Midweek Review

Dilith pins hopes on nationalistic vote in spite of Namal’s move

Published

2 years ago

2024/09/4

Dilith

Continuing political unrest and economic crisis will encourage foreign powers to seek to consolidate their position here. Instead of blaming external interventions, Sri Lanka should take meaningful measures to thwart such interferences. However, bankruptcy status has placed the country in an extremely vulnerable situation. Mawbima Janatha Pakshaya (MJP) leader and presidential contestant Dilith Jayaweera said so commenting on altogether seven US, Indian and Chinese warships, including five destroyers, visiting Colombo harbor since the closing of nominations on Aug. 15. The Indian destroyer was followed by their National Security Advisor Doval whose interventions during previous administrations are too well known. Many eyebrows were raised over his visit to Colombo last week where he met three contestants, presidential Wickremesinghe, Premadasa and Dissanayake, followed by denial of him attempting to make a last ditch effort to bring about a reconciliation between the above-mentioned first two.

By Shamindra Ferdinando

Having served President Ranil Wickremesinghe’s despicable political agenda since May 2022, till August this year, parliamentarian Namal Rajapaksa entered the fray in a last-ditch attempt to save the SLPP’s nationalistic vote, Mawbima Janatha Pakshaya (MJP) leader Dilith Jayaweera declared.

The highest taxpaying presidential contestant Jayaweera tore into SLPP candidate Namal Rajapaksa as he questioned the motives of the eldest son of former President Mahinda Rajapaksa to seek the Office of the President.

Business magnate and Attorney-at-Law Jayaweera said so in response to The Island query during an interview with him last week at Triad Advertising (Pvt.) Ltd., where he acknowledged that the SLPP candidate was eyeing the nationalistic block vote at the expense of his (Jayaweera’s) campaign.

In a no holds barred interview, we sought an explanation from Jayaweera who. in spite of being a close friend and associate of the then President Gotabaya Rajapaksa. accepted US Ambassador Julie Chung’s invitation for a lunch three weeks after the ‘Aragalaya’ movement launched a public protest campaign outside the then President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s private residence at Pangiriwatte, Mirihana, on March 31, 2022, the first definite inkling of Aragalaya materialized outside the private residence of the then popularly elected Head of State. Ambassador Chung, widely accused of playing a significant role in a high profile project that overthrew Gotabaya Rajapaksa, will remain in Colombo till early next year though we erroneously believed she would leave before the Sept. 21 Presidential Election. Even as widespread violence erupted across the country almost simultaneously against the elected representatives of the then government on May 09, 2022 Ambassador Julie Chung steadfastly maintained that it was a peaceful protest movement and urged the police and the armed forces not to take any action against them. How did an Ambassador get such sweeping powers to order about the armed forces of the country she was serving in?

Asked whether the entry of Namal Rajapaksa troubled his campaign, Jayaweera, without hesitation, acknowledged that he felt so. “Namal Rajapaksa entered the fray to cause a problem, to undermine my campaign. Obviously, the Rajapaksa camp believes Namal will be sort of isolated among the nationalistic electorate hence the bid to challenge our move. The electorate will not accept their strategy,” Jayaweera said.

Sipping a hot cup of coffee, at one of his spacious rooms at the Triad office, Jayaweera alleged that the SLPP founder Basil Rajapaksa and Namal Rajapaksa fully cooperated with President Wickremesinghe’s strategy to bring about the downfall of Gotabaya Rajapaksa, both in and outside Parliament. They pursued a common strategy at the expense of national interests, Jayaweera pointed out, adding that their original plan was to go along with UNP leader Wickremesinghe.

“The bottom line is that Namal Rajapaksa, in his capacity as an SLPP parliamentarian, threw his weight behind Wickremesinghe,” Jayaweera alleged, pointing out that the SLPPer, under any circumstances, couldn’t absolve himself of the responsibility for ensuring enactment of laws inimical to the country during the UNP leader’s presidency.

Jayaweera again held the Basil-Namal duo directly responsible for Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s predicament. Jayaweera alleged that they promoted businessman Dhammika Perera, MP, as an alternative presidential candidate as their original plan to reach consensus with Wickremesinghe went awry. Perera, who had been brought into Parliament in late June 2022, amidst a public protest campaign, wasn’t involved, at any level, with nationalistic politics. “Actually, Perera never understood the concept of nationalistic politics and was never interested in it at all,” Jayaweera alleged, asserting that the businessman lacked even the basic knowledge of politics.

