Connect with us

Features

What Premadasa felt about Prabhakaran

Published

on

Premadasa

Continued from last week

Direct Talks with LTTE

On 15th April, Anton Balasingham from the LTTE headquarters in London responded by a fax addressed to the president, accepting the invitation and hoping that the necessary arrangements would be made to facilitate a dialogue.

Building Confidence

There were at least five specific measures that President Premadasa took before the negotiations commenced. These helped create the environment for a trusting relationship between the government and the Tamil militants. The first was his peremptory demand, made at the Chittavivekashramaya temple on the outskirts of Colombo on the 13th of April 1989, that the Government of India withdraw the IPKF completely from Sri Lanka in three months. This was seen as a very positive step by the LTTE, and also incidentally, by the JVP.

Premadasa made special arrangements for Balasingham and his Australian wife, Adele, who were then in exile in London to fly down to Colombo at government expense for exploratory discussions.

This was not all. The wife of the LTTE leader Prabhakaran and their two children, who had taken refuge abroad in a European country, were provided security and facilities to return to Sri Lanka and rejoin Prabhakaran in the Wanni.

Subsequently came his ‘directions’ to the Indian High Commissioner, Lakhen Mehotra, and his many letters to the Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, to expedite the process of withdrawal/deinduction of the IPKF from Sri Lanka. He kept up One-to-One with Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi,

New Delhi, September 1989 the pressure by sending personal emissaries — I was sent on two occasions — to personally convey information to the Indian prime minister. These were similarly very much appreciated by the LTTE as being completely in line with their request and their interest.

The Hilton Hotel Talks — May to September 1989

The arrangements made to ensure security for the LTTE delegation during their stay in Colombo once the peace talks started were of the highest. All the LTTE cadres who participated in the talks were permitted to keep their personal weapons. The first group of LTTE delegates for the May talks, namely Balasingham, Yogaratnam Yogi, and Paramu Murthy, arrived in Colombo from the Wanni in Air Force helicopters with their own heavily armed bodyguards. It was an unnerving experience to me and the other Sri Lankan delegates to be faced, across the table at the first meeting, by armed LTTE cadres in battle fatigues.

Accommodating the LTTE delegation for the talks in Colombo’s five-star hotels itself caused a stir among the public. But it was the logical choice. The Hilton was virtually empty of guests owing to the troubled law and order situation and in addition it was off-season for tourists.

The talks with the LTTE were conducted in two rounds. The first round of nine meetings took place in May and the LTTE was represented by Balasingham, Yogi and Paramu. Then followed a break when the team went back to the jungles. The second round commenced on 16 June and ended on 2 July. In this round Lawrence Thilakar from Paris and Hassan, Karikaran and Ibrahim from the Eastern Province also participated. The only other member from the LTTE leadership to talk with the government in Colombo was Mahattaya, the deputy to Prabhakaran who came to Colombo for a further set of talks in November/December. The interval between the two rounds when the team returned to the jungles also gave Prabhakaran an opportunity of making his input.

On the Sri Lankan side, the negotiating team was led by Minister A C S Hameed. He was supported by Ranjan Wijeratne and several other ministers and a team of officials who were changed as dictated by the agenda for the discussions. Premadasa handpicked the officials for the negotiations as well. They included General Sepals Attygalle, Secretary/Defence; Bernard Tilakaratne, Secretary Foreign Affairs; his Secretary Wijayadasa, and myself, advisor from the president’s office. Ivan Samarawickrema came in when land issues were being discussed. Felix Dias Abeyesinghe, veteran of the former All Party Conference doubled-up as Co-ordinator and Secretary.

At the end of each day, a press release giving the public some idea of how the discussions went was issued, drafted by Dias Abeyesinghe and Balasingham. Premadasa kept in touch with the proceedings through daily briefings and met the LTTE team as and when necessary at his Sucharita office.

