Connect with us

Features

JVP/NPP government as seen from outside by Lionel Bopage now domiciled in Australia

Published

on

Lionel Bopage (right) interviewed by Wasantha Masinghege

The following are excerpts from a recent interview with Lionel Bopage, who was in the 1971 JVP leadership, conducted in Sinhala by Sirasa TV’s Ten Questions program hosted by Wasantha Masinghege.

Lionel Bopage, the first General Secretary of the JVP, was here recently from Australia where he is domiciled. Now 82, Bopage was among the key figures involved in the formation of the JVP and was a member of its early ‘Committee of 21’ leadership.

He joined the movement at the age of 24, influenced by his father’s involvement in the Communist Party and his own commitment to left-wing politics. He later became increasingly critical of the JVP’s position on the national question and resigned from the party in 1983.

Following the 1983 ethnic riots, Bopage was detained for six months despite maintaining that he had no involvement in the violence. Amid death threats during the second JVP insurrection, he eventually fled Sri Lanka, first to Japan as a UN refugee and later to Australia, where he worked in research and development for the Australian Federal Government.

In the interview, Bopage reflects on the 1971 insurrection, the ideological differences that led to his departure from the JVP, his life in exile and the transformation of the movement into a political force now leading the NPP government. While expressing hope for the present administration, he stresses the need for long-term reforms, public consultation and a stronger role for civil society.

Q: You have returned to a Sri Lanka that is very different from the country you left. How do you feel about being back?

A:The climate remains the same, although the heat (climatic) is difficult after so many years in Melbourne. But what is more important is the change in the political atmosphere. I see a sense of change which is encouraging, although I remain cautious.

There is still a deep sense of community in Sri Lanka, despite the economic difficulties. But there is also considerable stress and what I would describe as a simmering anger in society.

Australia is a developed capitalist country with a large middle class and a significant immigrant population. Sri Lanka still has a large oppressed rural population and remnants of feudal social structures. The social values are also different.

For example, Sri Lankan families generally look after their elderly members at home. In Australia’s more individualistic and busy society, elderly people often move into aged-care facilities. Sri Lankan villages retain a strong sense of mutual dependence, whereas Australians tend to lead more private lives. Yet Australians are very willing to help when there is a crisis.

I also observe a great deal of impatience and aggression in Sri Lanka. You can see it particularly on the roads. Australians, despite not being a Buddhist society, generally display greater patience, calmness and willingness to listen to others.

Q: Looking back after more than five decades, how do you assess the 1971 JVP insurrection?

A:I now believe that the 1971 insurrection was a historical mistake and should not have happened.

I joined the JVP when I was 24. My father had been involved in the Communist Party, and I was influenced by progressive publications such as Nava Lokaya. During the early underground period, I used the alias ‘Laiya’ and was part of the Committee of 21, which formed the core leadership of the movement.

The JVP was being pushed towards armed struggle. The United Front government had established a committee specifically to suppress us, and this created a vicious cycle. The more we felt suppressed, the more we believed we had to arm ourselves.

The decision to attack on April 5 was a desperate one, particularly following the arrest of Rohana Wijeweera. But we had already lost the element of surprise because of the premature attack in Monaragala on April 4, which affected coordination.

Looking back, I believe the tragedy could have been avoided if the JVP had been provided with a legal and democratic avenue through which to express its grievances.

Q: You resigned from the JVP in 1983. What was the fundamental reason for your departure?

A:The central issue was the national question. While I was in prison in the early 1970s, I met Tamil youth who had been arrested after protesting, including over issues concerning language and university access. I came to understand that many of their grievances were legitimate.

Between 1972 and 1973, I was involved in developing the JVP’s position on the national question. Together with Rohana Wijeweera, I supported the right to self-determination. That did not mean supporting separation; it was a democratic principle.

However, after the 1982 Presidential election, some within the party blamed this position for the JVP’s poor performance among Sinhala voters. The party increasingly moved towards a nationalist position.

