Midweek Review
Stark Western hypocrisy in the way they view Gaza and Vanni wars
When fighting on multiple fronts in the Vanni region disrupted the overland supply route, the Rajapaksa administration allowed the ICRC and the World Food Programme (WFP) to coordinate with the Navy to open a sea supply route. That supply route met the civilian requirements to a large extent while the same path facilitated the evacuation of wounded civilians from Puthumathalan to Pulmoddai, north of Trincomalee
President Donald Trump, on 18 Sept., vetoed a crucial United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolution demanding an immediate, unconditional and permanent ceasefire in Gaza.
That happened just 48 hours after a group of independent experts, commissioned by the UN Human Rights Council, declared that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza with the intent to annihilate the Palestinians.
The UNSC consists of five permanent members and 10 non-permanent member countries, elected for two-year terms by the General Assembly.
Since Israel invaded Gaza on 27 Oct., 2023, following Hamas-led raid on southern Israel on 07 Oct., the US, on six occasions, vetoed resolutions meant to pressure Israel. The Hamas’ incursion was nothing but a desperate large-scale suicide attack that received apt Israeli response. Israel’s long serving Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s right to defend the country, by all means, cannot be disputed. Did Hamas play into the hands of Netanyahu by giving an excuse for an all-out war that went beyond direct Israeli response to the 07 Oct. assault. The possibility of Israel allowing Hamas to go ahead with its incursion to take Israeli prisoners/hostages as a bargaining chip, in spite of having prior intelligence, cannot be ruled out.
Netanyahu first received the unstinted backing of US President Joe Biden and then his unpredictable successor Trump, despite accusing Biden of being a war monger waging endless wars, but now wages war on several fronts. The 09 Sept., 2025 attack on Qatar, aimed at wiping out the top Hamas leadership, taking refuge in the Qatari government residential complex, underscored the 100 percent US backing for Netanyahu’s actions. The attack is the first on a Gulf Cooperation Council member, and sixth on a country this year alone. Israel wouldn’t have made an abortive bid to assassinate the Hamas leadership without specific US approval. That is obvious despite given the special relationship between Trump and Qatar.
Attack on Qatar
The Israeli attempt to assassinate the Hamas leadership in exile should be examined against the backdrop of Trump’s visit to Qatar in May this year, the first Gulf State by a sitting US President and him accepting a gift of a Boeing 747 jet from Qatar for his personal use. It would be pertinent to mention that Qatar gifted Trump with a presidential jet at a time the US President accused South Africa of perpetrating genocide. International news agencies quoted an irate South African President Cyril Ramaphosa as having sarcastically told Trump, during an Oval Office meeting: “I am sorry I don’t have a plane to give you.”
The media reported that the US President accepted the controversial gift, regardless of experts’ warnings and Democrats’ open accusations of bribery.
Double standards
Those who compared Sri Lanka’s successful war against the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) and the Jewish State’s offensive in Gaza obviously ended up with egg on their face. The two cannot be matched, under any circumstances, as Sri Lanka waged a war against an internal conventional military threat. In the case of Israel, the IDF (Israeli Defence Forces) primarily targeted Gaza, one of the two Palestinian territories, the other being the West Bank. The State of Palestine consists of Gaza and the West Bank. Therefore, attempts to compare the two situations should be opposed and resisted at all levels. That would be the responsibility of the Sri Lankan government, regardless of who wields political power in Colombo.
Swamy’s stance
‘How’s Hamas’ attack similar to that of LTTE?’ and ‘Hamas’ offensive on Israel may bring it closer to LTTE’s fate,’ dealt with the issues involved.
New Delhi-based Swamy, who had served UNI and AFP during his decades’ long career, discussed the issues at hand while acknowledging no two situations were absolutely comparable. Swamy currently serves as the Executive Director of IANS (Indo-Asian News Service).
The LTTE hadn’t conducted a similar attack against the Sri Lankan military like the way it waged war against the Indian military (1987-1990) that resulted in loss of nearly 1,500 Indian officers and men here, underscored the severity of the LTTE response to their former masters with obvious covert Western support. Offensive actions undertaken by Sri Lanka and India, too, cannot be compared with the Israeli onslaught.
Let me reproduce Swamy’s comment: “Oct, 7 could be a turning point for Hamas similar to what happened to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam in Sri Lanka in 2006. Let me explain. Similar to Hamas, the LTTE grew significantly over time eventually gaining control of a significant portion of Sri Lanka’s land and coast. The LTTE was even more formidable than Hamas. It had a strong army, growing air force and a deadly naval presence. Unlike Hamas, the LTTE successfully assassinated high ranking political figures in Sri Lanka and India. Notably, the LTTE achieved this without direct support from any country, whereas Hamas received military and financial backing from Iran and some other states. Over time, the LTTE became too sure of their victories. They thought they could never be beaten and that starting a war would always make them stronger. But, in 2006, when they began Eelam War 1V, their leader Velupillai Prabhakaran couldn’t have foreseen that within three years he and his prominent group would be defeated. Prabhakaran believed gathering tens of thousands of Tamils during the last stages of war would protect them and Sri Lanka wouldn’t unleash missiles and rockets. Colombo proved him wrong. They were hit. By asking the people not to flee Gaza, despite Israeli warnings, Hamas is taking a similar line. Punishing all Palestinians for Hamas’ actions is unjust, just like punishing all Tamils for LTTE’s actions was wrong. The LTTE claimed to fight for the Tamils, without consulting them, and Hamas claimed to represent Palestinians, without seeking the approval for the 07 Oct. strike. Well two situations are not absolutely comparable. We can be clear that Hamas is facing a situation similar to what the LTTE faced shortly before its end. Will Hamas meet a similar fate as the LTTE? Only time will answer that question.”