Agendas of the Two Sides

Getting the IPKF to withdraw from the country was the primary objective in round one of the talks. Balasingham spent much time dealing with the atrocities of the IPKF and the sufferings of the people of the north and east. This caused the impatient Ranjan Wijeratne, who had come to do some hard bargaining on a political settlement, say that what was going on was “not a dialogue but a monologue”. State sponsored colonization and forced conscription of youth by the EPRLF for the Civilian Volunteer Force (CVF) which the IPKF was training were also issues on which much discussion was centred. Follow up on these by the government was quick.

Premadasa was furious that the IPKF was training an army of Tamil youths. He felt that this could be the nucleus of a rival army under the EPRLF which could lead to immense problems in the future. This would also make it difficult for him to convince the LTTE to give up arms and agree to the eventual absorption of their cadres into the provincial police and units of the military. General A S Kalkat, the officer commanding the IPKF, was called in one day and given a dressing-down on the training of the CVF. Kalkat had an easy relationship with President Jayewardene and had meetings with him to review the security situation. Things were different under Premadasa and there was little contact between the two men.

What Premadasa Felt about Prabhakaran

Although A C S Hameed had the opportunity of meeting Prabhakaran in Jaffna after the IPKF had left the island in March 1990, Premadasa, much as he wanted to, was unable to meet Prabhakaran. During the May and June talks in Colombo, the LTTE had deemed it too dangerous for Prabhakaran to leave his jungle hideout. This inaccessability to Prabhakaran led the irascible Ranjan Wijeratne to opine that Prabhakaran in fact was dead—killed in a duel with his deputy, Mahattaya, and that A C S Hameed had only met Prabhakaran’s double in Jaffna. Be that as it may –Prabhakaran was to die and reappear several times thereafter – this elusive quality added to his charisma and image as a ruthless and implacable military leader whose battle strategies were imaginative and daring. This image was subsequently badly dented by the well-known killings of political foes – the murders of Amirthalingam and Yogeswaran of the TULF in Colombo – the mass staying of the EPRLF leadership in Madras and the 21 May suicide bombing of Rajiv Gandhi at Sriperumpudur, in Which the LTTE were the main suspects.

Premadasa had always wanted to meet Prabhakaran face to face. He had read and heard all about him—a minor official’s son from Valvettiturai, leaving school at 15, joining up with the militants and getting involved in the killing of Mayor Duraiappah in Jaffna in 1972, eliminating his rivals, especially the TELO in 1981, training for guerilla warfare in south India, and then as leader of the LTTE taking on as he called it, “the fourth largest army in the world” in 1987.

Premadasa felt he understood Prabhakaran’s motivations and his determination to achieve something for his people, albeit by terror and violent means. He believed that talking to him face to face would have convinced Prabhakaran of his sincerity in solving the ethnic problem with justice to all. He felt that the personal chemistry which builds trust would manifest itself at such a meeting. He often regretted that he had not had the chance to meet him personally especially after the breakdown in relations which occurred in June 1990.

Prabhakaran’s View of Premadasa

Premadasa’s determination and persistent efforts to get the IPKF to withdraw in 1989 and his achievement of the final deinduction of all troops in March 1990 convinced the LTTE of Premadasa’s

sincerity. They felt they could trust him. At a time when they were really feeling cornered by the IPKF and the TNA – the Tamil National Army– that was being put together by Varadaraja Perumal the chief minister of the NEPC, they decided to ask Premadasa for some arms and ammunition to retaliate against any moves against them. The request was made to Hameed by Balasingham during the second round of the Colombo Talks. As recorded by Adele Balasingham in her book The Will to Freedom’, Hameed had thought it a sensitive and controversial matter which could have been opposed by the military establishment. In her words:

Mr Hameed came along with Gen Attygalle, the Defence Secretary to our hotel. They told Bala that the president was willing to help. Since the matter was very sensitive and controversial, it had to be handled with extreme confidentiality. The army would be outraged. But it would be done covertly, the General said. Attygalle wanted a list of requirements. Bala and Yogi contacted Mr Prabhakaran through our communication channel and produced a list of weapons. Within a week, a substantial quantity of arms and ammunition was delivered to the Tigers through a bordering Sri Lankan army camp in Manal Aru (Welioya) sector in the Mullaitivu district.

