Features
Indo-Sri Lanka Agreement-1987 as JR Jayewardene saw it
“A few days later, at a public lunch, when I was congratulated on my escape by a speaker in these words, “Blessed are the Peace-makers for they shall soon be in Heaven,” I replied, “Rajiv missed Heaven by a few inches, and I missed it by a few seconds!”
(Excerpted from Men and Memories by JR Jayewardene)
The Indo-Sri Lanka Agreement of 1987 was signed by Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi and myself as President on July 29, 1987. It was a Peace Treaty and brought Peace, till one group of the LTTE broke it in October 1987. India then had to oppose them till March 1990, when the Sri Lanka Government took over and this led to a bloody war with the LTTE which still continues (when this was written).
The Indo-Sri Lanka Agreement was signed on Wednesday, July 29, 1987, by the Prime Minister of India, Rajiv Gandhi, and myself as President of Sri Lanka. On the next day, when Rajiv was inspecting a Naval Guard of Honour, prior to his departure, a Naval Rating attempted to assassinate him by raising the butt-end of his rifle and bringing it down on Rajiv’s head. Seeing the movement in time, Rajiv bent his head and escaped death by a few inches.
A few weeks later, on August 18, two bombs were thrown at me and Prime Minister Premadasa, while we were sitting at the Chairman’s table at a meeting of the Government Parliamentary Group held in a Committee Room of the Parliamentary Complex. Both bombs missed. One hit our table and bounced off, and the other went over our heads. An official standing behind us was hit by a pellet and fell dead; a Minister sitting where the two bombs burst a few yards away from us, was killed. Several Ministers and Members of Parliament were injured and hospitalized.
A few days later, at a public lunch, when I was congratulated on my escape by a speaker in these words, “Blessed are the Peace-makers for they shall soon be in Heaven,” I replied, “Rajiv missed Heaven by a few inches, and I missed it by a few seconds!”
Though I spoke in a lighter vein of these incidents, it was evident that there was much feeling against Rajiv’s arrival in Sri Lanka. I can understand the opposition to Rajiv at that time for his government had violated our sovereignty by sending food by air and ship to the Jaffna Peninsula against the express refusal of the Government of Sri Lanka to entertain them.
Many of those who caused riots throughout the Island were not interested in the Agreement but opposed Rajiv’s visit. They were against the Indian help to the northern terrorists with arms, money and training. The Agreement itself was forgotten. It, however, brought peace to Sri Lanka. As President Ranasinghe Premadasa said in the Manifesto with which he won the Presidential Election of November 1988:
The Indo-Sri Lanka Accord was signed to obtain India’s assistance to restore peace, law and order in the North and East. In the process, we succeeded in strengthening our good relations with India. Its basis is the geopolitics of the region. It put our relations with her on a new and firm footing. Its sincerity is unquestionable. We will build upon its positive achievements through dialogue and reciprocity.
The peace lasted till October 1987, when one of the groups that accepted it, namely, the LTTE, broke it and have continued its lone fight against the Government of Sri Lanka to this day and earlier against the Government of India till the last soldier of the IPKF left in March 1990. Before the Agreement was signed, Sri Lanka fought the LTTE and several other groups aided and abetted by the Government of Tamil Nadu, with the knowledge and acquiescence of the Central Government of India. After the Agreement, the LTTE was left alone and by a strange quirk of fate, the Government of India fought them for a year and a half losing over 1,500 men, 5,000 injured and spending billions of rupees in Sri Lankan currency.
Within a few days after the signing, peace reigned in the North and the East, and I was praised by all. Prime Minister Premadasa said on October 19, 1987, that my “skill of diplomacy had turned the protectors of terrorism to being hunters of terrorism”–referring to India. From America it was said that “India had been turned from a part of the problem to being a part of the solution.”
In these pages I write of the events that preceded the signing of the Agreement, of the Agreement and its aftermath. I kept in mind throughout the words of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, “If your enemy extends a hand, however dishonestly, you grab it. If there is good faith, you have responded. If not, then at least you have one of his hands immobilised!”