Former Editor of The Hindu, Malini Parthasarathy, who also had served as Chairperson of The Hindu Group, released a list of politicians assassinated by the LTTE, as she hit back hard at those who raged against the comparison of the Hamas to the LTTE. The list included two Jaffna District MPs, Arumugam Murugesu Alalasundaram and Visvanathan Dharmalingam, assassinated in early Sept. 1985. Slain Visvanathan Dharmalingam’s son, Dharmalingam Siddharthan, who represents the Vanni electoral district on the Illankai Thamil Arasu Kadchi (ITAK), is on record as having said that the two MPs were abducted and killed by TELO (Tamil Eelam Liberation Organisation.) gunmen at the behest of the Indian intelligence. The list posted by Parthasarathy included PLOTE leader Uma Maheswaran, assassinated in Colombo, in July 1989. But, the LTTE had nothing to do with Uma Maheswaran’s assassination. That is for sure.
‘Operation Cast Lead’ and Vanni war
The conflict between Israel and Hamas and Sri Lanka’s successful war against the LTTE had been compared and discussed by various interested parties, including the UN.
They compared ‘Operation Cast Lead’, a 22-day Israeli offensive launched on 27 Dec., 2008, aimed at destroying Hamas firing rockets from the Gaza Strip, into the Jewish state, with the last phase of the Sri Lankan assault (January -May 19, 2009) on the LTTE on the Vanni east front.
On behalf of UN Watch, Hillel Neuer, an Executive Director of the group, and Marissa Cramer, a Richard and Rhoda Goldman Fellow (also at UN Watch), in a joint Op-ed, titled ‘A case study in UN hypocrisy’ in the National Post (Canada), in its 17 July, 2009, edition, compared war crimes allegations faced by the governments of Israel and Sri Lanka.
They dealt with the ‘United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict, aka Goldstone report, named after the former South African jurist, and the dossier on the Vanni war, called Report of ‘The Secretary General’s Panel of Experts on Accountability’ in Sri Lanka. That report was released in March 2011. Based on that report, interested parties built a case against Sri Lanka with the support of some Sri Lankans who couldn’t stomach the country’s triumph over terrorism.
They alleged that the Geneva-based United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) created a fact-finding mission to justify its predetermined conclusion that Israel was guilty of massive human rights violations during the 22-day war, while Sri Lanka was completely left off the hook.
Instead, the US helped Israel to ‘kill’ the Goldstone report, whereas the treacherous Yahapalana government, led by President Maithripala Sirisena and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe, in Oct. 2015, co-sponsored an accountability resolution against its own war-winning military and wartime political leadership. SA jurist Richard Goldstone, in early 2011, retracted a critically important section of his report. His move made that report irrelevant. While the US created conditions for a far larger and devastating Israeli military adventure that is now taking place, the UNHRC, at the behest of the US-UK combine, pursued an anti-Sri Lanka agenda. That operation has now entered a vital stage with Geneva going ahead with an external investigation, while putting pressure on Sri Lanka to join the International Criminal Court (ICC) by becoming State Parties to the Rome Statute.
Actually ‘Operation Cast Lead’ pales into insignificance when compared with the current Israeli military action on a wider front, risking a catastrophic regional conflict. Israel had never sought to empty Gaza the way they did during the ongoing campaign that at times seemed to have caused a rift between the IDF and the political leadership. The Israeli project obviously exceeded their own interests and clearly facilitated the overall Trump strategy in the volatile region. The complex US-Israel strategy should be examined against the backdrop of disagreement between the US and its allies regarding the Ukraine conflict as well as dispute over recognition of Palestine. As the US anticipated, Japan declared that it would not recognise Palestine, while the UK disagreed with the US.

Members of the Israel-Sri Lanka Friendship Development Organisation protest
outside the UN office, in Colombo, voicing support for Israel and blaming Hamas
for the conflict
Contradictory situations
The reportage of the murderous Israeli military campaign against civilians has underscored how Sri Lanka, in contrast without interruption, ensured much needed relief for civilians trapped in the war zone. The Sri Lankan military had overwhelming firepower, vis-a-vis the LTTE, but that cannot be compared with that of the Jewish state, widely believed to be nuclear capable though they never publicly admitted so, as the racist state wants to be seen as the underdog living in a sea of Arabs.
Contrary to unsubstantiated accusations, President Mahinda Rajapaksa had been so considerate of the civilian factor, he restricted the deployment of indirect weapons, as well as the deployment of fighter jets, during the last phase of the Vanni campaign. So much so, the Army suffered loss of life, as acknowledged by the ICRC. Thanks to Wikileaks, the world knows about what the ICRC told the US soon after the end of the war to counter genocide accusations directed at Sri Lanka.
