UK Premier Keir Starmer reiterated his Government’s commitment to addressing justice, accountability of reconciliation in Sri Lanka and issues faced by Tamils, including advocating for human rights and justice for Tamil victims.

The often repeated declaration was made at the Thai Pongal celebration at 10 Downing Street on 20th January. The Indian High Commissioner in the UK Vikram Doraiswami was among those present. Perhaps Starmer hadn’t considered India’s culpability as the regional sponsor of a terror project in Sri Lanka that claimed the lives of as many as 70,000 combatants and civilians. Among the dead were former Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi and over 1,300 Indian soldiers.

Doraiswami joined the Indian Foreign Service in 1992, the year after the LTTE assassinated Gandhi at Sriperumbudur in Tamil Nadu. Would Starmer dare to raise India’s accountability and also look into the UK role in bolstering Tamil terrorism? The UK allowed a free hand to the LTTE with the group’s International Secretariat functioning from London without any restrictions. The LTTE wouldn’t have achieved status as a major terrorist organization if UK didn’t facilitate its operations. The writer’s assessment is that the British backing for Tamil terrorism was much more than that of Canada.

By Shamindra Ferdinando

Over 17 years after the decimation of the terrorist group, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), with a conventional fighting might militarily by our security forces, Canada and the UK are still seeking to punish Sri Lanka for pulling off that most unlikely victory against their deadly pet that they nurtured covertly.

Both the British and Canadian governments alike play politics at Sri Lanka’s expense. Canadian Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre recently stated that he would lead the world in seeking prosecutions in international courts of the Rajapaksas and other “criminals” who have persecuted the Tamil people. Influential groups of Sri Lankans of Tamil origin are represented in both the UK and Canadian parliaments.

Poilievre, whose party is widely expected to win the election, was speaking at the ‘Harvest of Hope’ event in Toronto on 18 January, marking Thai Pongal and Tamil Heritage Month. Obviously, the Conservative Party leader seems to be confident that he could win over Canadians of predominantly Sri Lankan Tamil origin at the October parliamentary elections.

Poilievre sought to appease the Tamil Canadians close on the heels of Premier Justin Trudeau’s announcement that he would resign after a successor is chosen. Rightwing Poilievre, early last year, declared he would seek to prosecute Sri Lanka at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and appoint lawyers to pursue charges against Lankan “war criminals” in international criminal courts.

However, the Conservative Party wouldn’t find it easy to entice Tamil Canadians as during Trudeau’s 10-year premiership, when Canada went out of its way to attack Sri Lanka. The Liberal Party, under Trudeau’s leadership, humiliated war-winning Sri Lanka at any given opportunity.

Recently, the Canadian media quoted Trudeau as having said: “I intend to resign as party leader, as Prime Minister, after the party selects its next leader through a robust nationwide competitive process.” Whoever replaces Trudeau will continue hostile policy towards Sri Lanka. One-time central banker Mark Carney and former Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland are in the fray. The Liberal Party is scheduled to announce the winner on 09 March.

All political parties represented in the Canadian Parliament, in May 2022, unanimously and arrogantly agreed that Sri Lanka perpetrated genocide during the war against the LTTE. On the basis of that unsubstantiated decision that had been endorsed by both Liberal and Conservative Parties, the Canadian Parliament recognized 18 May as the Tamil Genocide Remembrance Day. These overwhelmingly white accusers, however, forget the fact that like all of Americas, Canada, too, was established by committing numerous acts of genocide against its first citizens. And, to this day, they continue to perpetrate such acts with impunity. Such pale faces, with so much innocent blood on their hands, have the audacity to accuse small countries, like Sri Lanka, that refused to yield to terrorists, who were subtly supported by them, the same way they back even Islamic terrorists when it suits them as we clearly saw in Syria for example.

Sri Lanka brought the war to a successful conclusion on May 18, 2009 though LTTE leader Velupillai Prabhakaran was only killed on the banks of the Nanthikadal lagoon at the dawn of the following day as his surviving band tried to breakthrough security forces lines.

What the Conservative Party Leader Poilievre could do to outdo Trudeau who had glorified Prabhakaran’s macabre project by targeting some Sri Lankan leaders responsible for eradicating the LTTE terrorism?

Over the years, those who had received Canadian citizenship, as well as others awaiting same, funded the LTTE as it killed and maimed thousands of Sri Lankans. Obviously, both Liberals and Conservatives, as well as other political parties, represented in Canadian Parliament, have conveniently forgotten thousands of Tamils killed by the LTTE. Canadian political parties are also silent on the origins of terrorism in Sri Lanka that may have claimed the lives of as many as 70,000 people. The dead included 1,300 Indian soldiers, members of rival Tamil terrorist groups, several dozens of politicians, like President Ranasinghe Premadasa as well as one-time Indian Premier Rajiv Gandhi, among many others.