Jayaweera questioned the rationale in even considering MP Perera as a tool to disrupt or undermine the nationalistic camp. The controversial, yet patriotic, businessman who played a significant role in the government efforts to attract fresh recruits to the armed forces as unlike previous presidents, the Mahinda Rajapaksa government embarked on a fight-to-a-finish with the LTTE terrorist, with Sarath Fonseka as the Army Commander, a type of General that a country gets maybe once in about a thousand years. He was backd by the then Defence Secretary, retired Lieutenant Colonel Gotabaya Rajapaksa, and a band of tested frontline commanders.

Jayaweera, who then wholeheartedly backed Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s successful presidential polls campaign, said that MP Perera’s sudden pullout and Namal Rajapaksa’s entry into the presidential race should be examined against the backdrop of post-‘Aragalaya’ politics.

Responding to the query whether Jayaweera felt that MP Perera quit the contest in line with the strategy pursued by the Basil-Namal duo, the MJP leader said that wasn’t the case. “I believe MP Perera realized that he is going to suffer a devastating defeat. His friends and relatives, too, appeared to have advised him against going ahead with risky political adventures. MP Perera got lost in politics and suffered the consequences.”

Jayaweera alleged that the Rajapaksas must have sought to use MP Perera’s wealth to achieve their own immediate agenda.

Over 17.1 mn people are eligible to vote at the Sept. 21 Presidential Election. Of them, over one million are voters who are qualified to exercise their franchise for the first time, in a national election called the after removal of a President through unconstitutional means.

Jayaweera said that Sarvajana Balaya he is contesting from would definitely contest the next parliamentary polls.

CP candidate

We sought an explanation as to why Jayaweera submitted his nominations through the Communist Party (CP) in spite of having his own registered party and a coalition called Sarvajana Balaya as some questioned the move that they felt confused the electorate, particularly the nationalistic vote base.

“There is absolutely no basis for that assertion. There cannot be any ambiguity over our selection of CP, one of the constituents of Sarvajana Balaya. We picked CP as its symbol ‘star’ to attract the electorate, regardless of political differences.”

Jayaweera dismissed the assertion that he contesting the election, under the CP symbol, somewhat undermined his campaign. Dr. Geeganage Weerasinghe, in his capacity as the General Secretary of CP, paid the deposit for Jayaweera on August 13, the day before the final day for the acceptance of nominations. The Mawbiba Janatha Pakshaya leader is one of the 38 candidates in the fray after ex-parliamentarian Sarath Kumara Gunaratna failed to submit nominations after paying the deposit and independent candidate Muhammad Ilyas, 78, (ex-parliamentarian) died of a heart attack.

Jayaweera said that they agreed on a common agenda and was pursuing it vigorously. As a constituent of Sarvajana Balaya, CP, played an important role in the coalition, Jayaweera said, adding as the leader of MJP he led the strategic planning.

Weerasumana Weerasinghe (Matara District) represents the CP in the current Parliament. The first time entrant and the only CP MP, Weerasinghe entered Parliament on the SLPP ticket. The SLPP won 145 seats, including 17 National List slots, at the last parliamentary election. However, of them, as many as 130 switched allegiance to major candidates – President Wickremesinghe, SJB leader Sajith Premadasa and MJP leader Jayaweera with the UNP leader being the main beneficiary. As many as about 100 elected on the SLPP ticket and appointed on its National List back Wickremesinghe, whereas Premadasa received the support of about a dozen and several pledged their allegiance to Jayaweera.

Jayaweera said that those parliamentarians, who had been closely identified with the nationalistic camp, joined Sarvajana Balaya. The group included parliamentarians Wimal Weerawansa (National Freedom Front/NFF), Udaya Gammanpila (Pivithuru Hela Urumaya), Gevindu Cumaratunga (Yuthukama civil society group), Weerasumana Weerasinghe (CP), Gamini Waleboda (NFF) and Jayantha Samaraweera (NFF).

However, Mohammed Muzammil (National List), Jagath Priyankara (Puttalam district) and Nimal Piyatissa switched their allegiance to President Wickremesinghe at the expense of the NFF. Weerawansa’s party, that had seven MPs in Parliament at one time, lost another when their actor-turned-politician Uddhika Premaratne resigned his seat a few months ago. The SLPP filled Premaratne’s vacancy as the next highest preference vote taker happened to be S.C. Muthumumarana who contested the Anuradhapura district at the last election.

