Connect with us

Features

IPKF’S Withdrawal: Correspondence between Premadasa and Rajiv Gandhi

Published

3 years ago

on

  2 June 1989

My dear Prime Minister,

I am writing to you on some matters of urgent importance. The most immediate matter relates to the presence of Indian Forces in Sri Lanka. After I assumed the Presidency of Sri Lanka, the Government of India initiated the withdrawal of troops. We are grateful for your prompt action in this regard.

One of the important campaign pledges made by me at both the Presidential and Parliamentary Elections was the withdrawal of the IPKF on being elected to office. I assumed the office of President of Sri Lanka-on the 2nd of January 1989. Five months have elapsed since then. The complete withdrawal of the IPKF will, hopefully, contribute to stabilizing the situation in Sri Lanka, where the presence of the IPKF has become a deeply divisive and resentful issue. It is also in keeping with your often expressed sentiments that the IPKF will be withdrawn when requested by the President of Sri Lanka.

I am thankful for the efforts of the IPKF during the time it has been in our country. I have often paid tribute to the bravery of the many officers and men who lost life and limb in the discharge of their duties. The tragedy of violence has not only affected your soldiers, it has destroyed many Sri Lankans as well. Our Armed Forces and large numbers of civilians, innocent and uninvolved, have suffered beyond description. Their sacrifices must not be in vain. I am confident that a complete withdrawal of the IPKF will enable me to secure the trust and confidence of my people. Therefore, I would like all IPKF -personnel to be withdrawn from Sri Lanka by July 31st 1989.

The withdrawal of the IPKF will also enable Sri Lanka to host the SAARC Summit in November this year in a climate of tranquility. As you are aware, we could not undertake our obligation to do this in. 1988. You will appreciate how difficult it is to hold a regional gathering of this nature with foreign forces on our soil. Our people are most enthusiastic about welcoming leaders of our own region, particularly our closest neighbours. However, their anxieties must also be satisfied, especially in relation to their deep patriotic and, nationalist sensitivities.

In this context, we have submitted several proposals regarding an Indo-Lanka Friendship Treaty. I believe that, in the long term, such an agreement will further strengthen relations between India and Sri Lanka. I await your response to our proposals in this regard.

We have always appreciated your sincere interest in the unity and the territorial integrity of our country. our own efforts to this end need the understanding and goodwill of our neighbours. I believe, that your people and you yourself, share these objectives and will contribute to their realization.

I have just seen the Aide Memoire which was handed over to me by your High Commissioner, this evening. As the Aide Memoire refers to the need for consultations between our Governments, I am designating my Foreign Secretary to personally clarify our position on these matters.

With assurances of my high consideration and esteem.

Yours sincerely,

His Excellency Shri Rajiv Gandhi
Prime Minister of India
Prime Minister’s Office
New Delhi
INDIA

Dear Mr. President,

I have your letter of the 2nd June, which was handed over to me by your Special Envoy, Foreign Secretary Tilakaratne.

India is committed to preserving the unity and integrity of Sri -Lanka, under the terms of the Indo-Sri Lanka Agreement. It was as a. result of this commitment and. our responsibility as a guarantor for the implementation of the Indo-Sri Lanka Agreement that we responded to the request of the Government of Sri Lanka to send the IPKF. This was at a time when the situation seemed headed inexorably towards the break-up of Sri Lanka. During its presence, the IPKF has striven, with considerable success but at heavy cost to itself, to prevent such an outcome and safeguard the unity and integrity of Sri Lanka.

Three successive elections have been held peacefully despite threats of terrorist violence in the North-East, and all Tamil-groups, barring one, have joined the democratic process. All the Tamil groups, barring one, had given up the demand for Eelam. If the process of devolution of powers to the Provincial Council had been implemented in time and had the deliberate attempt by the Sri Lankan Government to alter the population balance in the Tamil areas by the continued State-sponsored colonisation of Tamil areas been stopped, the extremists s would have been further isolated and marginalised, and the violence ended.

As you have yourself stated, we had started the withdrawal of the IPKF even before you requested for it. A broad time frame for the IPKF’s withdrawal was also discussed at our initiative, based on which your Foreign Minister had made a statement in your Parliament on the 31st March, 1989. All this was being done on the basis of assurances given by the Sri Lankan Government and the assumption that the implementation of the Indo-Sri Lanka Agreement especially the devolution of powers to the Provincial Councils – would proceed simultaneously, so that the legitimate aspirations of the Tamils could be met within the framework of the unity and integrity of Sri Lanka. It is pertinent to recall that it was precisely because these aspirations were not being met that a situation was created which threatened the unity and integrity of Sri Lanka.