There had been negotiations beteween the Sri Lankan and Indian Governments for a few years prior to the signing of the Agreement of July 1987. An Agreement had been reached between the two governments in New Delhi in 1983 and embodied in a document known as “Annexure C” and tabled before the All Party Conference in Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka had opposed meeting the separatist and terrorist groups as some of the leaders of these groups wanted by the Police for a wide range of criminal charges. However, they lived in India, protected by the Indian Government.
Prabhakaran, the LTTE leader, had been suspected of responsibility for the killing in 1975 of the then Mayor of Jaffna, Mr Duraiappa, a fellow Tamil and Government Party (SLFP) Member of Parliament.
In June 1985, direct talks took place in New Delhi between me and Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, on how to deal with Sri Lanka’s Tamil problem. While the Sri Lankan Government agreed to talk to the Tamil groups, there also began a struggle among these groups for leadership and to be recognized as the chief spokesmen.
They were the PLOT, TELO, LTTE, EPRLF and the non-violent group, the TULF. All the terrorist groups were provided with arms, arms training, money and other help, as is now admitted by the Government of Tamil Nadu, with the knowledge and authority of the Central Government of India.
The first round of talks was held in Thimpu, Bhutan in June 1985. The Sri Lanka delegation consisted of a group of senior lawyers led by my brother, H.W. Jayewardene, Q.C. The talks broke down, but a second round of talks were held in August.
For the first time, a system of Provincial Councils was discussed in response to the claim of the representatives of Tamil groups that their right to self-determination be recognized, and along with the right to a Tamil homeland, i.e., the Northern and Eastern Provinces. In regard to the latter, the TULF also joined the terrorist groups. Though the talks did not yield results, the two governments carried on their negotiations with their representatives led by H.W. Jayewardene on one side and the Indian officials led by Romesh Bhandari, who had succeeded G. Parthasarthy, as India’s Foreign Secretary.
From these talks emerged certain decisions, namely that the unit of devolution was to be a Province and not a District and that the powers to be devolved to be wider than had been discussed earlier. A document was initiated, led by Romesh Bhandari on the Indian side and E.F. Dias Abeysinghe, Secretary of the Sri Lanka delegation, for Sri Lanka to go beyond the Delhi Accord of August 1985. Relations between Sri Lanka and India began to improve now with Rajiv Gandhi as Prime Minister.
All the while, the Tamil terrorist groups continued to have their training and other facilities from bases in Tamil Nadu. The Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu that time was M.G. Ramachandran, who played a prominent role in these events. After 1985, his health broke down, he could hardly speak but he still continued to govern Tamil Nadu expressing his wishes through lip-reading, and movements of his eyes and hands.
In the meantime, the internecine fighting between the Tamil groups led to a bloody victory for the LTTE over its main rivals in April 1986, especially TELO. The terrorist groups now began to attack more than before the civilian population adjoining the Northern and Eastern Provinces, specially unarmed Sinhalese civilians. In May 1985, in a surprise raid in Anuradhapura, 150 civilians were killed near the Sacred Bo-Tree. Gradually the terrorist groups become a formidable guerrilla force and the Sri Lanka Government spent a large proportion of its annual budget, which rose from Rs 550 million (US$ 18 m) in 1980 to Rs 3,500 million (US $115 m) in 1987, for the expansion and equipping of its armed forces.
The Government of Central India continued to campaign throughout the world against the Government of Sri Lanka. The Indian embassies abroad became centers of support for the terrorists and separatist groups. This led to the reluctance on the part of some of the Western powers to supply arms and other aid to Sri Lanka. They were anxious not to offend India.
In April 1986, the Indian Government sent to Sri Lanka a new delegation led by a Minister of State, P. Chidambaram (40), a young Tamil and Natwar Singh, the Minister of State for External Affairs. An official communique in May 1986, announced that the Sri Lanka Government agreed to make further concessions beyond the Delhi Agreement dealing with Law and Order, Land Settlement etc. Sri Lanka meanwhile, embarked on a new political initiative, the Political Parties’ Conference with eight political parties, that met me on 25 June 25, 1986.