Unlike in the Israel-Hamas war, there had been a ceasefire negotiated by Norway in place here when the LTTE resumed large-scale hostilities in the second week of August 2006. After having assassinated the much-loved Foreign Minister Lakshman Kadirgamar, in August 2005, and caused grievous injuries to Army Chief, the then Lt. Gen. Sarath Fonseka, in late April 2006, the LTTE unleashed its conventional units on the Muhamalai frontline, and selected locations in the East, as if there was no CFA.
Throughout the nearly three-year long combined security forces campaign, President Mahinda Rajapaksa, in his capacity also as the defence minister, took specific measures to ensure continuous flow of humanitarian supplies to those trapped in the LTTE-held area despite knowing that terrorists too enjoyed them.
The government cleverly involved the Colombo-based diplomatic community, UN and other international agencies in a combined relief effort that facilitated the transfer of required items overland. When fighting on multiple fronts in the Vanni region disrupted the overland supply route, the Rajapaksa administration allowed the ICRC and the World Food Programme (WFP) to coordinate with the Navy to open a sea supply route. That supply route met the civilian requirements to a large extent while the same path facilitated the evacuation of wounded civilians from Puthumathalan to Pulmoddai, north of Trincomalee.
President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s foresight decision to allow a fully-fledged Indian medical team, in February 2009, to treat those who had been evacuated from Puthumathalan, made a huge impact on the community. The writer, on board an Israeli Fast Attack Craft (FAC) of the Sri Lanka Navy, had the opportunity to follow the ICRC ship from the seas off Puthumathalan to Pulmoddai and observe the transfer of wounded persons from ship to small boats to be taken to the Indian medical facility. Later, the writer, along with a group of other journalists, visited the Indian medical facility. That was in late April 2009 as the combined military blockade choked Puthumathalan.
Sri Lanka brought the war to a successful conclusion against the advice of so-called pundits. Given Sri Lanka’s post-war experience of successfully rehabilitating 12,000 terrorists, Israel can never compete with Sri Lanka. The International Organisation for Migration (IOM) can vouch for Sri Lanka’s highly successful rehabilitation programme that received the support of several countries. Sri Lanka not only brought the war to a successful conclusion but, beyond any doubt, a successful reconciliation project, too, was initiated. Unfortunately, the Tamil National Alliance (TNA), in spite of being freed from the clutches of terrorism, worked overtime to undermine President Rajapaksa’s efforts.
IOM Chief of Mission here, Richard Danziger, at that time, discussed their role in integrating ex-LTTE combatants back into the society (https://thuppahis.com/2011/12/01/iom-clarifies-role-in-reintegrating-tigers-into-society/). Sadly, the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) that, at gunpoint, recognised the LTTE as the sole representative of the Tamil-speaking people, in 2001, resented the government efforts. Had the ITAK-led TNA appreciated President Rajapaksa’s decision to conduct elections for the Northern Provincial Council, in Sept. 2013, that enabled the one-time LTTE’s cat’s paw to secure the council, the country could have achieved genuine post-war national reconciliation.
Instead, under the late R. Sampanthan’s leadership, the TNA worked overtime to sabotage the post-war reconciliation process. Having backed renegade General Sarath Fonseka at the 2010 presidential election, the TNA working with the UNP for the Geneva resolution is a case of sheer hypocrisy. Sampanthan’s response to the writer’s questions, regarding his position on the LTTE’s eradication, etc., at a packed media briefing, ahead of the 2015 presidential election, surprised both the foreign and local media present. But no one expected The Island report on Sampanthan’s revealing response (https://dbsjeyaraj.com/dbsj/?p=36839).
Had the Tamil-speaking community taken advantage of the TNA’s overwhelming victory at the Sept. 2013 Provincial Council poll, the first in 25 years, they could have rapidly taken measures to address post-war issues. Other political parties represented in Parliament, the NGO community that feared a settlement at the expense of their despicable strategy, Western powers and India, as well, never really brought pressure on the TNA to seek a consensus. Interested parties feared Sri Lanka may succeed in settling the issues at hand once and for all, hence the 2015 Geneva resolution. Having directly destabilised Sri Lanka, through a campaign of death and destruction, India, unashamedly, still push Sri Lanka to implement the 13tth Amendment that had been enacted in Nov. 1987. Those demanding accountability on the part of Sri Lanka never bothered to consider India’s responsibility for a war that was successfully brought to an end at Nanthikadal on the morning of 19 May, 2009, when a soldier put a bullet through Velupillai Prabhakaran’s head during one of the last skirmishes.
