel of Experts, more like a kangaroo court, consisting of Marzuki Darusman, Yasmin Sooka, and Steven Ratner, to investigate war crimes accusations.

Now Fonseka has confirmed what Smith revealed at the defence seminar in response to a query posed by Maj. General (retd.) Ashok Metha of the IPKF to Shavendra Silva, who had been No 02 in our UN mission, in New York, at that time.

White flag allegations

‘White flag’ allegations cannot be discussed in isolation. Fonseka made that claim as the common presidential candidate backed by the UNP-JVP-TNA combine. The shocking declaration was made in an interview with The Sunday Leader Editor Frederica Jansz published on Dec. 13, 2009 under ‘Gota ordered them to be shot – General Sarath Fonseka.’

The ‘white flag’ story had been sensationally figured in a leaked confidential US Embassy cable, during Patricia Butenis tenure as the US Ambassador here. Butenis had authored that cable at 1.50 pm on Dec. 13, 2009, the day after the now defunct The Sunday Leader exclusive. Butenis had lunch with Fonseka in the company of the then UNP Deputy Leader Karu Jayasuriya, according to the cable. But for the writer the most interesting part had been Butenis declaration that Fonseka’s advisors, namely the late Mangala Samaraweera, Anura Kumara Dissanayake (incumbent President) and Vijitha Herath (current Foreign Minister) wanted him to retract part of the story attributed to him.

Frederica Jansz fiercely stood by her explosive story. She reiterated the accuracy of the story, published on Dec. 13, 2009, during the ‘white flag’ hearing when the writer spoke to her. There is absolutely no reason to suspect Frederica Jansz misinterpreted Fonseka’s response to her queries.

Subsequently, Fonseka repeated the ‘white flag’ allegation at a public rally held in support of his candidature. Many an eyebrow was raised at The Sunday Leader’s almost blind support for Fonseka, against the backdrop of persistent allegations directed at the Army over Lasantha Wickrematunga’s killing. Wickrematunga, an Attorney-at-Law by profession and one-time Private Secretary to Opposition Leader Sirimavo Bandaranaike, was killed on the Attidiya Road, Ratmalana in early January 2009.

The Darusman report, too, dealt withthe ‘white flag’ killings and were central to unsubstantiated Western accusations directed at the Sri Lankan military. Regardless of the political environment in which the ‘white flag’ accusations were made, the issue received global attention for obvious reasons. The accuser had been the war-winning Army Commander who defeated the LTTE at its own game. But, Fonseka insisted, during his meeting with Butenis, as well as the recent public statement that the Rajapaksas had worked behind his back with some members of the international community.

Fresh inquiry needed

Fonseka’s latest declaration that the Rajapaksas wanted to save the LTTE leadership came close on the heels of Deputy British Prime Minister David Lammy’s whistle-stop visit here. The UK, as the leader of the Core Group on Sri Lanka at the Geneva-based United Nations Human Rights Council, spearheads the campaign targeting Sri Lanka.

Lammy was on his way to New Delhi for the AI Impact Summit. The Labour campaigner pushed for action against Sri Lanka during the last UK general election. In fact, taking punitive action against the Sri Lankan military had been a key campaign slogan meant to attract Tamil voters of Sri Lankan origin. His campaign contributed to the declaration of sanctions in March 2025 against Admiral of the Fleet Wasantha Karannagoda, General (retd) Shavendra Silva, General (retd) Jagath Jayasuriya and ex-LTTE commander Karuna, who rebelled against Prabhakaran. Defending Shavendra Silva, Fonseka, about a week after the imposition of the UK sanctions, declared that the British action was unfair.

But Fonseka’s declaration last week had cleared the Rajapaksas of war crimes. Instead, they had been portrayed as traitors. That declaration may undermine the continuous post-war propaganda campaign meant to demonise the Rajapaksas and top ground commanders.

Canada, then a part of the Western clique that blindly towed the US line, declared Sri Lanka perpetrated genocide and also sanctioned ex-Presidents Mahinda Rajapaksa and Gotabaya Rajapaksa. Other countries resorted to action, though such measures weren’t formally announced. General (retd) Jagath Dias and Maj. Gen (retd) Chagie Gallage were two of those targeted.