A meet during Aragalaya

Asked whether him meeting US Ambassador Chung, three weeks after violent demonstration at Pangiriwatte where ‘Aragalaya’ tested President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s defences, in some way suggested that he, too, cooperated with the conspirators, Jayaweera emphasized that it was a totally wrong interpretation of what he was trying to do.

Jayaweera explained how he sought to set the record straight as various interested parties quite comfortably, at the expense of the war-winning country, pursued an anti-national line in their conversations with foreign envoys and other senior representatives of international organizations. Alleging that Colombo-based coffee drinking, wine sipping cocktail going groups with NGO mentality propagated a false narrative with the international community, Jayaweera stressed that he honestly tried to clarify what was happening.

Some Western envoys, too, for obvious reasons, found the company of their local ardent admirers trying to curry favour with them quite endearing, Jayaweera declared, asserting that such conversations never helped them to understand the ground situation and the genuine grievances of the people, regardless of their ethnicity.

Referring to several cases of high profile external interventions over the past several years, both before and after the 2022 Aragalaya, Jayaweera said Western powers adopted a hostile strategy here as advised by those who immensely benefited from foreign funded projects.

In the absence of a cohesive State policy to counter false narratives propagated by various interested parties hell-bent on doing away with our unitary status, especially in the wake of the eradication of separatist terrorist power in May 2009, external powers could advance their strategy without hindrance. Jayaweera cited the ongoing Geneva project as a glaring example of Sri Lanka’s failure to address false accountability charges that led to the co-sponsorship of 30/1 resolution in October 2015, with Wickremesinghe as the Prime Minister.

Jayaweera emphasized the responsibility on the part of the powers that be whoever was in power to counter false narratives at different levels.

Key challenges

Commenting on challenges faced by the post-Aragalaya situation against the backdrop of the government accepting bankruptcy status, the country couldn’t progress as the vast majority of people live without hope. The economic-political-social crisis perpetrated by those who wielded power over a period of time not only the two years under President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, the country was in a bind. “That is the ugly truth those exercising political power do not want to admit for obvious reasons.”

The hapless people have to be inspired, Jayaweera said, adding that restoration of public confidence would be the key to overcoming economic ruin, political uncertainty and social issues.

Jayaweera declared that Sarvajana Balaya manifesto addressed the daunting challenges experienced by the country with specific recommendations/proposals to gradually overcome the issues. “Different segments of the populations, ranging from the student community to professions ,should be ready to bear difficulties for a year, perhaps a little more than a year until Sarvajana Balaya proposals can be implemented.”

The outspoken political party leader said that political and economic objectives have to be achieved in an environment where all communities could live together and not in any way divide them on ethnic lines and be forced to take up extremist stands. “In such an atmosphere, regardless of diverse political opinions, people will invest, gradually as they face the challenges with confidence,” Jayaweera said, adding that he proposed UNIQUE identity numbers at birth to improve social security. That would deliver a knockout blow to corruption, Jayaweera said, adding that the banking system would be part of the whole operation to monitor transactions at all levels.

During a recent interview with the writer, active citizen L. J. Udukumburage discussed how the existing banking system could be utilized to curb corruption through an effective control on cash transfers (Prez polls 2024: Passage of Economic Transformation Bill strengthens Ranil strategy (The Island, July 31, 2024).

Responding to another query, Jayaweera pointed out that the much publicized agreement with the IMF that had been repeated like a mantra should be examined taking into consideration the failure on the part of the government to take remedial measures over two years after Wickremesinghe received premiership and the finance portfolio in May 2022.

Those who talk proudly of moratorium on the payment of foreign debt till 2028 should explain why at least revenue collection hadn’t been streamlined yet, over two years after ‘Aragalaya’ and the same corrupt lot allowed to continue gleefully as repeatedly revealed by revelations made in Parliament.

Sri Lanka announced suspension of debt payment in April 2022, a few weeks after the Pangiriwatte protest.

Jayaweera alleged that in spite of the economy still being in intensive care, the executive and legislature continued on the same path. Recent disclosure regarding the failure on the part of a key revenue collector to fulfil his obligation underscored the requirement for total overhauling of the revenue collection system. The present day leaders would happily continue with this corrupt system as they were only interested in spending the rest of their lives in luxury, at the expense of the public.