Premadasa took a calculated risk in making this decision. But he felt its important in the final design he had in mind, that the LTTE be not completely eliminated and another Tamil force – the EPRLF – be supported by India to become a surrogate for India’s continuing interest in northern Sri Lanka. That to him would have been a worse scenario than the former. This was his convoluted thinking for the high-risk venture he had embarked on, of ensuring that India, or the IPKF, leave Sri Lanka at the earliest opportunity.

The whole affair was kept very much under cover and most of us around the president were very much in the dark until the story broke some months later. I learnt about it from a news story in the Island newspaper. The Indian high commissioner was at my door that morning and sought an explanation. How could it have happened when we had an agreement with India and had invited the IPKF over to restore normalcy in the island? He was not convinced that, if the story was true, it must have been something done at a local field commander level with the “top” completely unaware; that only a small quantity was involved, and that it was to be used against the TNA by the LTTE and not against the IPKF.

Later on, when the war restarted in June 1990, the media brought up the matter again and again, now making out that the arms and ammunition handed over, in or around July/August 1989, were in fact being used against our own security forces. It was an extremely difficult situation for Premadasa to wriggle out of As is the practice of most governments in embarrassing situations such as this, the first line of response was total denial, and later, as the criticism became more strident, a belated statement in Parliament.

LTTE Stance on the Separate State

On the question of ‘them separate state’ itself, the attitude of the LTTE during the talks had been that their striving for that objective would be dependent on the performance and sincerity shown by the government in moving forward with the political measures which had been discussed. These centred firstly around, the repeal of the sixth amendments to the Constitution which decreed that all MPs should take an oath to safeguard the unity, integrity and sovereignty of Sri Lanka and eschew the promotion of separatism.

The other was the early dissolution of the North-East Provincial Council (NEPC). The LTTE’s idea, apparently, was that in such event the LTTE could contest and become legitimate representatives of the people of the north-east. The LTTE maintained that the NEPC elections had been rigged and that the EPRLF had only been able to obtain a majority of seats in the NEPC because of the IPKF’s illegal support, (even stuffing of ballot boxes was alleged) the IPKF being the only effective power in the north and east during that election.

The opportunity for the dissolution of the NEPC presented itself when Vartharajah Perumal, the chief minister, inexplicably announced his intention to unilaterally announce a Declaration of Independence in February 1990. The chief minister did not actually do so but said that if a list of demands was not acceded to before a given date he would.

All political parties in Parliament, except the EPRLF, condemned Vartharajah Perumal’s move. Under the Provincial Council Law of 1987, one of the safeguards to guarantee some autonomy to the Provincial Council had been that the government could not dissolve a Provincial Council by Executive fiat. Vartharajah Perumal’s UDI provided the opportunity for the government to bring on amending legislation which enabled the government to dissolve, where “more than one half of the total membership of a Provincial Council expressly repudiated or manifestly disavowed obedience to the Constitution”. But the amending legislation came too late; after the war had started again on the 11th of June 1990. If Hameed, to whom Premadasa had entrusted the job had been able to push it through Parliament earlier perhaps the sought after “sincerity” would have been overtly displayed and the calamity might have been averted.

(To be continued)

(Excerpted from Rendering unto Caesar, autobiography of Bradman Weerakoon) ✍️



Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Features

Arctic link discovered: Lankan scientists trace 8,000 km seabird migration route

Published

on

By Ifham Nizam

Sri Lankan scientists have uncovered a remarkable long-distance migration route used by seabirds, linking the island’s shores with the Arctic—an achievement that is expected to reshape global understanding of bird movement and highlight Sri Lanka’s importance in the natural world.

The discovery, led by Professor Sampath S. Seneviratne of the University of Colombo, shows that Heuglin’s Gulls travel nearly 8,000 kilometres from Sri Lanka to breeding grounds in northern Russia, following a carefully chosen path that combines coastal travel with long inland journeys.

Prof. Seneviratne told The Island that the finding challenges the long-standing belief that seabirds depend mainly on ocean routes.