Canadian political parties have bent backwards to appease Tamil Canadian voters. With their eyes on the still growing significant number of Tamil Canadian votes, they haven’t at least bothered to examine why Sri Lanka took on the separatist conventional military challenge. Canada never realized the need for a negotiated political settlement in Sri Lanka as long as the LTTE wielded conventional military power. Had the LTTE overwhelmed Sri Lankan military, Canada would have been one of the first countries to congratulate the triumph of terrorism here. That is the reality.

Fortunately, by the time Trudeau received the Liberal Party leadership in 2013, and became the Premier in late 2015, more than four years after Sri Lanka brought the LTTE to its knees, called “the deadliest terrorist group” even by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, was not in a position to resurrect its military. In other words, once considered invincible by so-called experts, had been truly defeated. Canada, like many other like-minded countries, responded with shock and dismay at the way the LTTE collapsed after having vowed to defeat the military.

Sri Lanka created history by eradicating the LTTE militarily. Sri Lanka’s triumph dispelled the myth spread by interested parties that our armed forces were incapable of defeating a major terrorist group with conventional fighting means, like the Tigers.

Tamil electorate on a new path

Eradication of the LTTE is no longer a major issue at national or lower level elections in Sri Lanka. Anura Kumara Dissanayake’s superlative performance in the Northern and Eastern regions, at the last presidential and parliamentary elections in Sept. and Nov., last year, respectively, proved that predominantly Tamil electorates couldn’t be significantly influenced by post-war issues.

Regardless of much touted accountability issues and assurances to pursue the Geneva agenda, Tamil parties failed to garner the required support of the Tamil electorate. They overwhelmingly voted for Tamil candidates fielded by the National People’s Front (NPP) at the general election and thereby inflicted unprecedented defeat on the Illankai Thamil Arasu Kadchi (ITAK).

Finally, the JVP-led NPP won all the Northern and Eastern electoral districts. The Tamil-speaking people declared beyond doubt that they wanted to move ahead and not be entrapped in the past. They obviously realized that a politically motivated high profile Western campaign against Sri Lanka is not meant to help restore their shattered lives but play politics with an issue. Those who cannot stomach Sri Lanka’s triumph over terrorism still want to haul up the war-winning country before international criminal courts. However, ITAK, and smaller Tamil political parties, have now realized that accountability issues do not attract voters. Over 17 years after the end of the war, young voters, in no uncertain terms, had indicated that they aren’t interested in pursuing a political agenda, based on accountability issues.

Earlier, the ITAK-led Tamil National Alliance (TNA) wholeheartedly represented the LTTE interests.

Perhaps, the NPP, too, has realized that its often repeated promise to release political prisoners is irrelevant. Even if the NPP wanted to release some to deceive the people, no such prisoners are held by the government. There are only a handful of Tamil convicts and few others held in terms of the PTA (Prevention of Terrorism Act). The convicts are responsible for major attacks and high profile assassinations. Actually political prisoners are nothing but a non-issue and those demanding their release from detention are only fooling themselves.

It is high time Tamil political parties give up their primary strategy revolving around accountability issues. Having received the LTTE’s backing both in and out of Parliament at the outset of Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga’s second term, the ITAK is now struggling to come to terms with unfavourable situations in the North.

Failure on the part of M.A. Sumanthiran, PC, to retain his Jaffna district seat, meant that the ground situation had changed drastically. That was nothing but a severe warning issued not only to Sumanthiran but to all Tamil politicians who have been essentially advancing an accountability agenda like a beggar’s wound. However, Canada appeared to have failed to recognize the changing situation on the ground. Perhaps, the Canadian High Commission (CHC) should re-examine post-national election developments closely. The CHC should wait till the conclusion of the Local Government polls early this year to carry out reassessment as at least a section of the Tamil electorate may switch their allegiance back to the ITAK.

But, the writer is of the view that dynamics have changed and those genuinely concerned about the wellbeing of the Tamil people shouldn’t depend on accountability issues to promote political agenda. In fact, having played ball with the LTTE throughout the war and backed Prabhakaran’s decision to indiscriminately use hapless Tamil civilian human shields on the Vanni east front, the ITAK should be investigated for its culpability for war crimes. The ITAK had no shame at all as it fully cooperated with the LTTE’s despicable strategies. Today, the ITAK wouldn’t dare to mention that it recognized the LTTE in 2001 as the sole representative of the Tamil speaking people. Of course that was done at gunpoint. The late R. Sampanthan had no choice but to cooperate with Prabhakaran’s strategy meant to build a political front subservient to them.