By Shamindra Ferdinando
Midweek Review
July 09: An inexcusable overall security failure and exceptional contingency plan
Ulugetenne
The Sri Lanka Navy, on 04 June, commissioned SLNS Samudravijaya, formerly United States Coast Guard Cutter Decisive. It is the fourth mothballed US Coast Guard cutter transferred to the SLN through the US Excess Defence Articles Programme. President Anura Kumara Dissanayake attended the ceremony at the Colombo Port. The US Embassy in Colombo, in a statement issued on the same day, quoted Defence Attaché Lieutenant Colonel Matthew House as having said: “Few partners have demonstrated the commitment to maintaining and operating these vessels as successfully as the Sri Lanka Navy. The outstanding condition and operational performance of SLNS Samudura, SLNS Gajabahu, and SLNS Vijayabahu are a testament to the professionalism and technical expertise of Sri Lankan sailors. Their stewardship of these vessels helped build the confidence that made this fourth transfer possible.” The first of the four vessels SLNS Samudura was commissioned on 19 February, 2005, during Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga’s tenure as the President. Milinda Moragoda, Economic Reforms and Science and Technology Minister of the previous UNP-led UNF government, played a significant role in acquiring that vessel. SLNS Samudura boosted SLN and participated in numerous operations, including the high profile hunt for LTTE floating warehouses, during the Eelam War IV. But, the US refrained from transferring any more big ships during the war though on the then Navy Commander Vice Admiral Wsantha Karannagoda’s request to provide intelligence and Washington obliging, made the successful hunt for LTTE floating arsenals in the last stages of the war possible. The transfer of the second vessel took place 19 years after the end of the war. Ex USCG Sherman was commissioned 06 June, 2019, as SLNS Gajabahu (P626). The third vessel was transferred to the Sri Lanka Navy on October 26, 2021, as the country was heading towards an unprecedented economic crisis. That vessel was commissioned as SLNS Vijayabahu at the Colombo Port with the participation of President Ranil Wickramasinghe and US Ambassador to Sri Lanka Julie Chung on November 20, 2022. Ironically SLNS Gajabahu, one of the ex-US vessels prominently figured in the contingency plan to save President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, but whose downfall was engineered by the US.
By Shamindra Ferdinando
The moment President Gotabaya Rajapaksa decided to take up residence at the President’s House (Janadhipathi Mandiraya), Fort, in the first week of April, 2022, the Navy had no option but to prepare a thorough contingency plan, in case the regime change project posed a realistic threat to the life of the President.
The President, in consultation with senior military officers, made his move within 48 hours after violence erupted outside his private residence at Pangiriwatte, Mirihana, on the night of 31 March, 2022. That decision seemed realistic and sensible at that time.
But, in the wake of the disastrous overall armed forces response to the coordinated violence unleashed by the regime change project on 09 May, 2022, in the aftermath of the Temple Trees ordered attack on Galle Face protesters, the top brass must have recognised the urgent need for total overhauling of security strategy. But, unfortunately, that hadn’t been the case. With violent crowds overwhelming the armed forces, deployed to block them, rapidly approaching the President’s House, those who had been at the makeshift Operations Room there were stunned.
In hindsight, the President’s decision to remain at the President’s House, regardless of the near failure on the part of the armed forces to repulse the raid on Temple Trees, on 09 May, seemed unwise. The rescue operation could have gone wrong and the war-winning President Mahinda Rajapaksa could have ended up in the hands of an angry mob.
Perhaps, the conspirators envisaged the President’s move, from Pangiriwatte to the President’s House, situated walking distance away from the Galle Face protest site, where they could draw additional strength.
The failure on the part of the government to take tangible measures, in the wake of the President’s House becoming the sole target on that fateful day, is a contentious issue that needs to be properly investigated. Don’t forget that the court case filed over the 09 May attacks on the residences and properties belonging to SLPP politicians, and some supporters ,was later withdrawn. The Wickremesinghe-Rajapaksa government never investigated the 09 May incidents.
Exactly two months after the mobs almost succeeded in breaking through defences at Temple Trees, on the night of 09 May/10, where Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa was residing, they mounted the assault on the President’s House.
In the wake of the 09 May mayhem, President Gotabaya Rajapaksa named Lt. Gen. Vikum Liyanage as the Commander of the Army. He succeeded General Shavendra Silva who served as the CDS but was out of the country when all-out mayhem was unleashed by the Aragalaya mobs on 09 July, 2022, to oust the sitting government.
In spite of a direct and growing threat to the President’s House, on 09 July, 2022, the President felt confident in meeting the challenge. The President issued a directive to the Secretary, Ministry of Defence, General (retd.) Kamal Gunaratne, to shift the Operations Room from the Defence Force Headquarters, at Akuregoda, to the President’s House. Having shifted the Operations Room on 08 July, 2022, to the President’s House, as directed by the President, the top brass prepared to face the challenge.
Maj. General K.B. Egodawela, who served as an Additional Secretary (Administration) to the President, from the day the President moved to the President’s House, till he vacated on 09 July, 2022, in his memoirs ‘Aragalaya: Adarayen Prachandathwayata’ (From Love to Violence) revealed that though the top brass opposed the shifting of the Operations Room they carried out the directive. While the President felt that the top brass could collectively work at the President’s House to bring the situation under control, Gen Gunaratne proposed that the President should move to Akuregoda Defence Forces Headquarters, according to Egodawela. In fact, Gunaratne, who had been with Gotabaya Rajapaksa from the very beginning of the sinister campaign, strongly opposed the President’s decision to remain there.
Obviously, the President’s House pathetically failed to ascertain the scale of the protest and the rapidity with which protesters overwhelmed troops deployed outside the President’s House stunned the top brass. Had they swiftly reached consensus on Gen. Gunaratne’s suggestion, perhaps the 09 July regime change operation could have been thwarted. The armed forces could have resorted to tougher measures to prevent a march on Akuregoda Defence Forces Headquarters had the President agreed to move there.