Against the backdrop of Fonseka’s latest claims, in respect of accountability issues, the urgent need to review action taken against Sri Lanka cannot be delayed. Although the US denied visa when Fonseka was to accompany President Maithripala Sirisena to the UN, in Sept. 2016, he hadn’t been formally accused of war crimes by the western powers, obviously because he served their interests.

On the basis of unsubstantiated allegations that hadn’t been subjected to judicial proceedings, Geneva initiated actions. The US, Canada and UK acted on those accusations. The US sanctioned General Shavendra Silva in Feb. 2020 and Admiral Karannagoda in April 2023.

What compelled Fonseka to change his narrative, 18 years after his Army ended the war? Did Fonseka base his latest version solely on Shanaka de Silva video? Fonseka is on record as claiming that he got that video, via a third party, thereby Shanaka de Silva had nothing to do with his actions.

DNA and formation of DP

Having realised that he couldn’t, under any circumstances, reach a consensus with the UNP to pursue a political career with that party, Fonseka teamed up with the JVP, one of the parties in the coalition that backed his presidential bid in 2010. Fonseka’s current efforts to reach an understanding with the JVP/NPP (President Anura Kumara Dissanayake is the leader of both registered political parties) should be examined against the backdrop of their 2010 alliance.

Under Fonseka’s leadership, the JVP, and a couple of other parties/groups, contested, under the symbol of the Democratic National Alliance (DNA) that had been formed on 22 Nov. 2009. but the grouping pathetically failed to live up to their own expectations. The results of the parliamentary polls, conducted in April 2010, had been devastating and utterly demoralising. Fonseka, who polled about 40% of the national vote at the January 2010 presidential election, ended up with just over 5% of the vote, and the DNA only managed to secure seven seats, including two on the National List. The DNA group consisted of Fonseka, ex-national cricket captain Arjuna Ranatunga, businessman Tiran Alles and four JVPers. Anura Kumara Dissanayake was among the four.

Having been arrested on February 8, 2010, soon after the presidential election, Fonseka was in prison. He was court-martialed for committing “military offences”. He was convicted of corrupt military supply deals and sentenced to three years in prison. Fonseka vacated his seat on 7 Oct .2010. Following a failed legal battle to protect his MP status, Fonseka was replaced by DNA member Jayantha Ketagoda on 8 March 2011. But President Mahinda Rajapaksa released Fonseka in May 2012 following heavy US pressure. The US went to the extent of issuing a warning to the then SLFP General Secretary Maithripala Sirisena that unless President Rajapaksa freed Fonseka he would have to face the consequences (The then Health Minister Sirisena disclosed the US intervention when the writer met him at the Jealth Ministry, as advised by President Rajapaksa)

By then, Fonseka and the JVP had drifted apart and both parties were irrelevant. Somawansa Amarasinghe had been the leader at the time the party decided to join the UNP-led alliance that included the TNA, and the SLMC. The controversial 2010 project had the backing of the US as disclosed by leaked secret diplomatic cables during Patricia Butenis tenure as the US Ambassador here.

In spite of arranging the JVP-led coalition to bring an end to the Rajapaksa rule, Butenis, in a cable dated 15 January 2010, explained the crisis situation here. Butenis said: “There are no examples we know of a regime undertaking wholesale investigations of its own troops or senior officials for war crimes while that regime or government remained in power. In Sri Lanka this is further complicated by the fact that responsibility for many of the alleged crimes rests with the country’s senior civilian and military leadership, including President Rajapaksa and his brothers and opposition candidate General Fonseka.”

Then Fonseka scored a major victory when Election Commissioner Mahinda Deshapriya on 1 April, 2013, recognised his Democratic Party (DNA was registered as DP) with ‘burning flame’ as its symbol. There hadn’t been a previous instance of any service commander registering a political party. While Fonseka received the leadership, ex-Army officer Senaka de Silva, husband of Diana Gamage ((later SJB MP who lost her National List seat over citizenship issue) functioned as the Deputy Leader.

Having covered Fonseka’s political journey, beginning with the day he handed over command to Lt. Gen. Jagath Jayasuriya, in July, 2009, at the old Army Headquarters that was later demolished to pave the way for the Shangri-La hotel complex, the writer covered the hastily arranged media briefing at the Solis reception hall, Pitakotte, on 2 April, 2023. Claiming that his DP was the only alternative to what he called corrupt Mahinda Rajapaksa’s government and bankrupt Ranil Wickremesinghe-led Opposition, a jubilant Fonseka declared himself as the only alternative (‘I am the only alternative,’ with strapline ‘SF alleges Opposition is as bad as govt’. The Island, April 3, 2013).