Canada had no qualms in mollycoddling the ITAK in spite of that political party endorsing recruitment of child soldiers. The highpoint of the LTTE-ITAK/TNA relationship was the engineering of Ranil Wickremesinghe’s defeat at the 2005 Nov. presidential election that paved the way for Mahinda Rajapaksa’s victory, resumption of war in August 2006 by the LTTE and its decimation militarily by the armed forces.

Canada seeks Tamil Canadians support

Against the backdrop of the 2015, 01 Oct. Geneva Resolution that had been treacherously backed by the then Sri Lankan government, headed by Maithripala Sirisena, and Ranil Wickremesinghe as the President and Prime Minister, Canada took a series of measures to step up pressure on the war-winning country. In May 2022 Canada publicly announced that Sri Lanka perpetrated genocide. Trudeau dismissed Sri Lanka’s protests though Ottawa didn’t have absolutely anything to back its extremely politically motivated claims. Shame on Canada and its Premier.

It would be pertinent to mention that Premier Stephen Harper’s Conservative government, too, couldn’t stomach Sri Lanka’s triumph over terrorism. In fact, both Conservatives and Liberals competed with each other to censure Sri Lanka. They felt Canadians of Sri Lankan origin could be easily won over by censuring Sri Lanka.

In May 2014, the Canadian High Commission in Colombo asked the writer whether The Island could publish a hard-hitting statement issued by the then High Commissioner Shelley Whiting prominently ahead of Sri Lanka’s Victory Day parade. The writer, in his capacity as the News Editor of The Island, gave the HC an assurance that regardless of what Whiting had to say it would receive front-page coverage. The HC wanted to know whether any sections would be deleted. Assurance was given that it would be carried, sans any alterations. As promised The Island carried the Whiting’s statement that challenged President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s decision to celebrate the country’s triumph over terrorism.

Whiting, who had served at their Kabul mission prior to being posted to Colombo, declared that Canada wouldn’t be represented at the Victory Day parade that was to be held in Matara on May 18, 2014. In spite of proscribing the LTTE and the World Tamil Movement in 2006 and 2008, respectively, funds flowed to the LTTE. The LTTE couldn’t have sustained conventional fighting for over two decades without uninterrupted funding from the West. Canada remained a major source of funding until the very end when the Sri Lankan military decimated the LTTE militarily in a series of operations on the Vanni east front.

Having won the 2015 presidential election, Maithripala Sirisena, in consultation with Premier Ranil Wickremesinghe, cancelled the Victory Day parade. Canada must have been thrilled. Whiting’s condemnation of the military celebration was the only instance a foreign government called for the ending of the annual event held to mark a worthy victory clinched against so many odds.

In Oct. 2015, treacherous Yahapalana leadership (UNP-SLFP combine) co-sponsored a US-led accountability resolution against the Sri Lankan military. There hadn’t been a previous instance of any country moving/backing a resolution targeting its own armed forces and political leadership at the Geneva-based United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC).

In May 2022 Canada declared Sri Lanka perpetrated genocide. In early January 2023, Ottawa sanctioned former presidents Mahinda Rajapaksa, Gotabaya Rajapaksa, Staff Sergeant Sunil Ratnayake and Lieutenant Commander Chandana Prasad Hettiarachchi. Both Ratnayake and Hettiarachchi had been earlier sanctioned by the US, one of the worst human rights offenders, for committing what it called serious crimes.

Interestingly, no Western government has so far sanctioned war-winning Army Chief Field Marshal Sarath Fonseka though a number of senior officers, including General Shavendra Silva (US) and Maj. Gen. Chagie Gallage (Australia). The US threw its weight behind Fonseka at the 2010 presidential election. Having accused Fonseka’s Army of murdering thousands of Tamils, the LTTE proxy Tamil National Alliance (TNA) formed an alliance with the UNP and the JVP to defeat Mahinda Rajapaksa. Their project failed pathetically as the electorate inflicted a massive defeat on the celebrated Sinha Regiment hero. The drubbing was such Mahinda Rajapaksa polled over 1.8 mn votes more than Fonseka.

In the absence of cohesive policy on the part of Sri Lanka in countering unsubstantiated war crimes accusations, Western powers pursued an agenda inimical to Sri Lanka. The idea was to push Sri Lanka to offer a political package that addressed Tamils’ aspirations. In other words, Western powers wanted Sri Lanka to grant what the LTTE couldn’t secure through terrorism driven war.

A shooting involving Indian fishermen and Sri Lanka Navy personnel within the island’s territorial waters, and injuries sustained in apprehending the poachers is in the news, yet again. And as is often the case in these countless and never-ending confrontations and competing claims and counter claims in state rituals, we have two versions of the event. But one thing is indisputable: Indian fishermen had entered Sri Lankan waters illegally and thereby came within the jurisdiction of the island nation’s laws and legal apparatuses including interventions by its navy.