I have always maintained that the IPKF will not stay in Sri Lanka a day longer than necessary. But we cannot be unmindful of the responsibilities and obligations of the two countries under the Indo-Sri Lanka Agreement. Tamil militant groups were persuaded to support the Indo-Sri Lanka Agreement and to join the democratic process within the framework of a united Sri Lanka only on the basis of assurances that the Tamil majority North-Eastern Province will be given substantial devolution of powers. Our two Governments are, therefore, morally and legally obliged to ensure that the Tamils are given the autonomy they were promised, both in the 13th Amendment to the Sri Lankan Constitution, as also in the additional areas promised in the Agreement signed between former President Jayewardene and myself on the 7th November, 1987. Failure to do so will only lend credence to the claims made by some Tamil groups that Tamils cannot expect justice within a united Sri Lanka. We have to be fully conscious of the dangers of a return to a situation which may be worse than that prevailing prior to the Indo-Sri Lanka Agreement.

We believe that, in the spirit of traditional friendship between our two countriesp we must jointly draw up a mutually agreed schedule for the full implementation of the Indo-Sri Lanka Agreement and the complete withdrawal of the IPKF. The two have to be joint, parallel exercises.

We have no objection to your proposal for a Friendship Treaty. I had told your Special Envoy that we could set dates for commencing discussions with a view to finalising the text of the proposed treaty.

Yours sincerely,

His Excellency

Mr. Ranasinghe Premadasa
President of the Democratic
Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka
Colombo

MOST IMMDT CONFIDENTIAL
No.292
For Kalpage From Tilakaratna

Grateful transmit following message first thing tomorrow morning.

From H.E.President of Sri Lanka
To H.E. Prime Minister of India

Excellency,

I am glad to inform you that the LTTE has announced a complete cessation of hostilities against the Sri Lanka Government with immediate effect.The LTTE which is no longer a proscribed group has in the course of recent discussions with the Government of Sri Lanka agreed to settle whatever problems they have through a process of negotiation.

Under the circumstances it will be appreciated if your Excellency will ensure that the IPKF does not take any offensive action against the LTTE which will tend to prejudice the negotiations that are currently. in progress.Accept Excellency the assurances of my highest consideration.

R. PREMADASA, PRESIDENT

Dear Prime Minister,

I am in receipt of your letter of 20 June in reply to my letter of 2 June 1989.I thank you for reiterating India’s commitment to preserve the unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Sri Lanka as was stated in the Indo-Sri Lanka Agreement.

We appreciate ‘the assistance given by the Indian Government in providing the personnel to assist in the acceptance of arms surrendered by the militants as envisaged by- Article 2.9 of the Agreement. We are also thankful for the assistance provided at our request, in terms of Article 2.16(c) of the Agreement and paragraph 6 of the Annexure in affording military assistance to ensure the cessation of hostilities.

I am unable however to accept the contention that the implementation of the Indo-Sri Lanka Agreement, including the devolution of powers to the Provincial Councils, is in any way linked with the withdrawal of the Indian Armed Forces. They had been invited to Sri Lanka for the specific purpose of guaranteeing and enforcing the cessation of hostilities. The Indo-Sri Lanka Agreement does not provide for continued military activities by the Indian Armed Forces in Sri Lanka after a request has been made by me to have them withdrawn. Continuation of such military activities would also be a violation of peremptory norms of international law.

The Indian Peace Keeping Force came to Sri Lanka at the request of the President of Sri Lanka. Due to the circumstances that arose thereafter the IPKF was requested by the President to afford military assistance to ensure the cessation of hostilities. The only condition that should be satisfied for the withdrawal of the Indian Armed Forces is a decision by the President of Sri Lanka that they should be withdrawn. The request made by me to withdraw the Indian Armed Forces has satisfied this condition. It is therefore incumbent on the Government of India to withdraw the Indian Armed Forces from Sri Lanka.

The proposals for the political settlement of the ethnic problem negotiated from 4.5.1986 to 19.12.1986 as well as the residual matters to be finalised between the Government of Sri Lanka and the Government of India have all been accepted and incorporated in the relevant amendments to our Constitution and the Provincial Councils Act. The delay in -giving effect to certain proposals within the time frame envisaged by the Agreement had been occasioned by the inability of the Indian Armed Forces to ensure a cessation of hostilities and violence in the North and the East.