These talks continued in July 1986. A TULF delegation also arrived in Sri Lanka from India and had formal talks with me in July and August 1986. The following Ministers also participated regularly – the Minister of Foreign Affairs, A.C.S. Hameed; the Minister of Finance, Ronnie de Mel; the Minister of National Security, Lalith Athulathmudali; the Minister of Lands, Land Development and Mahaweli Development, Gamini Dissanayake and several others off and on.
The discussions between the Government of Sri Lanka and the TULF and the discussions and debates within the Political Parties Conference, continued for over three months. The SLFP boycotted these discussions. All the other parties, including the traditional Left parties which were not represented in Parliament, also participated in these discussions. The Conference drafted Constitutional Amendments, a Draft Provincial Councils Bill, schedules setting out the Reserved, Concurrent and Provincial lists as well as detailed memoranda dealing with Law and Order, Land and Land Settlement and Education.
The subjects of Finance and Administration were discussed in detail but no final agreements were reached. An official statement issued by the Sri Lanka Government on 26 November 26, 1986 stated that apart from subjects not finalized, these proposals constituted a package which would have been a reasonable basis of settlement fair to all sections of the people of Sri Lanka.
The agreed to proposals formed the basis of discussions between me and Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi when we met in Bangalore at the SAARC Summit on November 17 and 18, 1986. At the end of the Conference, it was announced that apart from the subjects of Finance and Administration, which were not clarified by the TULF, the matters which required further modification and agreement, were fully set out in a working paper on the Bangalore discussions dated November 19, 1986. The LTTE alone refused to accept these proposals.
For the first time, the Indian Government imposed restrictions on Sri Lanka Tamil terrorists operating from Indian territory. These were nullified by the Tamil Nadu Government’s noncooperation in these moves. Attempts were made by the Central Government to prevent the LTTE leader Prabhakaran from leaving India for Jaffna, unsuccessfully. A time-table was worked out between the two governments for signing an Accord based on these proposals to take place preferably in January 1987.
Features
Putting people back into ‘development’ – a challenge for South
Should Sri Lanka consider an 18th IMF programme? Some academicians exploring Sri Lanka’s development prospects in depth are raising this issue. It is yet to emerge as a hot topic among policy and decision-making circles in this country but common sense would sooner rather than later dictate that it be taken up for discussion by the wider public and a decision arrived at.
The issue of an 18th IMF programme was raised with some urgency locally by none other than Dr. Ganeshan Wignaraja,Visiting Senior Fellow, ODI Global London, one of whose presentations, made at the Regional Centre for Strategic Studies (RCSS), Colombo, was highlighted in this column last week, May 7th. An IMF programme is far from the ideal way out for a bankrupt country such as Sri Lanka but a policy of economic pragmatism would indicate that there is no other way out for Sri Lanka. Such a programme is the proverbial ‘Bird in the hand’ for Sri Lanka and it may be compelled to avail of it to get itself out of the morass of economic failures it is bogged down in currently.
While local economic growth possibilities are far from encouraging at present, such prospects globally are far from bright as well. Some of the more thought-provoking data in the latter regard were disclosed by Dr. Wignaraja. For example, ‘The IMF’s April 2026 World Economic Outlook projects global growth slowing to 3.1 percent in 2026; with downside risks dominating: prolonged conflict, geopolitical fragmentation, renewed trade tensions, bearing down hardest on emergent and developing economies.’
However, as is known, an ‘IMF bailout’ is fraught with huge risks for the people of a developing country. ‘The Silver Bullet’ brings hardships for the people usually and they would be required by their governments to increasingly ‘tighten their belts’ and brace for perhaps indefinite material hardships and discontent. For Sri Lanka, the cost of living is unsettlingly high and 20 percent of the population is languishing below the poverty line of $ 3.65 per day.
These statistics should help put the spotlight on the people of a country, who are theoretically the subjects and beneficiaries of development, and one of the main reasons, in so far as democracies are concerned, for the existence of governments. Placing people at the centre of the development process is urgently needed in the global South and shifting the focus to other considerations would be tantamount to governments dabbling in misplaced priorities.