Naval action followed by competing statements by India and Sri Lanka are mere state rituals that have not been able to address long-standing practices that pre-existed the formation of nation-states. For the longest time, when national identities, citizenship, and maritime borders did not exist in the legal sense we understand them today, what we now call Sri Lankan and Indian fishermen waded undeterred into each other’s waters and engaged in fishing to their hearts’ content. They even lingered for extended periods of time in each other’s lands during specific fishing periods. I recall engaging in a conversation at the turn of the century with one such fisherman from South India who had decided to settle in Chilaw long ago. In his case and that of many of his comrades at the time, it was a matter of marrying into the Sinhala speaking fisher families. Over time, these people blended into local communities. At the height of these activities and even after both India and Sri Lanka gained independence, the long arm of the nation-states’ laws and national interests did not intervene in such activities beyond a point. But this changed as nation-states evolved into what Ashish Nandi has called ’garrison states’, militarised borders were drawn and bodies of laws developed governing cross-border travel.

Notwithstanding national borders and the associated practices of statecraft and competing nationalisms, fishermen in the two neighbouring countries have continued to wade into each other’s waters consciously disregarding what is known as the International Maritime Boundary Line (IMBL) due to its invisibility. Such border violations are often deliberate and a matter of routine because fishermen often get away with this infringement. However, the kind of intrusion followed by violence now in the news is not the norm, but the exception.

In a statement issued on 28 January 2025, India’s Ministry of External Affairs noted that “an incident of firing by the Sri Lankan Navy during the apprehension of 13 Indian fishermen in the proximity of Delft Island was reported in the early hours of this morning.” It further noted, that “out of the 13 fishermen who were on board the fishing vessel, two have sustained serious injuries and are currently receiving treatment at the Jaffna Teaching Hospital.” But the statement from the Sri Lanka Navy differs in important details. It notes that Sri Lanka’s “Northern Naval Command observed a cluster of Indian fishing boats poaching in the Sri Lankan waters off Valvettithurai, Jaffna in the dark hours of 27 Jan 25.” This location is much closer to the Sri Lankan coast than what the Indian statement claims, yet it is evident from both statements that the incident took place well within Sri Lanka’s territorial waters. This discrepancy in the statements is intriguing as the two locations are approximately 62.4 km apart. Interestingly, the contested island of Kachchatheevu is 22.4 km from Delft, the location given in the Indian statement, and 84.7 km from Valvettithurai. Therefore, a careful reader may not be faulted in wondering if locating the scene closer to Kachchatheevu is deliberate, given that the island is a bone of contention between the two countries.

The Navy statement further states, “subsequently, the Northern Naval Command mounted a special operation to send away those fishing boats from the island waters, deploying naval craft. During this operation, the Navy seized an Indian fishing boat [that] continued to remain in Sri Lankan waters, while marshalling illegal fishing activities and collecting the fishing harvest. The operation also led to the apprehension of 13 Indian fishermen aboard the fishing boat.”

For Sri Lanka, this is not merely an accident that can be wished away as the somewhat clinical Indian statement does. It goes beyond protecting the maritime borders of the country, to preserving a crucial source of livelihood of many people in northern Sri Lanka and other parts of the island. It is both a bread-and-butter issue as it is a matter of national interest. Therefore, the Sri Lanka Navy has acted precisely in the manner that it should, as is expected and is within its mandate. Is it also not ironic that the bleeding hearts of southern Indian politicians who are up in arms about the so-called discrimination and abuse of their Tamil brethren in Sri Lanka by its government, seem to turn bone dry when their constituent fishermen callously plunder the resource-rich fertile waters of Sri Lanka, thereby remorselessly depriving their Tamil brothers and sisters of their livelihood.

The Sri Lankan statement further notes, “the Sri Lanka Navy boarding team was compelled to conduct noncompliance boarding as the Indian fishing boat continued to maneuver aggressively, without complying with the Navy’s lawful orders and its duty, during the process of taking the boat into custody. On this occasion, the Indian fishermen have acted aggressively, maneuvering their fishing boat in a hostile manner and behaving confrontationally with the Navy. However, while boarding the fishing boat in accordance with the authority vested in the Navy, the Indian fishermen, as an organized group, have attempted to assault naval personnel and made an attempt to snatch a firearm from a naval officer, endangering the lives of the naval personnel. In the process, an accidental fire has taken place, causing slight injuries to two Indian fishermen.” So unlike in the Indian statement which refers to ‘serious injuries’ the Sri Lankan statement refers to ‘slight injuries.’