The actual functioning of the Provincial Councils in the new system of administration is applicable not only to the North and the East -but to all the Provinces of Sri Lanka. This is entirely a political process in which the military has no role whatsoever. You will no doubt agree that it has been an experience common in many other jurisdictions that the establishment of an entirely. new structure of administration based on devolution, is essentially a long term process. There is neither a legal nor any other rational basis for the presence of any military force to ensure that the administrative structure is fully in place in any Province of Sri Lanka. I have, in consultation with the Ministers of the Cabinet and Chief Ministers of the Provincial Councils, taken all steps to ensure that the administrative structure necessary for the effective exercise of devolved powers is in place as expeditiously as possible.

As I have already intimated to you in my letter of 2 June 1989 one of the important pledges made by me both at the Presidential and at the Parliamentary Elections was to ensure the withdrawal of the Indian Forces. To quote the Manifesto

‘We will seek a Friendship Treaty with India on the lines of the Indo-Soviet Friendship Treaty. If by the time our candidate is elected President the Indian Forces have not left, we will ensure that they are withdrawn.’

The main Opposition Party, the Sri Lanka Freedom Party, in their election manifesto had stated that the Indo-Sri Lanka Agreement would be abrogated and the Indian Forces asked to leave. Thus it will be seen that over 95% of the voters clearly mandated the withdrawal of the Indian Forces. The majority appeared the UNP proposal for the conclusion of a Friendship Treaty with India.

I would also like to mention a most significant development, which may not have been brought to your notice, namely that the majority of the people of all three communities in the North and the East demand the immediate withdrawal of the Indian Forces.

In your letter you have mentioned that there has been a deliberate attempt by the Government of Sri Lanka to alter the Population balance in the Tamil areas by continuing state-sponsored colonisation. I must emphatically refute this. There has been no colonisation whatsoever in these areas since the signing of the Indo-Sri Lanka Agreement.

The ground is now set for the Government to resolve any Outstanding issues relating to the ethnic problem on the basis of consultation, compromise and consensus with all communities and groups concerned. As I have already informed you, the LTTE has announced the cessation of hostilities against the Government of Sri Lanka. They have also resolved to settle any outstanding issues through negotiations and discussions. It is in this context that I have requested you to issue the necessary instructions to the Indian Armed Forces to refrain from offensive operations against the LTTE. The LTTE has already expressed its willingness to put an end to such activities against the Indian Armed Forces on a reciprocal basis. The withdrawal of the Indian Forces within the time frame visualised by me is an essential pre-condition for the Government to proceed with the consolidation .of a political settlement.

Far from being of any assistance in the complete resolution of the ethnic problem, the presence of the Indian Forces is now a serious impediment. In this connection, I must bring to your notice an alarming development that has been taking place in the -Northern and Eastern Provinces. There are complaints that youths mostly of tender age are being forcibly conscripted by certain political groups and are being trained at the hands of the Indian Forces. I need not elaborate on the possible consequences that will follow if this is. not checked forthwith.

Therefore, in consideration of all these circumstances, I again earnestly request an immediate recommencement of the withdrawal of the Indian Armed Forces and an acceleration of this process.

I am glad at your favourable response to my proposal for a Friendship Treaty with India. We have already given our draft to the Ministry of External Affairs in New Delhi. I would request that

discussions should commence without delay, so that this Treaty could give concrete and expeditious expression to the traditional bonds of friendship between our two countries.

Yours sincerely,

High Commissioner for India
Colombo, Sri Lankan
No. COL/SCR/551/48/89
30th June, 1989.

My dear Foreign Secretary,

Please refer to your letter No.DA/MISC/1, of 29th June, 1989 forwarding to me a copy of a message from His Excellency Mr. R. Premadasa, President of Sri Lanka, to His Excellency Sri Rajiv Gandhi, Prime Minister of India.

2. I have pleasure in attaching a message from His Excellency Shri Rajiv Gandhi, Prime Minister of India, to His Excellency Mr. R. Premadasa, President of Sri Lanka, in reply.

3. I shall be grateful if the message is transmitted to its high destination most immediately.

With kind regards,

Yoursi sincerely,
(L.L. Mehrotra)
Mr. B.P.Tilakaratna,
Foreign Secretary,
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Public Building,
Colombo-1.