Within two hours after the protest, targeting the President’s House began, video footage provided by drones indicated that troops couldn’t hold the rampaging mobs any longer. According to Egodawela, the top brass had been prepared to remove the President, even without his consent, by landing a helicopter in the Colombo harbor or by ship. Finally, they resorted to the second option. As the President and First Lady Ayoma got into a vehicle and took the rear exit into the adjoining former Navy Headquarters, mobs entered the President’s House. Another vehicle carrying several other persons followed.
The then Navy Commander Vice Admiral Nishantha Ulugetenne who had been with the President at the President’s House got into the vehicle carrying the President. Had they stayed at the President’s House for 10 more minutes, the consequences could have been devastating. https://island.lk/gotabayas-escape-from-aragalaya-mob-in-rti-spotlight/
Egodawela, who had been with the President from the very beginning of the presidential term, alleged that the raiders planned to kill the President and several others and display their bodies. The author quoted an unidentified intelligence officer as having told him that the raiders wanted to display the bodies the way LTTE leader Velupillai Prabhakaran’s body was shown.
Perhaps shifting the Operations Room from Akuregoda Defence Force Headquarters to the President’s House had been a risky move that, in a way, facilitated the regime change operation. The rationale in bringing those who had been tasked with countering the impending threat to one place (President’s House) to be with the target (Gotabaya Rajapaksa) seems unbelievably a dicey move. The President had been influenced by what he described as inordinate and unforgivable delay on the part of the Akuregoda Operations Room to carry out timely evacuation of Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa on the night of 09 May from Temple Trees. Most probably, the President wanted to oversee the 09 July counter operation personally. But, in hindsight, the decision to shift the Operations Room from Akuregoda to the President’s House obviously hadn’t been a clever move.
SLN preparations
When mobs threatened to overwhelm the President’s security at Pangiriwattta, on 31 March, additional police and STF contingents were brought in. They were followed by the Navy and Air Force. The Army arrived at the scene, subsequently.
As pointed out by the President himself, the situation at Temple Trees, on 09 May, had been far worse and the combined police and armed forces response revealed that they hadn’t taken precautionary/counter measures, even after the Pangiriwatta fiasco.
At the time of the incidents, the overall Temple Trees security deployment included about 60 elite Special Boat Squadron (SBS) personnel deployed within the premises and were supplemented by seven SLN platoons. The Army also moved in to strengthen Temple Trees defences but the mobs pressed on till troops fired blank ammunition.
The top brass, directing counter measures from Akuregoda Defence Force Headquarters, had to act swiftly and decisively to evacuate those at the Temple Trees or face the consequences. As there hadn’t been any other alternative place of living proposed, Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa, wife Shiranthi and their eldest son Namal were escorted to nearby former Air Force Headquarters and from there flown to the Trincomalee Navy base. VA Ulugetenne, over the phone, issued instructions to the relevant officer in Trincomalee to make arrangements as two helicopters carrying the group took off from the helipad on the top of the former Air Force Headquarters. The helicopters departed around 04 in the morning.
They had stayed at Trincomalee Navy House for about a week and, as requested by the Navy, paid for their stay because by then Mahinda Rajapaksa had resigned. Perhaps, they could have taken refuge at the Panagoda Army cantonment or at Saliyapura, home to the Gajaba Regiment, but, at the end, sought the protection at the Trincomalee Navy base.
Ironically, President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, too, had to take refuge at the Trincomalee Navy base, exactly two months later. Ever since the President moved into the President’s House, Fort, the Navy had been on their toes to meet any eventuality. The daunting task of arranging evacuation by sea fell on the shoulders of VA Ulugetenne, who, meticulously, planned the operation with his staff.
Having informed the President of the contingency plans, VA Ulugetenne stationed two Advanced Offshore Patrol Vessels (AOPVs), namely SLNS Sindurala and SLNS Gajabahu and four Fast Attack Craft (FACs), at the Colombo Port. It would be pertinent to mention that SLNS Sindurala, built at the Goa shipyard, in terms of an agreement signed at the tail end of the Mahinda Rajapaksa government, was adjudged the best vessel in the SLN fleet in 2022.
Additional SBS personnel and snipers, too, had been brought in to Colombo though none of them knew exactly what their task would be. The OPV and FAC crews most probably felt that they were awaiting orders for a major anti-drug operation in the high seas.
As the decision was made to evacuate the President and the First Lady, the Chief alerted the vessels and quickly deployed tugboats to pull SLNS Sindurala and, shortly thereafter, SLNS Gajabahu, formerly of the US Coast Guard, carrying the President and the First Lady. By the time the two AOPVs moved in different directions, on the instructions of VA Ulugetenne, the hand phones of SLNS Gajabahu crew were collected to prevent them from revealing what was happening. Along with the AOPVs, two pairs of FACs had moved out to sea. (https://island.lk/ranil-reveals-bid-to-get-rid-of-him-while-gr-was-fleeing-to-trinco-on-board-slns-gajabahu/)
Nearly 12-hour journey to Trinco
The SLNS Gajabahu, formerly of the US Coast Guard, had a crew consisting of over 100 officers and men. Someone, most probably a port employee, posted a short clip of some unidentified persons taking large travelling bags into the ship but the President, First Lady and VA Ulugetenne going in were never captured on a camera.