What is seen here is not a deliberate act of shooting as the Indian statement and much of the Indian reporting on the incident insinuates, but an accident that has occurred due to the aggression and unlawful behaviour of Indian fishermen in a location in the sovereign territory of another country, they had no business of being in, in the first place. Intriguingly, none of these details are present in the Indian statement. It merely says that in addition to lodging a ‘strong’ complaint against the incident with the Acting High Commissioner in Delhi and the Sri Lankan Ministry of Foreign Affairs, “government of India has always emphasized the need to treat issues pertaining to fishermen in a humane and humanitarian manner, keeping in mind livelihood concerns. The use of force is not acceptable under any circumstances whatsoever. Existing understandings between the two Governments in this regard must be strictly observed.”

India’s Ministry of Externa Affairs lodging a complaint with our Acting Hish Commissioner in Delhi and a similar complaint being made by its High Commission to our Foreign Ministry is the height of absurdity. While our Foreign Ministry and missions may be numb to such action, we should be mindful that the main infraction — Indian poaching — happened in our waters and therefore comes under the jurisdiction of Sri Lankan laws, in the dispensation of which accidents can also happen.

In any case, this statement itself may seem well articulated in the lofty corridors of performative and orchestrated diplomacy and the Indian Ocean conference circuit. But it makes little sense beyond as an example of excessive verbosity in the real world of cross-border poaching and naval action in the darkness of the night involving aggressive culprits and the threatened livelihoods of citizens of a sovereign country. Besides, it was just over six months ago that a young Sri Lankan sailor brutally met his end because of the aggressive manoeuvering of an Indian trawler in Sri Lankan waters. Therefore, these statements are naught but mere rhetoric, of no use to the Sri Lankan fishermen who — through no fault of their own — have to bear the brunt of Indian infractions and incursions into their bread-basket.

What is obvious in these rituals of statecraft is the woeful absence of proactive action on the part of Sri Lanka. If India can summon our Acting High Commissioner to their Ministry of External Affairs and lodge a ‘strong’ complaint over an accident stemming from an illegal Indian activity that took place in our waters, did our Foreign Ministry summon the Indian High Commissioner to protest against his compatriots illegally and perpetually entering our waters, behaving aggressively towards our navy and depriving a section of our citizens of their only livelihood? Did our Foreign Ministry ask him why they have opted to report basic facts wrong in their statement? Silence in such situations is not only extremely dangerous but also smacks of pusillanimity. This kind of institutionalized timidity on the part of Sri Lanka does not augur well for the country at the time we are celebrating our supposed ‘Independence,’ and is also counterintuitive to the notion of national interest.

This general lack of intent towards meaningful action is also evident in the Joint Statement of 16 December 2024, issued during President Anura Kumara Dissanayaka’s visit to India which states that “acknowledging the issues faced by fishermen on both sides and factoring in the livelihood concerns, the leaders agreed on the need to continue to address these in a humanitarian manner. In this regard, they also underscored the need to take measures to avoid any aggressive behaviour or violence. They welcomed the recent conclusion of the 6th Joint Working Group Meeting on Fisheries in Colombo. The leaders expressed confidence that through dialogue and constructive engagements a long-lasting and mutually acceptable solution could be achieved. Given the special relationship between India and Sri Lanka, they instructed officials to continue their engagement to address these issues.” Here, the omission of any reference to the destructive bottom-trawling fishing method is conspicuous by its stark absence. It is indeed unfathomable that the Sri Lankan team did not insist on the inclusion of this critical reference in the statement.

Rampantly used by Indian fishermen, bottom-trawling disrupts the seabed, marine ecosystem and biodiversity of the Palk Bay, while boosting India’s seafood exports and yielding high profits while destroying the Sri Lankan fishermen’s livelihoods. For this reason, Sri Lanka banned bottom-trawling in 2017. However, none of these are in the Joint Statement of 16 December 2024 or the Sri Lanka Navy statement of 28 January 2025, and have also not been taken up with the Indian High Commissioner in Colombo. This is not only a failure of Sri Lankan foreign policy in action but also a complete compromise of our country’s national interest.

In this context, the real culprits in the failure to resolve the problem definitively are the leaders of the Indian and Sri Lankan states — politicians and bureaucrats alike. Why has technology not been resorted to more thoughtfully in this situation where the required technology actually exists? For the longest time, both sides have been waxing eloquent about attaching non-tamperable and permanently switched-on transponders to fishing boats which will inform the Navies or Coast Guards of the two countries when maritime border violations take place. As a technologically advanced country, India has the higher capacity to produce the required innovative mechanisms and tools for this purpose that can be used in both countries for mutual benefit. Bilateral collaboration of this nature can actually bear fruit rather than the hollow discourses of rhetorical diplomacy and statecraft.