Fonseka had been overconfident to such an extent, he appealed to members of the government parliamentary group, as well as the Opposition (UNP), to switch allegiance to him. As usual Fonseka was cocky and never realised that 40% of the national vote he received, at the presidential election, belonged to the UNP, TNA and the JVP. Fonseka also disregarded the fact that he no longer had the JVP’s support. He was on his own. The DP never bothered to examine the devastating impact his 2010 relationship with the TNA had on the party. The 2015 general election results devastated Fonseka and underscored that there was absolutely no opportunity for a new party. The result also proved that his role in Sri Lanka’s triumph over the LTTE hadn’t been a decisive factor.

RW comes to SF’s rescue

Fonseka’s DP suffered a humiliating defeat at the August 2015 parliamentary polls. The outcome had been so bad that the DP was left without at least a National List slot. Fonseka was back to square one. If not for UNP leader and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe, Fonseka could have been left in the cold. Wickremesinghe accommodated Fonseka on their National List, in place of SLFPer M.K.D.S. Gunawardene, who played a critical role in an influential section of the party and the electorate shifting support to Maithripala Sirisena. Gunawardena passed away on 19 January, 2016. Wickremesinghe and Fonseka signed an agreement at Temple Trees on 3 February, 2016. Fonseka received appointment as National List MP on 9 February, 2016, and served as Minister of Regional Development and, thereafter, as Minister of Wildlife and Sustainable Development, till Oct. 2018. Fonseka lost his Ministry when President Sirisena treacherously sacked Wickremesinghe’s government to pave the way for a new partnership with the Rajapaksas. The Supreme Court discarded that arrangement and brought back the Yahapalana administration but Sirisena, who appointed Fonseka to the lifetime rank of Field Marshal, in recognition of his contribution to the defeat of terrorism, refused to accommodate him in Wickremesinghe’s Cabinet. The President also left out Wasantha Karannagoda and Roshan Goonetilleke. Sirisena appointed them Admiral of the Fleet and Marshal of Air Force, respectively, on 19, Sept. 2019, in the wake of him failing to secure the required backing to contest the Nov. 2019 presidential election.

Wickremesinghe’s UNP repeatedly appealed on behalf of Fonseka in vain to Sirisena. At the 2020 general election, Fonseka switched his allegiance to Sajith Premadasa and contested under the SJB’s ‘telephone’ symbol and was elected from the Gampaha district. Later, following a damaging row with Sajith Premadasa, he quit the SJB as its Chairman and, at the last presidential election, joined the fray as an independent candidate. Having secured just 22,407 votes, Fonseka was placed in distant 9th position. Obviously, Fonseka never received any benefits from support extended to the 2022 Aragalaya and his defeat at the last presidential election seems to have placed him in an extremely difficult position, politically.

Let’s end this piece by reminding that Fonseka gave up the party leadership in early 2024 ahead of the presidential election. Senaka de Silva succeeded Fonseka as DP leader, whereas Dr. Asosha Fernando received appointment as its Chairman. The DP has aligned itself with the NPP. The rest is history.

By Shamindra Ferdinando

Midweek Review

Strengths and weaknesses of BRICS+: Implications for Global South

Published

11 hours ago

2026/02/25

Sahan Weerasooriya

The 16th BRICS Summit, from 22 to 24 October 2024 in Kazan, was attended by 24 heads of state, including the five countries that officially became part of the group on 1 January: Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Iran, Egypt and Ethiopia. Argentina finally withdrew from the forum after Javier Milei’s government took office in 2023.

In the end, it changed its strategy and instead of granting full membership made them associated countries adding a large group of 13 countries: two from Latin America (Bolivia and Cuba), three from Africa (Algeria, Nigeria, Uganda) and eight from Asia (Belarus, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Thailand, Turkey, Uzbekistan and Vietnam). This confirms the expansionary intent of the BRICS, initiated last year and driven above all by China, which seeks to turn the group into a relevant multilateral forum, with focus on political than economic interaction, designed to serve its interests in the geopolitical dispute with the United States. This dispute however is not the making of China but has arisen mainly due to the callous bungling of Donald Trump in his second term in office.