Technocrats are needed for the propelling of economic growth but a Southern country’s main approach to development cannot be entirely technocratic in nature. The well being of the people and how it is affected by such growth strategies need to be prime focuses in discussions on development. Accordingly, discourses on how poverty alleviation could be facilitated need urgent initiation and perpetuation. There is no getting away from people’s empowerment.
In the South over the decades, the above themes have been, more or less, allowed to lapse in discussions on development. With economic liberalization and ‘market economics’ being allowed to eclipse development, correctly understood, people’s well being could be said to have been downplayed by Southern governments.
The development issues of Southern publics could be also said to have been compounded over the years as a result of the hemisphere lacking a single and effective ‘voice’ that could consistently and forcefully take up its questions with the global powers and institutions that matter. That is, the South lacks an all-embracing, umbrella organization that could bring together and muster the collective will of the South and work towards the realization of its best interests.
This columnist has time and again brought up the need for concerned Southern sections to explore the potential within the now virtually moribund Non-Aligned Movement to reactivate itself and fill the above lacuna in the South’s organizational and mobilization capability. In its heyday NAM not only possessed this institutional capability but had ample ‘voice power’ in the form of its founding fathers, with Jawaharlal Nehru of India, for example, proving a power to reckon with in this regard. The lack of such leaders at present needs to be factored in as well as accounting for the South’s lack of power and presence in the deliberative forums of the world that have a bearing on the hemisphere’s well being.
The Executive Director of the RCSS, Ambassador (Retd) Ravinatha Aryasinha, articulated some interesting thoughts on the above and related questions at a forum a couple of months back. Speaking at the launching of the book authored by Prof. Gamini Keerewella titled, ‘Reimagining International Relations from a Global South Perspective’, at the Bandaranaike Centre for International Studies, Colombo, Amb. Aryasinha said, among other things: ‘Historically, there is a precedent that has been realized by the Non-Aligned group of countries – unfortunately, rather than being reformed and modified at the end of the Cold War, it has been tossed away.’
The inability of the nominally existent NAM to come out of its state of veritable paralysis and voice and act in the name of the South in the current international crises lends credence to the view that the organization has allowed itself to be ‘tossed away.’ The challenge before NAM is to prove that it is by no means a spent force.
As indicted, NAM needs vibrant voices that could advocate value-based advancement for the global South. Moral principles need to triumph over Realpolitik. Such transformative changes could come to pass if there is a fresh meeting of enlightened minds within the South. Pakistan by offering to mediate in the ongoing conflict between the US and Iran, for instance, proved that there are still states within the South that could look beyond narrow self-interest and work towards some collective goals. Hopefully, Pakistan’s example will be emulated.
Along with Pakistan some Gulf states have shown willingness to work towards a de-escalation of the present hostilities in West Asia. This could be a beginning for the undertaking of more ambitious, collective projects by the South that have as their goals political solutions to current international crises. These developments prove that the South is not bereft of visionary thinking that could lay the basis for a measure of world peace. That is, there are grounds to be hopeful.
NAM needs to see it as its responsibility to make good use of these hopeful signs to bring the South together once again and work towards the realization of its founding principles, such as initiating value-based international politics and laying the basis for the collective economic betterment of Southern people.
Features
Artificial Intelligence in Academia: Menace or Tool?
(The author is on X as @sasmester)
I have often been told by university colleagues how soulless and dangerous ‘artificial intelligence’ (AI) is to academia and humanity. They lament that students no longer read anything as they can now get various AI programmes to summarise what is recommended which is mostly in the English language to Sinhala or Tamil or get easier versions in English itself. They get their assignments and even dissertations fully or partially written by AI. And I am led to believe that universities do not have reliable detection software to assess plagiarism and academic fraud that have been committed using AI beyond the software freely available on the internet with their own limitations. This is due to financial restrictions in these institutions. Even these common malpractices have been done mostly with the aid of free AI programmes which are readily available, which means cheating in this sense is free and mostly safe. For teachers, this is a ‘menace’ in the same way ‘copying’ once was. But its implications are far worse.