Text of message received by the High Commissioner for India in Colombo, telephonically from His Excellency Shri Ravijv Gandhi, Prime Minister of India, to His Excellency Mr. R. Premadasa President of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.

June 30, 1989.

Dear Mr. President,

I have your message of the 29th June sent through Your High Commissioner.

The Indo-Sri Lanka Agreement provides for a cessation of hostilities between the Tamil militant groups and the Sri Lankan Forces, and also for the Sri tankan Forces to stay in barracks in the North East Province. Both these were achieved on the 30th July, 1987. Thus there has already been an effective cessation of hostilities between the Sri Lankan Forces and the LTTE. I am glad that the LTTE has now formally conceded this reality.

We hope that the formal agreement of the LTTE to cease hostilities clearly implies their commitment to the unity and integrity of Sri Lanka and to renounce violence and to respect democratic processes. We trust that, consequent to giving up violence, the LTTE will resume surrender of arms through the Sri Lankan Government a process which had started on the 5th of August, 1987 and is not yet complete. Unless the LTTE have undertaken to hand over their arms and to renounce violence not only towards the Sri Lankan Government but towards the other citizens of the North Eastern Province, their announcement of cessation of hostilities would be meaningless.

Since the IPKF has a mandate in terms of India’s role as a guarantor, for ensuring the physical safety and security of all communities of the North Eastern Province, I would appreciate clarifications, on the points I have mentioned above. These clarifications will facilitate an immediate decision on the IPKF’s cessation of offensive action to disarm the LTTE. The earlier we receive your response, the quicker will be the process of initiating suitable action.

Yours sincerely,

H.E. Mr. R. Premadasa,
President,
Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka,
Colombo.

ANNEXURE “G”
CALLING LANKACOM NEW DELHI DATE 4.7.89. MOST IMMEDIATE
MOST IMMEDIATE
CONFIDENTIAL
No. 302

For Kalpage From Tilakaratna.

Please transmit message given below from H.E. the President to H.E. Rajiv Gandhi Prime Minister.Please transmit this tomorrow morning and inform me when you have done so.

QUOTE

Dear Prime Minister,

I have your message of 30th June tent through your High-Commissioner in response to my message requesting you to ensure that the Indian Armed Forces in Sri Lanka do not take any offensive action against the LTTE. Such action or any intensification of operations is liable to prejudice the negotiations currently in progress and prolong the armed conflict.

Your statement that cessation of hostilities took place on 30th July 1987 does not accord with facts. The LTTE ceased hostilities against the Sri Lanka Security only for a few days but resumed violence on 2nd August 1987 and continued until they announced a cessation of hostilities in June – 1989. During the interim 148 service and police personnel were killed and 80 were wounded, 481 cilvilians were killed and 115 were injured.

The LTTE announced a cessation of hostilities’ only in June this year after the commencement of the dialogue With the Government. This cessation covers not only the Government but also the people in the North and the East and in fact the people in the whole of Sri Lanka. At the same time the LTTE re-iterated its commitment to resolve all outstanding problems through negotiation and discussion and indicated their readiness to enter the democratic process.

As stated in your message you have been seeking to disarm the LTTE for the past two years and this process is not yet complete nor have you been able to bring them to the negotiating table. I am confident that I will be able to ensure that the LTTE give up their arms after the Indian Armed Forces have been withdrawn.

The political solution which I seek to provide will not only be within the frame work of our Constitution but must also preserve the sovereignty of our people, the unitary character and the territorial integrity of our country.

The responsiblity of providing safety and security for its citizens within Sri Lanka is solely the responsibility of the Government of Sri Lanka. The Indo-Sri Lanka Agreement does not and indeed cannot in International Law provide a mandate’ for the Government of India or Armed Forces to assume any responsibility for this function otherwise than at the express request of the Lanka Government. In any event during the past two years when the Indian Armed Forces were operating in a the Northern and Eastern Provinces they were unable to prevent the killings of a number of civilians and the displacement of even a larger number from their homes beside the casualties refered to above.

Any interpretation of the Agreement which seeks to provide a mandatory role for the Government of India or its Armed Forces within Sri Lanka otherwise than at express request of the Government of Sri Lanka would constitute a serious interference in the internal affairs a friendly sovereign country and a gross violation of the peremptory norms of International Law. I am sure that such is not your intention.