“For a long time, we assumed seabirds would stay close to the sea throughout their migration. What we are seeing here is very different. These birds are moving across land as well, using a route that connects Sri Lanka directly with the Arctic,” he said.

Brown headed gull- migrating from Himalayas to Mannar

The birds begin their journey from the northwestern coast of Sri Lanka, especially around Mannar—an area known for its rich birdlife and coastal habitats. From there, they cross over to India and move along the western coastline before turning inland.

Their journey then takes them through Pakistan and Afghanistan, across parts of Central Asia, and onwards to the Arctic region, where they breed during the northern summer.

What has drawn particular attention from scientists is the route chosen by the birds.

Instead of attempting to cross the world’s highest mountain ranges, or taking a much longer path over the open ocean, the gulls appear to follow a middle course that allows them to avoid harsh conditions while still maintaining a steady journey.

Map 1 &2 birds moving through the continent to reach the Artctic

“They are not simply taking the shortest distance,” Prof. Seneviratne explained. “They are choosing a route that gives them the best chance of survival. Along this path, they are able to find food, rest, and avoid extreme environments.”

The birds travel long distances each day, covering hundreds of kilometres, but they do not do it all in one stretch. Their journey depends heavily on stopovers—places where they pause to rest and rebuild energy.

“These stopovers are critical,” Prof. Seneviratne said. “If the birds cannot find suitable places to feed and recover, they will not be able to complete the journey.”

Co-researcher Dr. Gayomini Panagoda said the discovery sheds light on a route that had remained largely hidden until now.

“We always knew these birds were leaving Sri Lanka during certain times of the year, but we did not fully understand where they were going or how they got there,” she said. “Now we have a much clearer picture of their journey.”

Awareness among schoolchildren

She added that the findings show how closely connected different parts of the world are through nature.

“A bird that spends part of its life in Sri Lanka ends up in the Arctic. That tells us how linked these ecosystems really are,” she said.

The findings also underline the importance of Sri Lanka’s coastal areas, which serve as vital feeding and resting grounds for migratory birds before they begin their long journey north.

Veteran ornithologist , Professor Emeritus Sarath Kotagama said these habitats are of international importance and must be protected.

“These coastal regions, especially places like Mannar, provide the food and shelter these birds need before migration. If those areas are damaged, it will affect bird populations far beyond Sri Lanka,” he said.

Professor Seneviratne with Dr. Gayomini Panagoda

Kotagama warned that increasing pressure on coastal ecosystems—from development, pollution, and climate change—could pose serious risks.

“We are already seeing changes in many of these birds. If we are not careful, we could lose habitats that are essential not just for local wildlife, but for species that travel across continents,” he said.

The discovery also draws attention to the wider network of migration routes that connect countries across Asia and beyond. Birds do not recognise national borders, and their survival depends on conditions in many different places along their journey.

Prof. Seneviratne stressed that protecting these birds will require cooperation between countries.

“These birds travel across several regions, and each of those regions plays a role in their survival. Conservation cannot be done by one country alone,” he said.

A GPS tagged Crab Plover

He added that more work is needed to understand how other species use similar routes and how changes in climate and land use may affect migration patterns in the future.

“There is still much we do not know. This is just one piece of a much larger picture,” he said.

Environmentalists say the findings should encourage stronger action to protect wetlands and coastal ecosystems in Sri Lanka, many of which are under increasing threat.

“These areas are not just important for birds,” Dr. Panagoda said. “They support fisheries, protect coastlines, and are part of our natural heritage. Protecting them benefits both people and wildlife.”

She noted that conserving these habitats will also help ensure that future generations can continue to witness the arrival and departure of migratory birds.

For Sri Lanka, the discovery is both a moment of pride and a reminder of responsibility.

It highlights the role the island plays in supporting wildlife that travels across vast distances and connects different parts of the world.

It also shows that even a small country can have a big impact when it comes to global biodiversity.

As Prof. Seneviratne put it, “What happens in Sri Lanka does not stay in Sri Lanka. These birds carry that connection across continents.”