The situation became particularly difficult in 1983 when I issued a press statement condemning the killing of a Tamil fisherman by a southerner. The leadership asked me to stop speaking about self-determination.

I could not accept that. A General Secretary has to believe in the principles of the party he represents. I am a Marxist, and a Marxist accepts the principle of self-etermination. I could not call myself a Marxist while remaining in a party that rejected that principle.

Q: What ultimately forced you into exile?

A: By 1989, the situation had become lethal. I was facing death threats from more than one side. After the 1983 riots, I was detained for six months even though I had no involvement in the violence. During the second JVP insurrection, the threats became even more serious.

With the help of friends, I eventually fled to Japan as a UN refugee and later settled in Melbourne. My family joined me there, and we received assistance from a Christian community with accommodation and integration.

I subsequently worked in research and development for the Australian Federal Government until my retirement. I continue to live in Australia because my family is settled there. I have no property in Sri Lanka and depend on my Australian pension.

Q: Did you ever imagine that the JVP would one day become the leading force in government?

A:Honestly, no. I never expected to see a JVP-led government in my lifetime.

I supported Anura Kumara Dissanayake at the 2024 Presidential election because I considered his platform the most progressive one available at the time.

But we have to be realistic about what the present government is. This is not a socialist government. The NPP was not elected to establish socialism. It is operating within a capitalist framework and pursuing what can broadly be described as a social democratic program.

It is also constrained by the IMF agreements inherited from the previous government.

I hope the government succeeds because its success is ultimately the country’s success.

Q: How do you assess the present Opposition?

A:I am not happy with its current role. Parliament should not be a place merely for making wild allegations or exchanging verbal tirades. The Opposition should critically examine government policies, challenge proposals that are unrealistic or harmful to the people and stand up for people’s rights.

A large part of today’s Opposition has previously been in government, and many of the problems the country faces are the result of policies adopted by those governments. If the present administration is attempting to correct those problems, the Opposition has a duty to assist when the proposed measures are in the national interest.

So far, I have not seen an alternative program capable of addressing the country’s existing crises. I would welcome a political force that is better than the incumbent government. That would be good for the country. But at present, I do not see such an alternative force. If one is to emerge, it must ultimately come from the people.

Q: What would be your advice to the present government?

A:It must move away from what I call a ‘firefighting mode’. Governments inevitably have to respond to immediate crises, but temporary solutions cannot substitute for long-term systemic reform. The government should focus more on addressing the underlying causes of the country’s problems rather than simply dealing with one crisis after another.

Most importantly, it must consult the people and civil society organizations.

History has shown us what can happen when governments lose their connection with the people. We have seen examples in countries such as the Soviet Union and China where governments moved away from genuine engagement with society and eventually went down the wrong path.

The government should therefore listen more carefully to civil organizations and the public. I would also like to see the JVP and its political offshoots, including the Frontline Socialist Party, put aside personal animosities and work together where they can for the benefit of the country.

Q: After everything that happened, what is your hope for Sri Lanka?

A:I hope the present change in political direction succeeds. But no government should be given blind loyalty. People and civil society must remain engaged and continue to question governments. What matters is not whether a particular party remains in power, but whether the country moves towards a society in which people have greater freedom, dignity and opportunity.

The government must remain connected to the people. If it does that, it has a better chance of avoiding the mistakes of the past.



Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Features

From the missing to the missing truth and beyond

Published

on

A file photo of Foreign Minister Vijitha Heath addressing the UNHRC.

by Jehan Perera

The government is preparing to meet the challenge of the UN Human Rights Council next month. A Sri Lankan delegation led by Foreign Minister Vijitha Herath is expected to attend the 63rd session of the UNHRC in Geneva, where the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights will present a written update on Sri Lanka. The government has already submitted its response to the advance version of the report prepared by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. The Foreign Minister, accompanied by officials from Colombo and Sri Lanka’s Permanent Mission in Geneva, is expected to explain the progress made on reconciliation, accountability and human rights. This is therefore an important moment for the government. It is an opportunity not merely to defend its record but to make new commitments.