As the vessel began its journey towards Trincomalee, it remained approximately 12 nautical miles from land and the President received many calls, some of which weren’t answered. VA Ulugetenne, too, received quite a number of calls. Those familiar with the developments at that time said that some felt that SLNS Gajabahu should move out of Sri Lankan waters. There had been suggestions that the destination should be the Maldives, India or Singapore. Regardless of such suggestions, SLNS Gajabahu proceeded towards Trincomalee where the Navy made necessary arrangements to host them.
Captain Marlon Perera, who still serves the Navy, had been the Commanding Officer of the vessel. Perera now holds the Commodore rank.
During the journey precautions were taken to ensure the safety and security of the President and the First Lady. Although the crew hadn’t been aware that they would be entrusted with such a sensitive task at a time the country was in crossroads against the backdrop of an economic collapse and sovereign default, there were fears of the crew being affected by propaganda in support of regime change operation.
The attempt made by sailor Wijemuni Vijitha Rohana de Silva to cause harm to Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, way back in July, 1987, underscored the necessity to take precautions during the Colombo-Trincomalee journey as the possibility of anti-Gotabaya campaign having an impact on at least some members of the ship crew couldn’t be ruled out.
On July 30, 1987, during a guard of honor in Colombo, the 21-year-old naval rating struck Gandhi on the shoulder and back with the butt of his rifle. Gandhi narrowly avoided the full impact of the blow by evasive ducking.
On the invitation of VA Ulugetenne, Gotabaya Rajapaksa attended all the formalities in respect of a visit undertaken by the President to the Trincomalee Navy base. The President participated in those formalities knowing that he couldn’t attend the commissioning parade that was scheduled to be held on 15 July, 2022. The Navy was not in a position to put off the commissioning parade hence the decision to invite Defence Secretary Gunaratne as the Chief Guest.
Ulugetenne retired from active naval service on 18 December, 2022, following a distinguished career, spanning over 37 years. He received the appointment as the 24th Commander of the Navy in July, 2020, just a couple of months after Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s election as the President.
Wickremesinghe, in his capacity as Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s successor, appointed Ulugetenne as Sri Lanka’s Ambassador to Cuba. The appointment was made in late 2023 and the retired Navy Chief presented his credentials to Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel on 13 February, 2024 (https://island.lk/from-fonseka-convictions-to-arrest-of-ulugetenne/)
However, within weeks after the last presidential election held in late November, 2024, the NPP government recalled over a dozen top envoys appointed by the previous administration. Admiral Ulugetenne was among them. The government deprived a decorated officer, who had served the country for nearly four decades, from completing his term in Havana. Within months after his return, he became the target of a murder investigation.
Then out of the blue the retired Navy Chief became the focus of a murder investigation, that, too, post-war. The Criminal Investigation Department (CID) arrested him on 28 July, 2025, over the disappearance of a person reported in July, 2020.
Kurunegala High Court Judge Tikiri Jayatilleke, on 14 October, 2025, granted him bail. Jayatilleke declared that the CID acted in an illegal manner in respect of the former Navy Commander. His counsel Kalinga Indatissa, PC, alleged in court that his client had been apprehended only on the basis of an ex-LTTE cadre’s allegation in the absence of any evidence
The next hearing is scheduled for 08 July, 2026. Ulugetenne was held at the Kegalle Prison for four days and then transferred to the Dumbara (Pallekale) Prison. Altogether, he was in prison for 80 days, like a common criminal, despite him being a former Navy Commander with an unblemished career record.
Wartime Chief of Naval Intelligence, Rear Admiral (retd) Sarath Mohotti, who had been also arrested in connection with the same investigation, was also granted bail, a few weeks later.
Midweek Review
India should convene a regional El Niño preparedness dialogue in Delhi
El Niño events have historically been associated with weaker monsoons in South Asia, erratic rainfall patterns, and increased risks of droughts and floods.
The coming months could bring South Asia and the wider Indian Ocean region a dangerous mix of climate shocks, economic strain, and geopolitical instability. At the centre of this looming challenge is the anticipated El Niño event, which is likely to disrupt monsoon patterns, intensify weather extremes, and place additional pressure on already fragile food, water, and energy systems.
But El Niño will not arrive in isolation. It will intersect with continuing global disruptions—from the war in Ukraine to instability in the Middle East—each of which continues to reverberate through energy markets, food supply chains, and shipping routes. The combined effect is likely to be cumulative, not linear.
This is, therefore, a moment that calls for anticipatory regional coordination rather than fragmented national responses.
A record of regional first response
There is already a clear precedent for such coordination in the region.During the COVID-19 pandemic, India emerged as a key first responder, supplying vaccines, medicines, and logistical support across the neighbourhood under its “Neighbourhood First” policy. This helped establish a practical framework for regional cooperation in times of systemic stress.
More recently, India played a similar role during the economic crisis in Sri Lanka, providing critical financial assistance, fuel, and essential supplies at a moment of acute vulnerability. India has also been among the first responders during major climate-related disasters, including cyclone events such as Cyclone Ditwa, delivering rapid humanitarian assistance.