The discovery is expected to encourage further research into bird migration in the region, as scientists continue to explore how different species move across landscapes and adapt to changing conditions.

It also reinforces the need to protect the natural environments that make such journeys possible.

In the end, the story of these birds is not just about distance. It is about survival, connection, and the delicate balance of nature.

From the shores of Sri Lanka to the frozen Arctic, their journey is a powerful reminder that the natural world is far more connected than we often realise—and that protecting one part of it helps protect the whole.

Continue Reading

Features

Why the promotion of drone warfare is unconscionable

Published

on

A drone strike on an oil facility in the Middle East in the current war.

For the morally-conscious, the tendency among some sections in Sri Lanka to promote the production of drones for national defence purposes could be deeply worrying. Besides, this proposition flies in the face of common sense and disregards the relentlessly increasing harsh economic realities coming in the wake of the current wars that could push many a southern country into beggary. In fact even the West is facing an economic recession.

To begin with the latter issues, it is a proved reality that the majority of Southern countries are descending further into poverty at present. The FAO has the ‘bleeding statistics’ . For instance, food insecurity in Asia is of such disquieting proportions that the region accounts for ‘ approximately half of the world’s 370.7 million undernourished people’.

It is against such a bleak economic backdrop that countries of the South are being called on to pump money into the production or importing of drones. Pointed reference needs to be made here to the South because drones are peddled as cutting-edge defence systems that are comparatively economical to acquire and relatively easy to operate. It is even voiced that with time drones could enable even smaller countries of the South to acquire ‘strategic parity’ with the major powers of the North and middle level powers.

Meanwhile, no thought is spared for the poor of the South who would sink steadily into poverty and powerlessness. Because more defence spending by southern countries only entrenches the ruling classes of those countries, and in some cases their military high commands, further in the systems of governance and repression.

This has essentially been the experience of the majority of post-colonial states. As aptly phrased by economic and political analyst Susan George in the seventies, it has always been a case of ‘The Other Half Dying’.

Accordingly, it cannot be perceived as to how more defence spending by the South on drones could help alleviate the latter’s principal problem of deepening poverty. As for the perceived escalating insecurities of the South, these problems are of such complexity that drones could never be seen as offering a quick fix for them. They need patient, multi-pronged managing, mainly at the negotiating table with the powers that matter. These are long- gestation projects that need to be compulsorily undertaken in view of the fact that the alternative could be indefinite conflict and war.

Since Sri Lanka too is mentioned as one of those countries that needs to look at the drone proposition with some seriousness, it is relevant to underscore that Sri Lanka is second in a list of countries that are described as facing acute material hardships at present in the wake of the economic instability bred by the Hormuz crisis. The source of such information is no less than the respected Kiel Institute for the World Economy. The first 10 such gravely affected countries are: Zambia, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Pakistan, Equatorial Guinea, Kenya, Bangladesh, Vietnam, the Philippines and Thailand.

It is thought-provoking that among the above countries are not only those that have been traditionally seen as experiencing severe underdevelopment but also up-and-coming middle income countries that have been hitherto described as being on a fast track to development. The interesting mix proves that no country at present could consider itself immune to current economic shocks originating mainly in the Middle East that could plunge it dramatically into acute poverty virtually overnight.

We are left to conclude that ‘Bread’ or the economic well being of people could in no way be sacrificed for ‘Drones’ in democratic countries whose governments are obliged to be accountable to the people. Considering the phenomenal hardships that could be waiting to happen worldwide, the world could very well do without more ‘Guns’ or ‘Drones’.

However, if southern governments in particular opt for ‘Drones’ or an accumulation of ‘Guns’, the chances are that there could be overwhelming tides of social discontent in their countries, bred by economic want, that could then ignite indefinite war and repression. That is, a ‘No-Win’ situation for all concerned.