The government has been criticised, as were its predecessors, for the manner in which it has dealt with past human rights violations, especially those connected with the thirty year war. The vexed issue of thousands of missing persons remains at the centre of this criticism. The government has sought to strengthen the Office on Missing Persons by providing it with additional staff and resources. It has also given support to the excavations at the Chemmani mass grave. Justice and National Integration Minister Harshana Nanayakkara has told Parliament that the government has allocated Rs. 57 million for the excavations and related legal work, though that figure has not been set against the cost of comparable forensic operations elsewhere.

The government also took the significant step of holding a national event in Jaffna to mark the International Day of the Victims of Enforced Disappearances. Minister Harshana Nanayakkara attended the event together with the Chairman of the Office on Missing Persons (OMP), Mahesh Katulanda, and other senior officials and political representatives. Their presence was meant to demonstrate the government’s commitment to addressing the issue. But on the victims’ side there is continuing dissatisfaction. The commemoration in Jaffna was met by a protest outside the District Secretariat, organised by families of the disappeared, who demanded to know what happened to relatives who, according to their accounts, surrendered to or were taken away by the military and were never heard from again.

Jaffna Protests

The protests in Jaffna are a reminder of the gap that remains between what the government is trying to do and what the victims expect. For these families, compensation and death certificates are not substitutes for knowing what actually happened to those they lost. The protests, and the police action taken against some of those who demonstrated, were reported by the international and Tamil media and by international human rights organisations, and overshadowed much of what the government had hoped to showcase at the Jaffna event. The OMP’s mandate is to establish the fate and whereabouts of missing persons, clarify the circumstances in which they went missing, and provide redress and assistance to their families. Accordingly, it has sought to verify complaints, remove duplicate entries, encourage people who have not yet made complaints to come forward, and facilitate compensation and other forms of assistance. The families of victims expect the OMP to do more to clarify the circumstances in which their loved ones went missing. An example would be the disappearance of 158 displaced Tamil persons from the Eastern University campus in Vantharumoolai, Batticaloa District, who were rounded up and forcibly removed in front of thousands of other similarly displaced persons, including the officer in charge Prof T Jayasingam.

The government has also increased the support available to families of the missing, and says it is accelerating the OMP’s investigations. But the scale of what remains undone is stark. There are around 11,000 complaints remaining to be investigated, according to the Justice Minister, while the OMP has reported that final information has been established in only 31 cases, communicated privately to the families concerned. On the government’s own figures, that puts the clearance rate for establishing fate and whereabouts at well under one percent of the outstanding caseload. There is a limit to what the OMP can do even with more resources and time. Its mandate is primarily to establish the fate and whereabouts of individual missing persons. It was not intended to produce the comprehensive, public account of the past that victims and the country as a whole require.

In 2015, the government headed by President Maithripala Sirisena and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe committed itself to establishing such a commission as part of a comprehensive approach to dealing with Sri Lanka’s past. Human Rights Council Resolution 30/1, which the government co-sponsored, specifically welcomed the proposed establishment of a “commission for truth, justice, reconciliation and non-recurrence”, together with an Office on Missing Persons and an Office for Reparations. However, the commitment to a truth-seeking mechanism was never fulfilled. The government should consider setting one up now. There is a growing feeling among Tamil people in the North and East that the government is failing to deliver on promises that are important to them. On issues important to them, they feel this is once again a Sinhala-dominated government like all the ones that came before.

Establish Truth

For the past two years the government has been concentrating on problems that it deems are important to the country as a whole such as the economy, development, poverty alleviation and corruption and criminality. However, the government needs to demonstrate that national unity means addressing the concerns of all communities, including those whose wounds from the war remain unhealed. Some of its own institutions have begun to act on this. The Office for National Unity and Reconciliation recently staged a drama entitled From Yakaweva to Nandikadal, depicting relationships between people that transcend the destruction caused by war. The drama portrayed the sufferings as well as the prejudices on both sides of the divide, from the Kebithigollewa bus bombing to the final days of the war around the Nandikadal lagoon. Its central message is that without forgiveness there cannot be reconciliation.