I trust these clarifications will enable you to ensure that the Indian Armed Forces do not continue any offensive operations against the LTTE.

Yours sincerely,


Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Features

NASA’s Epic Flight, Trump’s Epic Fumble and Asian Dilemmas

Published

6 hours ago

on

2026/04/5

By

Epic Crew (L-R): Jeremy Hansen, Victor Glover, Reid Wiseman Christina and Christina Koch

Three hours after the spectacular Artemis II flight launch in Florida, US President Donald Trump delivered a forlorn speech from Washington. Thirty three days after starting the war against Iran as Epic Fury, the President demonstrated on national and global televisions the Epic Fumble he has made out of his Middle East ‘excursion’. It was an April Fool’s Day speech, 20 minutes of incoherent rambling with the President looking bored, confused, disengaged and dispirited. He left no one wiser about what will come next, let alone what he might do next.

There was more to April Fool’s Day this year in that it brought out the nation’s good, bad and the ugly, all in a day’s swoop. The good was the Artemis II flight carrying astronauts farther from the Earth’s orbit and closer to the moon for the first time in over 50 years. The mission is a precursor for future flights and will test the performance of a new spacecraft, gather new understanding of human conditioning, and extend the boundaries of lunar science. It is a testament to humankind being able to make steady progress in science and technology at one end of a hopelessly uneven world, while poverty, bigotry and belligerence simmer violently at the other end.

Terrible Trump

The four Artemis II astronauts, three Americans, Reid Wiseman, Victor Glover, and Christina Koch, and one Canadian, Jeremy Hansen, are also symptomatic of the endurance of America’s inclusive goodness in spite of efforts by the Trump Administration to snuff the nation’s fledgling DEI (Diversity, Equity and Inclusion) ethos. To wit, of the four astronauts, Victor Glover, a Caribbean American, is the first person of colour, Christina Koch the first woman, and Jeremy Hansen of Canada the first non-American – to fly this far beyond the earth’s orbit. All in spite of Trump’s watch.

Yet Trump managed to showcase his commitment to America’s ugliness, on the same day, by presenting himself at the Supreme Court hearing on the constitutionality of his most abominable Executive Order – to stop the American tradition of birthright citizenship. He keeps posting that America is Stupid in being the only country in the world that grants citizenship at birth to everyone born in America, regardless of the status of their parents, except the children of foreign diplomats or members of an occupying enemy force. In fact, there are 32 other countries in the world that grant birthright citizenship, a majority of them in the Americas indicating the continent’s history as a magnet for migrants ever since Christopher Columbus discovered it for the rest of the world.

And birthright citizenship in the US is enshrined in the constitution by the 14th Amendment, supplemented by subsequent legislation and reinforced by a century and a half of case law. Trump wants to reverse that. Thus far and no further was the message from the court at the hearing. A decision is expected in June and the legal betting is whether it would be a 7-2 or 8-1 rebuke for Trump. In a telling exchange during the hearing, when the government’s Solicitor General John Sauer quite sillily dramatized that “we’re in new world now … where eight billion people are one plane ride way from having a child who’s a US citizen,” Chief Justice John Roberts quietly dismissed him: “Well, it’s a new world. It’s the same Constitution!”

Trump’s terrible ‘bad’ is of course the war that he started in the Middle East and doesn’t know how to end it. Margaret MacMillan, acclaimed World War I historian and a great grand daughter of World War I British Prime Minister Lloyd George from Wales, has compared Trump’s current war to the origins of the First World War. Just as in 1914, small Serbia had pulled the bigger Russia into a war that was not in Russia’s interest, so too have Netanyahu and Israel have pulled Trump and America into the current war against Iran. World War I that started in August, 2014 was expected to be over before Christmas, but it went on till November, 2018. Weak leaders start wars, says MacMillan, but “they don’t have a clear idea of how they are going to end.”

There are also geopolitical and national-political differences between the 1910s and 2020s. America’s traditional allies have steadfastly refused to join Trump’s war. And Trump is under immense pressure at home not to extend the war. This is one American war that has been unpopular from day one. The cost of military operations at as high as two billion dollars a day is anathema to the people who are aggravated by rising prices directly because of the war. Trump’s own mental acuity and the abilities of his cabinet Secretaries are openly under question. There are swirling allegations of military contract profiteering and selective defense investments – one involving Secretary of War Pete Hegseth.