For India, these issues are important only insofar as they resonate with Tamil Nadu politics and therefore possible vote banks. In reality, it is never about the lives or livelihoods of poor South Indian fishermen or their confiscated properties. For Sri Lanka, it is a matter of ill-defined sovereignty and the livelihood of a significant section of the people in the north. At the same time, this unfolds in a situation where the Sri Lankan Navy is unable to patrol the country’s maritime borders effectively, a known fact which Indian fishermen exploit as a matter of routine.

If both countries are adequately serious beyond issuing mere statements after the fact, these incursions are easily stoppable. However, once the technology is put in place as a matter of law, both countries must enforce them to the letter, and patrol the borders more effectively. But, pending the fruition of such law, Indian fishermen, cannot be allowed to plunder Sri Lankan resources. It is also high time, the Sri Lankan government, with the kind of overwhelming mandate it has received from the people, make it very clear to the Indian state that endless incursions into our territorial waters and ravishing of the country’s natural resources can no longer be tolerated. And if legitimate deterrence is to be used in protecting our borders and resources as do all sovereign states including India, so be it. This is the minimum we expect from our government in its pursuit of our national interest.

By Shamindra Ferdinando

Sri Lanka must address the developing issue of Rohingya refugees cautiously. Whatever the domestic politics, or divisions within political parties represented in Parliament, the country shouldn’t, under any circumstances, encourage more Rohingyas to seek refuge here or use northern Sri Lanka as a transit point.

Unless the National People’s Power (NPP) government reaches a consensus with the main Opposition Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB) in this regard, swiftly, interested parties here, and in Myanmar, are likely to exploit the situation to their advantage.

Bankrupt Sri Lanka, beset with political, economic and social problems, cannot afford to accommodate boat loads of Rohingyas.

Rohingyas are an ethnic group, the majority of whom are Muslims hailing from Bangladesh, but denied citizenship in Myanmar since 1982. The move has effectively rendered them stateless. Alleging constant persecution over the years by the Myanmar government, Rohingyas have sought refuge elsewhere.

The Rohingya issue attracted fresh public attention after the Navy rescued 115 persons found adrift on a fishing trawler off Mullaitivu on 19 Dec., last year. Although Rohingya shad reached Sri Lankan waters previously, it was not a favoured destination, with majority Muslim Malaysia and Indonesia being their major destinations.

Public Security and Parliamentary Affairs Minister Ananda Wijepala, on 08 January, warned Parliament that as many as 100,000 Rohingyas could reach Sri Lankan waters.

The former Private Secretary to the then JVP Parliamentarian Anura Kumara Dissanayake, and the new entrant to Parliament, based his claim on intelligence services’ assessments. Responding to a query by The Island, Minister Wijepala declared that the government wouldn’t give into human traffickers and various other interested parties, peddling the Rohingya issue, but would conduct a thorough investigation to establish the truth.

The Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka (HRCSL) on 27 Dec., 2024, took up the Rohingya issue with President Anura Kumara Dissanayake. The HRCSL found fault with the government for not allowing the HRCSL team to visit the Rohingyas held at the Kepapilavu Air Force camp in Mullaitivu. The HRCSL made its highly publicized intervention within 24 hours after the Air Force denied entry to its team.

HRCSL Chairman, retired Supreme Court Justice L.T.B. Dehideniya, in his letter dated 27 Dec., 2024, reminded President Dissanayake that, according to section 11(d) of the HRCSL Act, No. 21 of 1996, the powers and functions of the Commission extend not only to Sri Lankan citizens but to “any person” detained within Sri Lanka.

Therefore, the Commission has the statutory authority to access the said Air Force Camp and monitor the detention conditions of all asylum seekers, including the children present, Dehideniya declared.

Strangely Justice Dehideniya, however, gave a lame excuse last year not to probe serious allegation made by former Speaker Abeywardena about external involvement in President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s forced ouster when he said that Speaker Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena’s claim of foreign interventions could be inquired into only if he received a complaint.

The Rohingya issue should receive the NPP government’s priority. The government cannot absolve itself of the responsibility for thwarting organized attempts by human traffickers to use Northern Sri Lanka to receive Rohingyas. Of the 115 rescued off Mullaitivu, the 12-member crew had been remanded by Trincomalee Acting Magistrate, Abdul Saleem, pending further investigations.

The issue at hand is whether the destination of the trawler was Sri Lanka or the vessel, after engine breakdown, and due to inclement weather, simply drifted towards Vellamullivaikkal, the scene of fierce fighting during the last phase of the ground offensive against the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE).

Let me stress that this journey is not the first boat to reach Sri Lanka, situated about 1,750km (1,100 miles) across open seas, southwest of Myanmar. In Dec., 2022, the Navy rescued another boat carrying over 100 Rohingyas, during Wickremesinghe’s presidency.