But given the global investments made over AI, it cannot be wished away despite the enormous negative impact its use has on the environment, particularly due to its massive demand for energy. So, AI is with us to stay, and it has a considerable role to play in human civilisation even though like most innovations and inventions, this too carries its own burden of negativity. In this context, instead of demonising AI and lamenting its replacement of human agency and ingenuity, one needs to think seriously about how to deal with and engage with it reflectively and pragmatically as there is much it can offer if people are intelligent enough to make rational and sensible choices.
When I am making these observations, I am restricting myself to a handful of practices involving only writing both in university-based examination processes and in the fields of creative writing.
My initial introduction to AI was through the Research Methods class I used to teach in New Delhi. In 2022, this class was supposed to go to Dharmshala in Uttar Pradesh for fieldwork training, and we needed to write a funding proposal quickly. One of the students in the class, already familiar with ChatGPT introduced by OpenAI as a free programme in 2022, did the proposal with its help before the two-hour class was over. I edited it soon after and sent it off to the university administration for funding which we received. That stint of field work was completed in five days and was the most detailed work undertaken as a training programme up to that time in the university which had considerable output ranging from a documentary film to a detailed ethnography based on the findings.
While the technical details, the format of the proposal and its basic writing were done by AI due to the time constraints the class faced, its fine-tuning was done by me and a few students. AI could not then and even now cannot undertake that level of specificity without close human intervention. But the film, the ethnography and the actual process of research had nothing to do with AI. It was the result of human labour, thinking, planning and at times creativity and ingenuity. This was an early example of how AI could coexist in an academic environment if its technical usefulness was clearly understood and potential for excesses was also understood. But this was a time, easily accessible AI was just emerging, and we did not know much about it. But I was fortunate enough to have intelligent students in my class who gave me a crash course into this kind of AI use, which I followed up with my own reading and experimentation later on. As a result, I am keener now to see how it can be used for the betterment of academic practice rather than taking an uncritically demonising position, which I know will not lead anywhere.
But how is this possible? The lamentations of my colleagues about the abuse of AI in academic practice is not unfounded. It is a serious threat that remains mostly unaddressed not only in our country but almost everywhere else in the world too. This is mostly because the advancements of AI even in day-to-day free usage have far exceeded any thoughts for actionable codes of ethics to ensure its practice is sensible and ethical. At the same time, I cannot see why a student should not use AI to correct his spelling and grammar in assignments. I also cannot see why a student cannot seek AI’s help to secure research material from secondary sources available online which I have been doing for years. For instance, the originals of specific books and rare manuscripts might not be available in any repositories in our part of the world. In such situations, what AI might find us is all we have access to in a world where we are restricted in our mobility due to semi-racist visa regimes of failed empires and former superpowers as well as our own lack of ability to travel due to our own unenviable economic conditions. But unfortunately, the materials we need are often only available in research centers and libraries in those nations.
Similarly, when it comes to academic prose, it makes no sense now to take years to translate works from multiple languages to Sinhala and Tamil. This has always been a time-consuming, cumbersome and expensive process. Non-availability of Sinhala and English translations of core originals in languages such as English, French, German and so on has been a long-term problem for our country. But this can now be done well – at least from English to our languages – quite quickly and with a very low margin for error by using specific AI programmes which are meant to do precisely this. What this means is a quick expansion of knowledge in local languages which would have ordinarily taken years to achieve or might not have been possible at all. But still, this needs significant human intervention and time towards perfection. However, I do not think AI-based translations work as well for fiction and poetry or creative works more generally. But the ability for AI to emulate nuance and feeling in language is fast emerging. These are two clear examples of improving technical abilities in research and writing in which AI can be of help.
But looking for sources of information with help the help of AI or using it as a tool to undertake essential translations from one language to another is quite different from simply using it without ascertaining the accuracy of collected information, getting AI to do all your work without any reflection or without any hard work at all, including engaging AI to do the final product in a writing assignment — be that a term paper or a work of fiction. If one proceeds in this direction, as many unfortunately do nowadays, then, our ability to think and be creative as a species will become diminished over time and our sense of humanity itself will take a toll. This is what my colleagues worry about when they say AI is making younger generations soulless.