These are not isolated gestures. They reflect an emerging pattern in which India increasingly functions as a stabilising force in the wider region.
This trajectory is reflected in India’s evolving regional frameworks—from Neighbourhood First, to SAGAR (Security and Growth for All in the Region), and now the broader MAHASAGAR vision, which signals an expanded maritime and regional engagement architecture.
Why El Niño is different this time
El Niño events have historically been associated with weaker monsoons in South Asia, erratic rainfall patterns, and increased risks of droughts and floods. In a region where agriculture remains highly climate-sensitive, even modest deviations can translate into inflation, rural distress, and fiscal pressure.
This year, however, the risks are compounded by global fragilities:
* Persistent food and fertilizer price volatility
* Elevated energy costs linked to geopolitical tensions
* Supply chain disruptions in key commodities
* High debt burdens in several neighbouring economies
Together, these factors reduce the resilience of national systems and increase the risk of cascading shocks across borders.It is also important to recognise that social instability in some fragile countries in the region should be kept in mind, as climate shocks and economic pressures can quickly reinforce each other and create wider humanitarian and political consequences.
The case for a Delhi-based regional initiative
Against this backdrop, there is a strong case for India to convene a regional El Niño preparedness dialogue in Delhi, bringing together neighbouring countries, key development partners, and multilateral institutions.
This should not be limited to South Asia alone. The impacts of El Niño extend across the wider Indo-Pacific and Indian Ocean region. Participation could include:
* Neighbouring states in South and Southeast Asia
* The United Nations system
* The World Bank and Asian Development Bank
* Key bilateral partners such as Japan and others active in regional resilience
Given its geographic position, institutional capacity, and experience as a first responder, it is both natural and appropriate for India to chair such an initiative.
What the initiative should focus on
The objective should be practical coordination rather than declaratory statements. Three areas stand out:
1. Shared forecasting and early warning systems
Strengthening real-time exchange of climate data, monsoon projections, and sectoral risk mapping, particularly for agriculture, water, and fisheries.
2. Contingency planning for essential supplies
Coordinating regional approaches to food reserves, fertilizer availability, and energy supply buffers during climatic disruptions.
3. Disaster response and financing coordination
Improving interoperability among disaster management systems, and exploring rapid-response financing through multilateral development banks for climate-related shocks.
From Neighbourhood First to MAHASAGAR
India’s regional doctrine has steadily evolved—from Neighbourhood First to SAGAR, and now MAHASAGAR—reflecting a broader conception of responsibility in the Indian Ocean region.Each stage has expanded the scope of engagement: from immediate neighbourhood assistance, to maritime cooperation and growth, to a wider vision of regional interconnectedness.
A structured El Niño preparedness initiative would be a natural continuation of this trajectory, embedding climate resilience into the region’s evolving strategic architecture.
Climate as regional security
The distinction between climate events and security outcomes is increasingly blurred. A failed monsoon in one country can trigger food inflation in another; a cyclone can disrupt trade routes; droughts can accelerate migration pressures and fiscal instability.
El Niño should therefore be seen not only as a meteorological phenomenon but as a systemic stress test for regional resilience.
India is already widely seen in the region as a first responder in times of crisis. The experiences of COVID-19, the Sri Lankan economic emergency, and climate-related disasters have reinforced this role in practical terms.
The next step is to move from reactive response to anticipatory coordination.
A Delhi-based regional El Niño preparedness meeting—anchored by India and supported by multilateral institutions and key bilateral partners—would be a timely and pragmatic initiative. In an era of compounding global risks, regional cooperation is no longer optional; it is essential.
(Milinda Moragoda is the Founder of the Pathfinder Foundation. Can be contacted via email@milinda.org, courtesy wionews.com.
by Milinda Moragoda
Midweek Review
Beyond Harsha’s IMF “Revelations”
“A demagogue is one who preaches doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots.” — H.L. Mencken
Summary
During a recent television appearance (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0QWfenCFlk) , opposition MP and Committee on Public Finance (COPF) Chair Dr. Harsha de Silva dramatically brandished the latest IMF Letter of Intent (LoI, 13 May 2026), pointing to the signatures of President Anura Kumara Dissanayake and Central Bank Governor Dr. Nandalal Weerasinghe as proof of a “secret” alignment with austerity and cost-reflective utility pricing. However, for serious students of Sri Lankan macroeconomics, this “revelation” contained no new information. The legal, structural, and institutional mandate for cost-reflective pricing was codified long before the current administration took office—embedded in the IMF Extended Fund Facility (EFF) of 2023, the 2023 IMF Governance Diagnostic, and the Economic Transformation Act of 2024. This article argues that veteran economists in parliament must move beyond theatrical “gotcha” moments designed for political popularity and instead fulfill their true duty: educating the public on the non-negotiable continuity of structural adjustment programmess.
Anatomy of a Non-Revelation
The recent spectacle of Dr. Harsha de Silva presenting the IMF Letter of Intent on live television was framed as a grand exposure of the current administration’s hidden fiscal policy. With theatrical emphasis, Dr. de Silva pointed to the signatures of President Anura Kumara Dissanayake (AKD) and the Central Bank Governor, declaring that the government had bound the public to the bitter pill of cost-reflective electricity and fuel pricing.