Trump’s Administration is coming apart with sharp internal divisions over the war and government paralysis on domestic matters. There are growing signs of disarray – with Trump firing his Attorney General for not being effective prosecuting his political enemies and Secretary Hegseth ordering early retirement for Army Chief of Staff Randy George. In America’s non-parliamentary presidential system, Trump is allowed to run his own forum where he lies daily without instant challenger or contradiction, and it is impossible to get rid of his government by that simple device called no confidence motion.

Asian Dilemmas

Howsoever the current will last or end, what is clear is that its economic consequences are not going to disappear soon. Iran’s choke on the Strait of Hormuz has affected not only the supply and prices of oil and natural gas but a family of other products from fertilizers to medicines to semiconductors. The barrel price of oil has risen from $70 before the war to over $100 now. After Trump’s speech on April 1, oil prices rose and stock prices fell. The higher prices have come to stay and even if they start going down they are not likely to go down to prewar levels.

There are warnings that with high prices, low growth and unemployment, the global economy is believed to be in for a stagflation shock like in the 1970s. Even if the war were to end sooner than a lot later, the economic setbacks will not be reversed easily or quickly. Supplies alone will take time to get back into routine, and it will even take longer time for production in the Gulf countries to get back to speed. Not only imports, but even export trading and exports to Middle East countries will be impacted. The future of South Asians employed in the Middle East is also at stake.

In 1980, President Carter floated the Carter Doctrine that the US would use military force to ensure the free flow of oil through the Strait of Hormuz. Trump is now upending that doctrine – first by misusing America’s military force against Iran and provoking the strait’s closure, and then claiming that keeping the strait open is not America’s business. Ever selfish and transactional, Trump’s argument is that America is now a net exporter of oil and is no longer dependent on Middle East oil.

To fill in the void, and perhaps responding to Trump’s call to “build up some delayed courage,” UK has hosted a virtual meeting of about 40 countries to discuss modalities for reopening the Strait of Hormuz. US was not one of them. While Downing Street has not released a full list of attendees, European countries, some Gulf countries, Canada, Australia, Japan and India reportedly attended the meeting. Which other Asian countries attended the meeting is not known.

British Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper has blamed Iran for “hijacking” an international shipping route to “hold the global economy hostage,” while insisting that the British initiative is “not based on any other country’s priority or anything in terms of the US or other countries”. French President Emmanuel Macron now visiting South Korea has emphasized any resolution “can only be done in concert with Iran. So, first and foremost, there must be a ceasefire and a resumption of negotiations.”

Prior to the British initiative focussed on the Strait of Hormuz, Egypt, Pakistan and Türkiye have been playing a backdoor intermediary role to facilitate communications between the US and Iran. Trump as usual magnified this backroom channel as serious talks initiated by Iran’s ‘new regime’, and Trump’s claims were promptly rejected by Iran. There were speculations that Pakistan would host a direct meeting between US Vice President JD Vance and an Iranian representative in Islamabad. So far, only the foreign ministers of Egypt, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Türkiye have met in Islamabad, and Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar flew to Beijing to brief his Chinese counterpart, Wang Yi, of Pakistan’s diplomatic efforts.

The Beijing visit produced a five-point initiative calling for a ceasefire, the opening of the Strait of Hormuz and diplomacy instead of escalation. The five-point pathway seems a follow up to the 15-point demand that the US sent to Iran through the three Samaritan intermediaries which Iran rejected as they did not include any of Iran’s priorities. The state of these mediating efforts are now unclear after President Trump’s April Fool’s Day rambling. In fairness, Pakistan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs has announced that his country intends to keep ‘nudging’ the US and Iran towards resuming negotiations and ending the war.

While these efforts are welcome and deserve everyone’s best wishes, they have also led to what BBC has called the “chatter in Delhi” – “is India being sidelined” by Pakistan’s intermediary efforts? Indian Foreign Minister Jaishankar’s rather undiplomatic characterization of Pakistan’s role as “dalali” (brokerage) provoked immediate denunciation in Islamabad, while Indian opposition parties are blaming the Modi Government’s foreign policy stances as an “embarrassment” to India’s stature.

The larger view is that while it is Asia that is most impacted by the closure of Hormuz, with Singapore’s Foreign Affairs Minister Vivian Balakrishnan calling it an “Asian crisis”, Asia has no leverage in the matter and Asian countries have to make special arrangements with Iran to let their ships navigate through the Strait of Hormuz. There is no pathway for co-ordinated action. China is still significant but not consequentially effective. India’s all-alignment foreign policy has made it less significant and more vulnerable in the current crisis. And Pakistan has opened a third dimension to Asia’s dilemmas.