Particularly moving was the fact that the actors themselves came from families touched by the violence on both sides. The son of an LTTE Black Tiger leader and the daughter of an Army officer were among those who performed, alongside others who had experienced and survived some of the sites of carnage. The fact that a state institution is taking this message of reconciliation forward is itself a testament to the government’s openness to dealing with the past. A government institution can reach a population far larger than any civil society campaign could reach on its own, simply because the machinery of the state is so much more extensive. It is in this context that the government needs to give serious thought to setting up a Truth and Reconciliation Commission as the next step in the truth-seeking process. Special care will need to be taken to ensure that those who are appointed are not only politically non-partisan, but are acceptable to all the communities.

A Truth and Reconciliation Commission cannot by itself resolve all the wounds of the past. Nor can it replace criminal investigations or judicial proceedings where these are necessary. But it can provide something that existing institutions cannot provide on their own. This would be a comprehensive national process through which victims can be heard and the truth can be established. The general population needs to understand what happened, so that the country can begin to acknowledge its past without passing it on indefinitely to future generations. The government has already taken several steps. It is supporting the search for the truth at Chemmani. It has begun reaching out to families of the disappeared. Its own institutions are producing messages of reconciliation. But these are still not delivering the results that the victims and their families want. The next step should be to bring these efforts together to begin the journey from the missing to the missing truth, and from there to comprehensive justice.

Continue Reading

Features

The long road to educating Sri Lanka’s Bhikkhunis

Published

on

Bhikkunis: Image courtesy Buddhist Society of South Asia

A robe without recognition:

 

by Anushka Kahandagamage

Education is the right of every child. Yet somewhere between childhood and the robe, that right becomes precarious for many Buddhist women in Sri Lanka, threatening not only their social standing, but their fundamental access to learning and the institutional discrimination they face. This piece is not about Buddhist disciplinary rules, which discriminates women, rather about how the state’s refusal to fully recognise bhikkhunis as bhikkhunis quietly determines what they are, and are not, permitted to learn.

Unlike dasasil mathas, who occupy a distinct and unofficial category within Buddhist renunciation, bhikkhunis belong to a formally ordained order recognised within Buddhist monastic tradition itself. Dasa sil mata means ‘ten-precept mother.’ They are women who observe the ten precepts (rather than the fuller Vinaya) and live a renunciant, celibate life, often in robes, but formal ordination has not translated into formal recognition by the state. Even after a Supreme Court ruling affirmed their right to be identified as bhikkhunis on their National Identity Cards, many still do not hold one. This stems from the hesitation of the male-dominated Buddhist hierarchy to recognise these women as part of the Theravada tradition, specifically refusing to validate their higher ordination. The identity card lists her title as Dasa Sil Mata. The ruling exists on paper, but they are still waiting for their identity cards. This is not a small bureaucratic oversight. It is the first link in a longer chain, one that reaches, eventually, into the classroom.

A Name Withheld

In Sri Lanka, there are 827 pirivenas, traditional monastic colleges that have, for centuries, served as the primary institutions of Buddhist education. Of these, only 12 are dedicated to female renunciants at all, and of those 12, just five serve fully ordained nuns specifically. The imbalance is stark on its face: 827 institutions for monks, five for fully ordained nuns. But the discrimination here is not only a matter of numbers, but it is also written into the very language used to name these institutions. Monks’ schools are called pirivena, a term carrying centuries of institutional weight, historical continuity, and state recognition under Sri Lanka’s education laws. Bhikkhunis’ schools, by contrast, are not called pirivenas at all. They are designated Buddha Sravika Meheni Adhyapana Ayathanaya (Institute for the Education of Buddha’s Female Disciples), a separate, parallel term that, however similar in function, withholds from bhikkhuni institutions the same legal and institutional status that the word ‘pirivena’ confers. Since there are ten-precept mothers, the institutes have not given the same name as the pirivena and lack the official as well as social recognition they deserve.