Yet, to anyone who understands the mechanics of central banking and sovereign debt restructuring, this performance revealed nothing that was not already part of (i) the public, (ii) legal, and (iii) institutional reality. A Letter of Intent is a standard operational requirement of the IMF review process; it is not a newly minted policy conceived in secret. By treating a routine administrative continuity as a shocking disclosure, Dr. de Silva engaged in political showmanship rather than economic education.
Legacy of Cost-Reflective Pricing
The narrative that cost-reflective utility pricing is a novel concession by the AKD administration is factually incorrect. The institutional architecture to eliminate non-commercial losses within the Ceylon Electricity Board (CEB) and Ceylon Petroleum Corporation (CPC) was firmly established under the previous administration of Ranil Wickremesinghe.
The structural benchmarks were explicitly laid out in (i) the March 2023 IMF EFF Agreement and (ii) re-emphasized in the September 2023 IMF Governance Diagnostic Report. This framework was further consolidated by the legislature through (i) the Economic Transformation Act of 2024 and (ii) the new Sri Lanka Electricity Act. When the current administration assumed office, the fiscal tracks had already been laid. President AKD is merely operating the machinery of state within the legal and economic boundaries inherited from his predecessor Ranil Wickremesinghe to prevent a secondary default.
The Myth of the Solitary Saviour
There is a troubling tendency among Sri Lanka’s technocratic elite to engage in a saviour complex—positioning themselves on television screens as the singular authorities capable of managing public finance or navigating international waters. Dr. de Silva’s presentation was less about unveiling unknown data and more about projecting an image of unrivaled smartness in public finance.
When veteran economists resort to these manoeuvers, they diminish their own professional standing. Sri Lanka’s economic recovery does not hinge on the brilliant insights of a single individual or party; it depends on (i) institutional discipline, (ii) data-driven planning, and (iii) structural continuity. Pretending that routine compliance documents are exclusive intelligence updates serves only to feed personal political popularity at the expense of public intellectual growth.
Real Politics behind the Screen
Why, then, did Dr. de Silva choose to make a mountain out of an administrative molehill? The answer lies in pure political strategy. The National People’s Power (NPP) platform ascended to governance on strong anti-austerity rhetoric, promising relief from the heavy tax and tariff burdens imposed by the previous regime.
By holding up the signed LoI, Dr. de Silva sought a political checkmate. His objective was to expose the contradiction between the NPP’s populist election promises and its executive actions. While highlighting this policy convergence is fair game in partisan politics, framing it as a “new discovery” misleads the electorate into believing that the IMF programme is an optional, arbitrarily signed document rather than a legally binding national framework that leaves any sitting President with zero alternative manoeuvers.
True Mandate of Parliament’s Financial Oversight
During the broadcast, the fundamental boundary of the Committee on Public Finance (COPF) was brought into question. Dr. de Silva correctly noted that COPF does not formulate state policy—that remains the strict prerogative of the Executive and its chosen advisors. COPF’s true mandate is oversight: ensuring transparency, accountability, and the efficient monitoring of state revenues and expenditures.
If the head of our public finance oversight body wishes to protect the national interest, that energy should be (ii) directed toward evaluating the actual performance scorecards of state institutions, (ii) tracking structural benchmarks, and (iii) monitoring the real-time efficiency of economic programs. Using the platform of technical oversight to score quick points on a talk show blurs the vital line between a state auditor and a political campaigner.
Conclusion: The Need for Institutional Candour
Sri Lanka has paid a catastrophic price for populist rhetoric and the manipulation of economic facts for electoral gain. What the public requires from veteran economists and seasoned politicians today is not more political theater but radical candor.
The truth is simple: Sri Lanka is locked into a long-term, institutional structural adjustment programme that transcends whoever sits in the presidential secretariat. President AKD is executing pre-existing state commitments because the alternative is immediate economic isolation. Rather than trying to convince the public that they alone possess the secret key to salvation, opposition technocrats owe it to the nation to elevate the discourse. It is time to replace television showmanship with (i) honest, (ii) evidence-based planning, (iii) acknowledging that while politicians change, the arithmetic of national survival remains exactly the same.
(The writer, among many, served as the Special Advisor to the Office of the President of Namibia from 2006 to 2012 and was a Senior Consultant with the UNDP for 20 years. He was a Senior Economist with the Central Bank of Sri Lanka (1972-1993). He can be reached via asoka.seneviratne@gmail.com)
By Prof. Asoka S. Seneviratne
-
News5 days agoWomen’s T20 World Cup 2026 warm-up: Chamari Athapaththu’s 94 helps Sri Lanka beat Pakistan
-
News6 days agoAsst. Manager, security officer arrested over Rs 30 mn snatch at Horana PB branch
-
Editorial4 days agoProbe Sallay’s complaint
-
News5 days agoLankan-Canadian inducted to Toronto Sports Hall of Fame
-
News2 days agoLocal firms move millions of dollars overseas for phantom imports: Govt.
-
Editorial5 days agoPrez in the dock
-
Features5 days agoEntering MIT for my Ph.D program, coping with harsh Boston winter and breasting the tape
-
News6 days agoNo blanket ban on musical performances; only those promoting LTTE