Ukraine has been spiritedly and admirably taking the fight back to the invading Russian forces over the past few years but its skillful use of sophisticated drones of its own making has in no way decreased the human costs the war has been incurring for itself. Ukraine has no choice but to continue with all the weaponry at its command to beat back the Russian invader but sooner rather than later it would need to take into account the immense suffering the war has been inflicting on its people and focus on the fact that the Russians are not backing down but using equally lethal weaponry against it.

The above are some of the dilemmas of the present wars that call for urgent resolution. Warring countries are obliged to address on a priority basis the misery and destruction their actions incur for their publics and consider deploying diplomacy, preferably under the aegis of the UN, to work out peaceful solutions to their enmities and differences. Considering the futility of their war Russia and Ukraine are obliged to think on these lines.

No less a power than the US should be considering deeply right now the advisability of continuing with its military interventions in the South in particular to achieve its self interests. The rising loss of American lives and the economic costs of war in the Middle East will be weighing heavily with the Trump administration and it shouldn’t come as a surprise if negotiations are given a serious try, going ahead. Ground realities in the region moreover indicate that the US ‘has bitten off more than it could chew’ and that Iran is remaining hostile and unyielding despite being bloodied.

For both sides to the war what should be inescapable is the harsh reality of continuing human suffering on a chilling scale. Sophisticated and increasingly destructive weaponry such as drones and missiles are being used but they have not brought either side any closer to victory. Instead human misery is being perpetrated mindlessly with a steady deadening of consciences and a flagrant abandoning of reason.

Accordingly, what perceived legitimate aims could drone warfare, for instance, help achieve? It is quite some time since sections of the world community came to realize the futility of violence and war. There is no choice but for humans to recognize and revere the principle of the sacredness of life. A return to fundamentals is imperative.

Continue Reading

Features

Unforgettable experience …

Published

on

The committee members of the Ananda Balika Vidyalaya OGA – UK, who made Funky ’70s Bash Dinner Dance a total success (Photographs by: Praneeth Hettiarachchi)

Singer Rajiv Sebastian has the unique ability to woo an audience and he did just that on his recent trip to London, performing at the Funky ’70s Bash Dinner Dance.

This particular event of music, nostalgia, and celebration, was organised by the Ananda Balika Vidyalaya Old Girls’ Association – UK, and held at the DoubleTree by Hilton London Elstree, in Borehamwood, on 28th February.

They say the success of the evening was made possible through the dedication and hard work of President Devika Arrawwalage and the committed committee members of the Ananda Balika Vidyalaya OGA – UK.

Rajiv Sebastian was in top form, delivering an engaging performance that took the audience on a nostalgic musical journey through the iconic sounds of the’70s.

Doing the first set in full suit, with a fan joining in the action

He did three sets, appearing in three different outfits – suit, the normal shirt and trouser, and the sarong – and the crowd loved it.

Adding to the energy of the event, I’m told, was the music provided by the band Hasthi, made up of Sri Lankan musicians based in the UK.

At the end of a truly enjoyable and memorable event, the organisers had this to say about Rajiv Sebastian’s performance:

“On behalf of the entire team, I want to extend our heartfelt thanks to you for travelling all the way from Sri Lanka to perform at our first ever ABV dinner dance in the UK.

“Your performance was truly the highlight of the night. You have a superb talent for captivating an audience; from the moment you took the stage, your vibrant energy and incredible vocal range completely transformed the atmosphere.

“It was wonderful to see how effortlessly you engaged the crowd, keeping the dance floor packed and everyone in high spirits throughout the evening. You have graced the stage as a guest artiste on three separate occasions, delivering exceptional performances that set you apart from your peers.

“We feel incredibly privileged to have had an artiste of your calibre and charisma join us. You didn’t just provide music; you created an unforgettable experience that people are still talking about.

Surprises for his fans in Sri Lanka, as well

“Thank you for sharing your immense gift with us. Hope to see you back on a UK stage very soon!”

Yes, and it’s happening soon; Rajiv says he is off to London again, in mid-April, and will be performing at four different venues.

He also mentioned that he has some surprises for his fans in Sri Lanka, when he and his band, The Clan, present their 35th Anniversary concert … in June, this year.

Continue Reading

Trending