A Pattern a Century in the Making

Following the decline of the Buddhist nun (bhikkhuni) order after the Polonnaruwa period, the first woman to be robed again was ordained in 1905 as a dasasil matha. Although dasasil mathas have long served important religious and societal roles, they have historically lacked access to formal education. Unfortunately, today also, this pattern continuous to exist. Education, in this context, is never just about literacy or dhamma study. It is the currency of religious authority. A bhikkhuni denied equivalent education or educated in an institution the state refuses to name a pirivena, is denied that religious authority. She may know the Tipitaka as well as any monk yet will lack the institutional stamp that would make a lay community trust her reading of it. It was not indifference from the public; it was the accumulated effect of a system that has spent centuries teaching devotees, implicitly, that a woman’s robe does not carry the same weight as a man.

The female renunciants, both dasasil mathas and bhikkunis, although they wear robes, have not been regarded as individuals capable of comprehending or preaching dhamma, simply because they are women. This is most visible in education, the pirivena system, developed historically to train bhikkhus, offered dasasil mathas and bhikkunis no equivalent institutional pathway, no comparable curriculum, certification, or state recognition. This exclusion is notable because it runs counter to Sri Lanka’s broader educational trends, where women have historically outnumbered men in general university enrolment, the gap here is specific to monastic/religious education rather than a reflection of wider societal restrictions on women’s schooling. The country’s National Education Commission Policy has a section on Pirivena education. However, it does not address the education of Buddhist nuns, nor does it mention nuns within the policy. I recently learned that the policy was being reviewed, with a committee appointed by the Ministry of Education, scheduled to begin the review on the 1st of September. This presents an important opportunity to raise the issue of nuns’ education and advocate for its inclusion in the revised policy.

The monks and nuns’ education institutes are funded by the government, which allocates only 5,000–6,000 LKR per student for the entire year. This sum is grossly inadequate to cover even basic institutional needs, accommodation, food, learning materials, and the maintenance of the physical premises, let alone to support any meaningful expansion of the curriculum. With this level of funding, these education institutes are struggling to sustain themselves, and many are forced to rely almost entirely on external support simply to remain operational. This is where the disparity becomes most visible. As female renunciants have historically not been taken seriously, regarded neither as authoritative teachers of dhamma nor as figures worthy of the same reverence extended to their male counterparts, their education centres receive far fewer lay offerings than those for male renunciants. The result is a widening resource gap that mirrors and reinforces the very discrimination that caused it. Underfunded institutions produce fewer well-trained female scholars, which in turn reinforces the perception that female renunciants are less capable, a perception that then justifies continued underinvestment. Without deliberate intervention, either through equitable government allocation or targeted lay support, this cycle is likely to persist rather than resolve on its own.

Sitting Alone at the Bo Tree

I was at Jaya Sri Maha Bodhi in Anuradhapura, where a few monks sat preaching in the shade of the Bo Tree, each surrounded by small clusters of lay devotees. Nearby, I noticed a few female Buddhist renunciants, though I could not immediately tell whether they were bhikkhunîs or dasasil mathas, since visually, in their robes and demeanour, they appeared indistinguishable to an outside observer. Most of them sat alone, without the small crowds of devotees gathered around the monks nearby. This, too, is not incidental. Because women cannot enter the sâsana through the same pathway to ordination, available to men, many Buddhist female renunciants remain dasasil mathas, a status that carries the appearance of monastic life without its legitamised spiritual standing. They observe the 10 precepts, wear robes, and live in renunciation, yet occupy a lower, unofficial rung in the religious hierarchy, one that grants them neither the ordination lineage nor the institutional recognition given to monks. However, in June last year, the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka delivered a landmark majority ruling in SC/FR/218/2013, affirming that fully ordained Buddhist nuns have the fundamental right to use the title ‘Bhikkhuni’ on their National Identity Cards, legally recognising the de facto existence of the Bhikkhuni Sanga.