Large groups of Rohingyas had fled Myanmar, over the past years, due to military action, but in the recent past the Myanmar government recruited some Rohingyas to the military. Myanmar turned to Rohingyas to strengthen its Army fighting the ethnic terrorist group, called the Arakan Army, in Rakhine state.

Rohingya issue taken up in Parliament

Sri Lanka Muslim Congress (SLMC) leader Rauf Hakeem raised the Rohingya issue in Parliament. Attorney-at-Law Hakeem condemned the NPP administration for its response to the latest arrival of Rohingyas.

Lawmaker Hakeem discussed the issue against the backdrop of Myanmar facing a genocide trial at the International Court of Justice, in The Hague, over its treatment of the Rohingyas.

All Ceylon Makkal Congress (ACMC) leader Rishad Bathiudeen, SJB MP Mujibur Rahuman, as well as former MP, senior state counsel and ex-Ambassador in Tehran M.M. Zuhair, PC, intervened on behalf of Rohingyas. Lawmakers took up the issue in Parliament. A section of the civil society, too, intervened.

Some found fault with SJB leader Sajith Premadasa for the stand taken up by Hakeem, Bathiudeen and Rahuman as they were elected to Parliament on the SJB ticket.

Referring to the Air Force depriving HRCSL of an opportunity to visit the Rohingyas on 26 Dec., 2024, the Commission brought the incident to President Dissanayake.

Lawmaker Hakeem, in a fiery speech delivered in Parliament, threw his weight behind the HRCSL. Hakeem declared: “The HRCSL has the right to go and inspect any place where there is a report about maltreatment and ill-treatment of individuals. This is not the first time refugees from Myanmar arrived in Sri Lanka. Way back in 2008, 2017 and 2018 such people came here”

The Air Force action is a total violation of the HRCSL Act, the one-time Justice Minister alleged, warning the Air Force could be held in contempt.

The Kandy district lawmaker also referred to the strong statement issued by PC Zuhair in this regard. Hakeem slammed Public Security Minister Wijepala for the government’s stand on the developing issue. He questioned the rationale in the NPP government consulting the Myanmar government responsible for the massive exodus of people.

Alleging that Myanmar relentlessly persecuted the Rohingyas, the SLMC leader declared that hundreds of thousands of people had left the country. Hakeem estimated the number of Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh and Malaysia almost at a million and nearly 500,000, respectively. Indonesia, the UAE and Saudi Arabia, as well as Western countries, had given them refuge, the ex-Minister said. Hakeem censured Minister Wijepala for calling the Rohingya refugees human traffickers. “How dare you say this? How dare you say this? Do you forget your own members, way back in the ’70s ’80s, when you were persecuted and you took refuge in Italy, in the UK, France, all over, and in Lebanon? How many JVP activists were there as refugees?’

Hakeem was referring to the 1971 and 1987-1990 JVP-led terror campaigns that were ruthlessly suppressed by the SLFP and UNP administrations, respectively.

The SLMCer also found fault with the Public Security Minister and his Deputy Attorney-at-Law Sunil Watagala for simply acting on the advice of officials without realizing the responsibility on their part to properly function as MPs.

Hakeem demanded that the government act in accordance with international law and UNHCR must be asked to provide the necessary security. “The government is bound under humanitarian law and under UN declaration of human rights, where specific sections have been highlighted.”

The SLMC leader asked the government not to forcefully repatriate the Rohingyas. The right of Hakeem, Bathiudeen, Rahuman and Zuhair to represent the interests of the Rohingyas cannot be disputed.

Eminent lawyer Zuhair pointed out that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) of 1948, in Article 14 states, “Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution”. Sri Lanka is a party to this United Nations sponsored international convention. Persecution in Myanmar is well known. Violent persecution of Rohingyas is well documented and established beyond debate.

The ex-Ambassador said that the HRCSL should be allowed to operate in terms of article 14 of the UDHR and related provisions of the applicable treaties. Amidst the continuing controversy over the Rohingya refugees, The Island carried hard-hitting statements issued by Zuhair, Rahuman and Bathiudeen.

SJB’s stance questioned

Political analyst Shenali Waduge blamed the SJB’s stand on the Rohingya issue. Referring to a Rohingya refugee woman delivering a baby boy at Mullaitivu hospital on 21 January, 2025, Ms. Waduge sarcastically said that the SJB could adopt the child.

The prolific writer questioned the SJB pursuing a politically motivated strategy meant to encourage more boat loads of Rohingyas. She warned of dire consequences unless political parties represented in Parliament took a national stand instead of seeking political advantage. The crux of the matter is the possibility of external elements having influence over a political party represented in Parliament or individual lawmakers.