A proper investigation would reveal that many political party leaders, ministers and ordinary MPs are living way beyond their means, Jayaweera alleged. He named two political party leaders as utterly corrupt though they pretend to be paragons of virtue.

Too many candidates

Jayaweera expressed the urgent need to amend existing laws to prevent major political parties fielding proxy candidates. According to him, of the 39 candidates in the fray, there were at least 20 proxies fielded by independent candidate Wickremesinghe and SJB leader Premadasa. Referring to the last Presidential Election conducted in November 2029, Jayaweera said that the situation was equally bad that time, too, with so many proxies.

Six contested the 1982 presidential poll followed by three in 1988, six in 1994, 13 in 1999, 13 in 2005, 22 in 2010, 19 in 2015, 35 in 2019 and 39 in 2024.

Jayaweera said that having special provision to grant special status to ex-MPs and serving MPs couldn’t be justified under any circumstances. In terms of the Presidential Election Act, any elector and even unregistered political parties could nominate only ex or serving MPs. “This ridiculous law should be done away with. In fact, the government should have addressed this issue in 1999 after 13 contested the presidential election won by PA leader Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga in that year.”

Jayaweera said that as far as he knew JJB hadn’t fielded at least one proxy candidate. Wickremesinghe and Premadasa should be held accountable for criminal waste of public funds caused by proxy candidates. The Election Department has said that election expenditure could have been drastically reduced if only ‘serious’ candidates contested.

A smiling Jayaweera said that they clearly identified whom the proxies served but couldn’t still correctly get at the allegiance of two independents, both former parliamentarians. Declaring the JJB, too, followed the policies of the Wickremesinghes and Premadasas, Jayaweera alleged that Rathusahodarayas, too, benefited from the black economy and the conduct of that party over the past couple of years proved that essentially all three operated on the same lines.

Warning over post-poll violence

Commenting on MP Weerawansa’s recent high profile accusation that the JJB would resort to violence to disrupt counting of votes on Sept. 21, thereby create a situation that may allow Wickremesinghe to continue, pending a decision on the election, Jayaweera said that particular allegation echoed Sarvajana Balaya thinking, as well as the former Minister’s personal opinion.

Pointing out that the JVP polled 273,428 votes (4.19%) at the 1982 presidential poll and 418,553 votes (3.16%) at the 2019 poll, Jayaweera said that over the past several years the JVP has expanded and it was now a far bigger setup. The JVP leadership could find it difficult to keep those ‘newcomers’ under control. Therefore, the JVP/JJB was in flux. There could be trouble, serious trouble at short notice unless the powers that be maintain a close watch on the situation.

Declaring that unprecedented divisions in Parliament didn’t really reflect the mood of the electorate on the eve of the Presidential Poll, Jayaweera said that approximately 40% of the votes of those who exercised their franchise in support of Gotabaya Rajapaksa at the 2019 Presidential election remained undecided yet. Jayaweera is convinced that block vote, regardless of Namal Rajapaksa’s intervention, would stand by the nationalistic camp, hence he could be the beneficiary.

Jayaweera is of the opinion that the contest is so fierce no candidate could secure 30% of the vote. Jayaweera also discussed the transformation of the Marxist JVP leadership to a rightwing political force serving the interests of the West.

He dismissed assertions that those who lacked political experience at lower level (Local Government, Provincial Councils and Parliament) shouldn’t aspire for the President’s Office. Those with administrative experience should receive the preference over politicians who ruined the country, the leading businessman with a definite patriotic background asserted.

Jayaweera accused President Wickremesinghe of causing further destabilization by refusing to adhere to Supreme Court directives or trying to circumvent SC orders. A continuing dispute between the President and the judiciary could cause quite an explosive situation, Jayaweera alleged, asserting that the President’s response to recent SC directives and rulings that he may have considered disadvantageous to him didn’t do him any good.

All News Advertisement

Midweek Review

Dr. Jaishankar drags H’tota port to reverberating IRIS Dena affair

Published

5 days ago

2026/03/11

Sahan Weerasooriya

Sri Lanka reached an agreement with China to build the Hambantota port after India declined the then President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s request to take charge of the high profile project. The Indian decision may have been influenced by the war raging in the northern region at that time.