It is here that ethical practices on how to use AI responsibly without compromising our sense of humanity must play a central role. But these ethical practices must be formally written and taught, followed by viable programmes for detection and publication if unethical practices are followed. This needs to be the case particularly in teaching institutions as well as the broader domain of creative writing. After all, what is the fun in reading a novel or a collection of poetry written by AI?
It is time people began to think about what AI can do in their own fields without falling prey to its power and their own laziness. This brings to my mind Geoffrey Hinton’s words: “There is no chance of stopping AI’s development. But we need to ensure alignment; to ensure it is beneficial to us …” Similarly, as Yann LeCun observed, “AI is not just about replicating human intelligence; it’s about creating intelligent systems that can surpass human limitations.” In this sense, it is up to us to find our edge in creativity and common sense to find the most sensible way forward in using AI.
Features
Engelbert’s 90th birthday bash
The legendary Engelbert Humperdinck, who is known for his hit songs such as ‘A Man Without Love’, ‘Release Me’, ‘Spanish Eyes’, ‘The Last Waltz’, ‘Am I That Easy To Forget’, ‘Ten Guitars’ and ‘I Can’t Stop Loving You’, turned 90 on 02 May, 2026, and there were some lovely Hollywood-related celebrations.
Before his birthday, Engelbert’s new single ‘I’ve Got You’ was released – on 23 April – and Engelbert had this to say: “‘I’ve Got You’ is especially close to my heart. It speaks to love, loyalty, and the quiet strength we find in one another”.
The main birthday event was held at The Starlight Cabaret, in Los Angeles, California, and Sri Lankan Raju Rasiah, now based in the States, and his wife Renuka, who are personal friends of Engelbert, were invited to participate in the celebrations, along with Ingrid Melicon – also a Sri Lankan, now domiciled in America.
The invitation said “An evening of music, memories and celebration. Let’s make it a night to remember!” And it certainly turned out to be a night never ever to be forgotten!

Invitees experienced a “magical entrance” with Engelbert’s name lighting up the screen and showing him performing his hit songs.
The invitees were also presented with a unique gift – a necklace with Engelbert’s face, engraved with the words “Remember, I Love You.”
Engelbert’s son, Bradley Dorsey, sang a tribute song ‘Only You’ for his dad, while Eddy Fisher’s daughters, Tricia and Joely, also got on stage to entertaining the distinguish gathering.
Engelbert didn’t perform but got on stage for the cutting of the birthday cake.
There was also a video compilation of birthday wishes from fellow celebrities, and the lineup included Gloria Gaynor, Micky Dolenz, Wayne Newton, Pat Boone, Lulu, Judy Collins, Deana Martin, Angélica María, Rupert Everett, Matt Goss, and more.

Birthday boy Engelbert Humperdinck
At 90, Engelbert is still performing. He’s on THE CELEBRATION TOUR for his 90th year, with over 50 international dates in 2026, including Australia, Germany, the US, and Canada. He’ll be at Massey Hall in, Toronto, on 06 October, 2026. He said: “The stage is my home… Canada has always been a highlight”.
He performed 60+ concerts, worldwide, in 2025, and says karaoke keeps his songs fresh: “Most of my songs are on karaoke because people love to sing them”.
-
News4 days agoLanka Port City officials to meet investors in Dubai
-
News1 day agoEx-SriLankan CEO’s death: Controversy surrounds execution of bail bond
-
News5 days agoSLPP expresses concern over death of former SriLankan CEO
-
Editorial6 days agoThe Vijay factor
-
News5 days agoPolice inform Fort Magistrate’s Court of finding ex-CEO of SriLankan dead under suspicious circumstances
-
Features2 days agoHigh Stakes in Pursuing corruption cases
-
Features2 days agoWhen University systems fail:Supreme Court’s landmark intervention in sexual harassment case
-
Features6 days agoPalm leaf manuscripts of Sri Lanka – 1