The bottom line is Sri Lanka lacked the wherewithal to engage in such a risky project. In other words, Sri Lanka shouldn’t get entangled in the Rohingya matter. Let the government address this issue in consultation with the Myanmar government and UNHCR.

The Rohingya issue took a different turn when the North-East Coordination Committee spearheaded a protest in Mullaitivu demanding that the refugees shouldn’t be deported. Jesumaney Yartan Figurado, the joint co-ordinator of the grouping, was among the participants. The CID’s Human Trafficking and Maritime Crime Division recorded a statement from Figurado regarding his involvement in the protest.

It would be pertinent to mention that the North-East Coordination Committee campaigns for permanent devolution of power to the North and East. The Committee has repeatedly urged Tamil political parties not to pursue strategies that may undermine their efforts to secure international recognition.

Obviously various interested parties cooperate on movement of refugees across national boundaries. The recent actions taken by US President Donald Trump underscores the importance the new Republican administration attaches to protecting US borders. Over the past several decades, for want of cohesive international cooperation against organized but illegal and lucrative movement of various people gathered momentum with America, Canada and Europe being flooded with uninvited guests.

Australia is one of the countries that has adopted a tough military-led initiative called ‘Operation Sovereign Borders’ launched in 2013 to curb illegals reaching land. In spite of the change of governments, both here and Australia, successive administrations remained fully committed to the high profile operation that facilitated the forceful repatriation of Sri Lankan illegals.

Sri Lanka needs a national policy to address the contentious issue of illegals. Australia has underscored that their policy in this regard is beyond party politics.

Over the past several decades EU countries, the UK, Canada, Scandinavian countries and the US, have accommodated thousands of ex-Sri Lankan terrorists, including those who had received weapons training in India, and in Sri Lanka also by Indian instructors. Foreign governments granted them citizenship on the pretext of them being political refugees.

The possibility of wanted men being among those Rohingyas who had fled to different countries cannot be ruled out.

Let us remind our readers of the case of Antonythasan Jesuthasan, the male star of renowned French filmmaker Jacques Audiard’s Deepan that won the Palme d’Or at the 2015 Cannes Film Festival. Jesuthasan, an ex-Sri Lankan terrorist, and most probably still categorized as missing/disappeared from here, is on record as having revealed how he inflicted injury on himself to secure political asylum.

In an interview with Tom Seymour (TS) posted in The Guardian nearly a decade ago, in the wake of Palme d’Or, Jesuthasan, while revealing what TS called a dense lattice of scars, said: “I did those to myself.” Having mimicked running a blade across his skin, Jesuthasan told TS. “I was 22, and I had spent years trying to come to the west. I wanted to get a fake French passport, but I had to be accepted as a refugee. I went to the UNHCR [the UN High Commissioner for Refugees], but they wouldn’t believe my story. So I cut myself, and held up my arm, and said to them: ‘Look at my blood. This is my word.”

Jesuthasan’s story is not different from millions of similar tales. They are all beneficiaries of governments which knowingly accepted fake documents and clandestine operations of illegal traffickers. That is the truth some do not want to accept.

SW’s take on Rohingya

Former Public Security Minister and retired Rear Admiral Sarath Weerasekera emphasized the responsibility on the part of the government to counter propaganda meant to compel the country to accept groups of Rohingya. Some people with vested interests questioned the government’s authority to hold a group of Rohingyas in an Air Force camp, the former Navy Chief of Staff pointed out.

Acknowledging that Rohingyas had been brutally treated by the Myanmar military over the years, the former lawmaker emphasized that the violence therein should be examined against the backdrop of attacks on 30 Myanmar military camps in August 2017 carried out by ARSA (Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army).

Quoting Amnesty International, Weerasekera said that armed Rohingyas carried out attacks on Hindus in August 2017, killing 99 persons over the latter’s refusal to embrace Islam.

The former Minister pointed out that Premier Narendra Modi ordered the deportation of Rohingyas who entered India following the 2021 military coup. Referring to different Asian governments’ response to the Myanmar crisis, Weerasekera urged the government to be extra cautious in addressing this issue.

It would be a great mistake on Sri Lanka’s part if the government failed to reach a consensus on this vexed issue as quickly as possible, the ex-Minister said.

Political parties represented in Parliament hadn’t been able to reach an agreement on major national issues. There cannot be a better example than their failure to agree on the need to defeat terrorism that caused immense death and destruction for three decades.

The executive, legislature and judiciary should work collectively to address major issues that may spiral out of control unless dealt swiftly and decisively. Regardless of party politics and whatever differences among political parties represented in Parliament, MPs couldn’t act regardless of collective responsibility towards the wellbeing of the country.