In the circumstances, it is fair to say that Sri Lanka is the most politically stable country among its South Asian neighbours. Put another way, Sri Lanka has a remarkably consensual and uncontentious government in comparison to the old governments in India and Pakistan, and even the new government in Bangladesh. But that may not be saying much unless the NPP government proves itself to be sufficiently competent, and uses the political stability and the general goodwill it is still enjoying, to put the country’s economic department in order. More on that later.

by Rajan Philips

Continue Reading

Features

Ranjith Siyambalapitiya turns custodian of a rare living collection

Published

7 hours ago

on

2026/04/5

By

Siyambalapitiya’s ancsetral house built on 1923 at Vendala

From Parliament to Fruit Grove:

After more than two decades in politics, rising to the positions of Cabinet Minister and Deputy Speaker of Parliament, Ranjith Siyambalapitiya has turned his attention to a markedly different arena — one far removed from parliamentary debate and political intrigue.

Today, Siyambalapitiya spends much of his time tending to a sprawling 15-acre home garden at Vendala in Karawanella, near Ruwanwella, nurturing what has gradually evolved into one of the most remarkable private fruit collections in the country.

Situated in Sri Lanka’s Wet Zone Low Country agro-ecological region (WL2), Ruwanwella lies at an elevation of roughly 100–200 metres above sea level. Deep red-yellow podzolic soils, annual rainfall exceeding 2,500 millimetres, and a warm humid tropical climate combine to create conditions that make the region one of the richest areas in the island for fruit tree diversity.

Within this favourable ecological setting, Siyambalapitiya has become what may best be described as a custodian of a living collection—a fruit grove that now contains around 554 fruit trees and vines, many of them rare or seldom seen in contemporary agriculture.

Of these, 448 varieties have already been properly identified and documented with the assistance of agriculturist Dr. Suba Heenkenda, a retired expert of the Department of Agriculture. Together they have undertaken the painstaking task of cataloguing the plants by their botanical names, common Sinhala names, and the names used in ancient Ayurvedic and indigenous medical texts, assigning each species a unique identification number.

According to Siyambalapitiya, the Vendala estate is possibly the only single location in Sri Lanka where such a large number of fruit varieties—particularly rare and underutilized species—are maintained within one property.

“This garden came down to me through my grandfather, grandmother, mother and father,” he says. “It is a place shaped by three generations.”

The estate, he explains, began as a traditional home garden where crops such as tea, coconut and rubber were cultivated alongside fruit trees planted by family members over decades. Over time, however, it evolved into something much larger: a carefully nurtured grove preserving both common and obscure fruit species.

Siyambalapitiya recalls with affection one of the oldest trees in the garden—a honey-jack tree known locally as “Lokumänike’s Rata Kos Gaha.”

The story behind it has become part of family lore. According to village elders, his grandmother had brought home the sapling after visiting the Colombo Grand Exhibition in 1952 many decades ago and planted it near the house.

The tree soon gained fame in the village. Its tender jackfruit proved ideal for curry and mallum, while the ripe fruit was renowned for its sweetness.

“Ripe jackfruit from this tree tastes like honey itself,” Siyambalapitiya says. “Even the seeds are full of flour and can be eaten throughout the year.”

Yet age has not spared the venerable tree. It now shows signs of disease, and Siyambalapitiya and his staff have had to treat old wounds and monitor unusual bark damage.

“Once lightning struck it,” he recalls. “The largest branch began to die. Saving the tree required what I would call a kind of surgical operation.”

Such care, he says, reflects the deep attachment he feels toward the collection.

His fascination with fruit trees began in childhood. While attending Royal College in Colombo and living in a boarding house he disliked, Siyambalapitiya would insist that the family procure new fruit saplings for him to plant during his weekend visits home.

“That was the only ‘price’ I demanded for going to school,” he laughs.

Over the years the collection expanded steadily as he encountered new plants in forests, nurseries, and rural landscapes across the island.

The result today is a grove that includes traditional Sri Lankan fruit species, underutilized native varieties, forest fruits, and plants introduced from overseas.

Some species originate in Arabian deserts, while others thrive naturally in cooler climates such as Europe. Certain plants require greenhouse-like conditions, while others are hardy forest trees.

Managing such diversity is no easy task.