Indian Foreign Minister Dr. S. Jaishankar recognised Hambantota harbour as a Chinese military facility that underlined intimidating foreign military presence in the Indian Ocean. Jaishankar was responding to queries regarding India’s widely mentioned status as the region’s net security provider against the backdrop of a US submarine blowing up an Iranian frigate IRIS Dena, off Galle, within Sri Lanka’s Exclusive Economic Zone.

This happened at the Raisina Dialogue 2026 (March 5 to 7) in New Delhi. Raisina Dialogue was launched in 2016, three years after Narendra Modi became the Prime Minister.

The query obviously rattled the Indian Foreign Minister. Urging the moderator, Ms. Pakli Sharma Ipadhyay, to understand, what he called, the reality of the Indian Ocean, Dr. Jaishankar pointed out the joint US-British presence at Diego Garcia over the past five decades. Then he referred to the Chinese presence at Djibouti in East Africa, the first overseas Chinese military base, established in 2017, and Chinese takeover of Hambantota port, also during the same time. China secured the strategically located port on a 99-year lease for USD 1.2 bn, under controversial circumstances. China succeeded in spite of Indian efforts to halt Chinese projects here, including Colombo port city.

The submarine involved is widely believed to be Virginia-class USS Minnesota. The crew, included three Australian Navy personnel, according to international news agencies. However, others named the US Navy fast-attack submarine, involved in the incident, as USS Charlotte.

Diego Garcia is responsible for military operations in the Middle East, Africa and the Indo-Pacific. Dr. Jaishankar didn’t acknowledge that India, a key US ally and member of the Quad alliance, operated P8A maritime patrol and reconnaissance flights out of Diego Garcia last October. The US-India-Israel relationship is growing along with the US-Sri Lanka partnership.

The Indian Foreign Minister emphasised the deployment of the US Fifth Fleet in Bahrain, one of the countries that had been attacked by Iran, following the US-Israeli assassination of Iranian Supreme Leader, and key government functionaries, in a massive surprise attack, aiming at a regime change there. The Indian Minister briefly explained how they and Sri Lanka addressed the threat on three Indian navy vessels following the unprovoked US-Israeli attacks on Iran. Whatever the excuses, the undeniable truth is, as Sharma pointed out, that the US attack on the Iranian frigate took place in India’s backyard.

Sri Lankan Foreign Minister Vijitha Herath who faced Sharma before Dr. Jaishankar, struggled to explain the country’s position. Dr. Jaishankar made the audience laugh at Minister Herath’s expense who repeatedly said that Sri Lanka would deal with the situation in terms of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and international laws. Herath should have pointed out that Hambantota was not a military base and couldn’t be compared, under any circumstances, with the Chinese base in Djibouti.

Typical of the arrogant Western power dynamics, the US never cared for international laws and President Donald Trump quite clearly stated their position.

Israel is on record as having declared that the decision to launch attacks on Iran had been made months ago. Therefore, the sinking of the fully domestically built vessel that was launched in 2021 should be examined in the context of overall US-Israeli strategy meant to break the back of the incumbent Islamic revolutionary government and replace it with a pro-Western regime there as had been the case after the toppling of the democratically elected government there, led by Prime Minister Mossadegh, in August, 1953.

US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth declared that IRIS Dena “thought it was safe in international waters’ but died a quiet death.” A US submarine torpedoed the vessel on the morning of March 4, off Galle, within Sri Lanka’s exclusive economic zone and that decision must have been made before the IRIS Dena joined International Fleet Review (IFR) and Exercise Milan 2026, at Visakhapatnam, from February 15 to 25.

The sinking of the Iranian vessel, a Moudge –class frigate attached to Iran’s southern fleet deployed in the Gulf of Oman and Strait of Hormuz, had been calculated to cause mayhem in the Indian Ocean. Obviously, and pathetically, Iran failed to comprehend the US-Israeli mindset after having already been fooled with devastating attacks, jointly launched by Washington and Tel Aviv against the country’s nuclear research facilities, while holding talks with it on the issue last June. Had they comprehended the situation they probably would have pulled out of the IFR and Milan 2026. Perhaps, Iran was lulled into a false sense of security because they felt the US wouldn’t hit ships invited by India. The US Navy did not participate though the US Air Force did.