China has emerged as the power that could influence the membership within the larger group more than its rival in the region, India. Obviously, the latter is concerned about these developments but seems powerless to stop the trend as more countries realize the need for the development of capacity to resist Western dominance. India in this regard seems to be reluctant possibly due to its defence obligations to the US with Trump declaring war against countries that try to forge partnerships aiming to de-dollarize the global economic system.

The real weakness in BRICS therefore, is the seemingly intractable rivalry between China and India and the impact of this relationship on the other members who are keen to see the organisation grow its capacity to meet its stated goals. China is committed to developing an alternative to the Western dominated world order, particularly the weaponization of the dollar by the US. India does not want to be seen as anti-west and as a result India is often viewed as a reluctant or cautious member of BRICS. This problem seems to be perpetuated due to the ongoing border tensions with China. India therefore has a desire to maintain a level playing field within the group, rather than allowing it to be dominated by Beijing.

Though India seems to be committed to a multipolar world, it prefers focusing on economic cooperation over geopolitical alignment. India thinks the expansion of BRICS initiated by China may dilute its influence within the bloc to the advantage of China. India fears the bloc is shifting toward an anti-Western tilt driven by China and Russia, complicating its own strong ties with the West. India is wary of the new members who are also beneficiaries of China’s Belt and Road Initiative. While China aims to use BRICS for anti-Western geopolitical agendas, India favors focusing on South-South financial cooperation and reforming international institutions. Yet India seems to be not in favour of creating a new currency to replace the dollar which could obviously strengthen the South-South financial transactions bypassing the dollar.

Moreover, India has explicitly opposed the expansion of the bloc to include certain nations, such as Pakistan, indicating a desire to control the group’s agenda, especially during its presidency.

In this equation an important factor is the role that Russia could play. The opinion expressed by the Russian foreign minister in this regard may be significant. Referring to the new admissions the Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said: “The weight, prominence and importance of the candidates and their international standing were the primary factors for us [BRICS members]. It is our shared view that we must recruit like-minded countries into our ranks that believe in a multipolar world order and the need for more democracy and justice in international relations. We need those who champion a bigger role for the Global South in global governance. The six countries whose accession was announced today fully meet these criteria.”

The admission of three major oil producing countries, Saudi Arabia, Iran and UAE is bound to have a significant impact on the future global economic system and consequently may have positive implications for the Global South. These countries would have the ability to decisively help in creating a new international trading system to replace the 5 centuries old system that the West created to transfer wealth from the South to the North. This is so because the petro-dollar is the pillar of the western banking system and is at the very core of the de-dollarizing process that the BRICS is aiming at. This cannot be done without taking on board Saudi Arabia, a staunch ally of the west. BRICS’ expansion, therefore, is its transformation into the most representative community in the world, whose members interact with each other bypassing Western pressure. Saudi Arabia and Iran are actively mending fences, driven by a 2023 China-brokered deal to restore diplomatic ties, reopen embassies, and de-escalate regional tensions. While this detente has brought high-level meetings and a decrease in direct hostility rapprochement is not complete yet and there is hope which also has implications, positive for the South and may not be so for the North.

Though the US may not like what is going on, Europe, which may not endorse all that the former does if one is to go by the speech delivered by the Canadian PM in Brazil recently, may not be displeased about the rapid growth of BRICS. The Guardian UK highlighted expert opinion that BRICS expansion is rather “a symbol of broad support from the global South for the recalibration of the world order.” A top official at the Konrad Adenauer Foundation, Caroline Kanter has told the daily, “It is obvious that we [Western countries] are no longer able to set our own conditions and standards. Proposals will be expected from us so that in the future we will be perceived as an attractive partner.” At the same time, the bottom line is that BRICS expansion is perceived in the West as a political victory for Russia and China which augurs well for the future of BRICS and the Global South.

Poor countries, relentlessly battered by the neo-liberal global economy, will greatly benefit if BRICS succeeds in forging a new world order and usher in an era of self-sufficiency and economic independence. There is no hope for them in the present system designed to exploit their natural resources and keep them in a perpetual state of dependency and increasing poverty. BRICS is bound to be further strengthened if more countries from the South join it. Poor countries must come together and with the help of BRICS work towards this goal.

by N. A. de S. Amaratunga