A Closed Loop

Social discrimination and educational discrimination feed each other in a closed loop. Because bhikkhunis have fewer, less recognised institutions, fewer are formally trained to a standard the public recognises. Because fewer are recognised as authoritative teachers, fewer devotees seek them out or support them. Because they attract fewer devotees, the education institutions of female renunciants remain under-resourced and easy to overlook in state budgets and in popular imagination alike. A dasasil matha or bhikkhuni without an active following also lacks the economic support that following brings, since in Sri Lanka’s monastic economy, devotees are patrons as much as students. The precarity is not only spiritual or bureaucratic; it is material, and it compounds across a lifetime spent in robes.

Until bhikkhunis’ education is named, funded, and recognised on the same terms as that of bhikkhus, this will remain a story not only about missing ID cards or under-resourced schools, but about an education system that continues to decide, quietly and continuously, which students are worth investing in. Education was supposed to be the one place where the women can speak for themselves, instead, for these women, it has become just another place where women have to ask permission to be heard.

(Anushka is a Sociologist who is working on contemporary Buddhist movements. She was formerly attached to the University of Colombo)

Kuppi is a politics and pedagogy happening on the margins of the lecture hall that parodies, subverts, and simultaneously reaffirms social hierarchies.

Continue Reading

Features

‘Memories of Milton – Live in Concert’ to enchant Dubai

Published

on

Seven Notes: Doing it in Dubai

Sri Lankan music knows no borders. Wherever our people go, our melodies follow — and our musicians make sure of it.

From Qatar’s Exit, to Melbourne’s EBONY, to Toronto’s Ceymphony, and Dubai’s Seven Notes, Sri Lankan bands abroad continue to keep the community connected to home, through song.

In July, Rajiv Sebastian set the Dubai stage alight with the band Seven Notes, creating an unforgettable night for Sri Lankans in the UAE. And the live-wire behind that magic? Niluk Uswaththa of Seven Notes.

Well, Niluk says he isn’t stopping there.

Now, Dubai is preparing for something truly special — ‘Memories of Milton – Live in Concert’, a grand musical tribute to one of Sri Lanka’s most beloved voices: Milton Mallawarachchi.

For more than a decade, Milton Mallawarachchi was a trending force in Sri Lankan music. With nearly 850 songs and over 35 albums to his name, he gave us melodies that became the soundtrack to our lives — songs of love, longing, and life itself.

On Saturday, 26th September 2026, from 8:00 PM to 3:00 AM, the Mercure Hotel, Al Barsha Heights, Dubai, will transform into a space of nostalgia.

Ranil Mallawarachchi; Carrying forward his father’s legacy / Yenuli Neriah

With the spotlight on Ranil Mallawarachchi — Milton’s eldest son, carrying forward his father’s legacy — along with Yenuli Neriah and Tharaka, the evening will certainly bring Milton’s timeless classics back to life … on one stage.

Seven Notes will do the needful, providing the live music that made Dubai dance before.

According to Niluk, this isn’t just a concert.

“It’s designed as a nostalgic musical journey — to bring cherished memories and beloved songs back to life,” he says.

And he promises: 26th September will be a night to remember.

In fact, Niluk Uswaththa has become a driving force for Sri Lankan entertainment in Dubai.

Through Seven Notes, he ensures the community always has something special to look forward to — especially when it comes to music that feels like home.

The success of these overseas shows naturally raises one big question back in Sri Lanka.

Yes, music lovers, in Sri Lanka, are keen to know whether the Seven Notes band will pop up in Colombo, sometime soon, for a live performance?

Music lovers, island-wide, will be watching … and waiting!

Continue Reading

Trending