“One plant asks for rain, another asks for cold, and yet another prefers heat,” Siyambalapitiya explains. “Too much rain makes some sick, too much sun troubles others. The older trees overshadow the younger ones. You cannot feed or medicate them all in the same way.”

He compares the task to caring for a household filled with people from many nations and ages—each with different needs.

Despite the challenges, he believes the effort is worthwhile, particularly because many of the trees are native species that have become increasingly rare.

“If things continue as they are, some of these plants may disappear from our lives,” he warns.

To preserve knowledge about them, Siyambalapitiya is preparing to launch a book titled “Mage Vendala Palathuru Arana” (My Vendala Fruit Grove), which serves as an introductory guide to the collection.

The book, scheduled for release on April 18 at the Vendala estate, will be attended by Ven. Dr. Kirinde Assaji Thera, Chief Incumbent of Gangaramaya Temple,

Uruwarige Wannila Aththo, the leader of the Indigenous Vedda Community,

a long-serving former employee who helped maintain the plantation, and Sunday Dhamma school students from the region, who will participate as guests of honour.

The publication will also mark Siyambalapitiya’s eighth book. Previously he authored seven works and wrote more than 500 weekly newspaper columns offering commentary on politics and current affairs.

While working on the fruit catalogue, he is simultaneously writing another volume reflecting on his 25-year political career, including his tenure as Deputy Finance Minister during Sri Lanka’s most severe economic crisis.

For Siyambalapitiya, however, the fruit grove represents more than a hobby or academic exercise.

“The fruit we enjoy is the result of a tree’s effort to reproduce,” he says. “Nature has given fruits their taste, fragrance and colour to attract us. All the tree asks in return is that its seeds be carried to new places.”

That simple cycle of life, he believes, has continued for tens of thousands of years.

“And those who love trees,” he adds, “are guardians of the world’s survival.”

by Saman Indrajith

Pix by Tharanga Ratnaweera

Continue Reading

Features

Smoke Free Sweden calls out to WHO not to suggest nicotine alternatives

Published

7 hours ago

on

2026/04/5

By

It has been reported by the international advocacy initiative, ‘Smoke Free Sweden’ (‘SFS’) that many International health experts have begun criticizing the World Health Organization (WHO) for presenting safer nicotine alternatives rather than recognizing its role in accelerating decline in smoking.

As the world’s premier technical health agency, the WHO is empowered to support strategies that reduce morbidity and mortality even if they do not eliminate the underlying behaviour. Furthermore, it should base its guidance on evolving scientific knowledge, which includes comparative-risk assessments. Equating smoke-free nicotine alternatives with combustible cigarettes, is essentially putting lives at risk, according to the health experts contacted by SFS.

The warning follows recent WHO comments suggesting that vaping and other non-combustible nicotine products are driving tobacco use in Europe. This narrative ignores real-world evidence from countries like Sweden where access to safer alternatives has coincided with record low smoking rates.

A “Smoke-Free” status is defined as an adult daily smoking prevalence below 5% and Sweden is on the brink of officially achieving this milestone. This is clear proof that pragmatic harm-reduction policies work. Sweden’s success has been driven by adult smokers switching to lower-risk alternatives such as oral tobacco pouches (Snus), oral nicotine pouches and other non-combustible products.

“Vapes and pouches are helping to reduce risk, and Sweden’s smoke-free transition proves this,” said Dr Delon Human, leader of Smoke Free Sweden. “We should be celebrating policies that help smokers quit combustible tobacco, not spreading fear about the very tools that are accelerating the decline of cigarettes.”

It is further reported by health experts that conflating cigarettes with non-combustible alternatives risks deterring smokers from switching and could slow progress toward reducing tobacco-related disease.

Dr Human emphasized that youth protection and harm reduction are not mutually exclusive.

“It is critically important to safeguard against underage use, but this should be done by targeted, risk-proportionate regulation and proper enforcement, not by sacrificing the right of adults to access products that might save their lives,” he said.

Smoke Free Sweden is calling on global health authorities to adopt evidence-based policies that distinguish clearly between combustible tobacco – the primary cause of tobacco-related death – and lower-risk nicotine alternatives.

“Public health policy must be grounded in science and real-world outcomes,” Dr Human added. “Sweden’s experience shows that when adult smokers are given legal access to safer nicotine alternatives, smoking rates fall faster than almost anywhere else in the world.”

Continue Reading

Trending