The US action dramatically boosted Raisina Dialogue 2026, but at India’s expense. Prime Minister Modi’s two-day visit to Tel Aviv, just before the US-Israel launched the war to effect a regime change in Teheran, made the situation far worse. BJP seems to have decided on whose side India is on. But, the US action has, invariably, humiliated India. That cannot be denied. The Indian Navy posted a cheery message on X on February 17, the day before President Droupadi Murmu presided over IFR off the Visakhapatnam coast. “Welcome!” the Indian Navy wrote, greeting the Iranian warship IRIS Dena as it steamed into the port of Visakhapatnam to join an international naval gathering. Photographs showed Iranian sailors and a grey frigate gliding into the Indian harbour on a clear day. The hashtags spoke of “Bridges of Friendship” and “United Through Oceans.”

US alert

Dr. Jaishankar

Altogether, three Iranian vessels participated in IFR. In addition to the ill-fated IRIS Dena, the second frigate IRIS Lavan and auxiliary ships IRIS Bushehr comprised the group. Dr. Jaishankar disclosed at the Raisina Dialogue 2026 that Iran requested India to allow IRIS Lavan to enter Indian waters. India accommodated the vessel at Cochin Port (Kochi Port) on the Arabian Sea in Kerala.

At the time US torpedoed IRIS Dena, within Sri Lanka’s EEZ, IRIS Lavan was at Cochin port. Sri Lanka’s territorial waters extend 12 nautical miles (approximately 22 km) from the country’s coastline. The US hit the vessel 19 nautical miles off southern coastline.

Sri Lanka, too, participated in IFR and Milan 2026. SLN Sagara (formerly Varaha), a Vikram-class offshore patrol vessel of the Indian Coast Guard and SLN Nandimithra, A Fast Missile Vessel, acquired from Israel, participated and returned to Colombo on February 27, the day before IRIS Lavan sought protection in Indian waters.

Although many believed that Sri Lanka responded to the attack on IRIS Dena, following a distressed call from that ship, the truth is it was the Indo-Pacific Command (INDOPACOM) that alerted the Maritime Rescue Coordination centre (MRCC) after blowing it up with a single torpedo. The SLN’s Southern Command dispatched three Fast Attack Craft (FACs) while a tug from Sri Lanka Ports Authority (SLPA) joined later.

The INDOPACOM, while denying the Iranian claim that IRIS Dena had been unarmed at the time of the attack, emphasised: “US forces planned for and Sri Lanka provided life-saving support to survivors in accordance with the Law of Armed Conflict.” In the post shared on X (formerly Twitter) the US has, in no uncertain terms, said that they planned for the rescuing of survivors and the action was carried out by the Sri Lanka Navy.

IRIS Lavan and IRIS Bushehr are most likely to be held in Cochin and in Trincomalee ports, respectively, for some time with the crews accommodated on land. With the US-Israel combine vowing to go the whole hog there is no likelihood of either India or Sri Lanka allowing the ships to leave.

Much to the embarrassment of the Modi administration, former Indian Foreign Secretary Kanwal Sibal has said that IRIS Dena would not have been targeted if Iran was not invited to take part in IFR and Milan naval exercise.

“We were the hosts. As per protocol for this exercise, ships cannot carry any ammunition. It was defenseless. The Iranian naval personnel had paraded before our president,” he said in a post on X.

Sibal argued that the attack was premeditated, pointing out that the US Navy had been invited to the exercise but withdrew at the last minute, “presumably with this operation in mind.”

Sibal added that the US ignored India’s sensitivities, as the Iranian ship was present in the waters due to India’s invitation.

He stressed that India was neither politically nor militarily responsible for the US attack, but carried a moral and humanitarian responsibility.

“A word of condolence by the Indian Navy (after political clearance) at the loss of lives of those who were our invitees and saluted our president would be in order,” Sibal said.

Iran and even India appeared to have ignored the significance of USN pullout from IFR and Milan exercise at the eleventh hour. India and Sri Lanka caught up in US-Israeli strategy are facing embarrassing questions from the political opposition. Both Congress and Samagi Jana Balwegaya (SJB), as well as Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP), exploited the situation to undermine respective governments over an unexpected situation created by the US. Both India and Sri Lanka ended up playing an unprecedented role in the post-Milan 2026 developments that may have a lasting impact on their relations with Iran.

The regional power India and Sri Lanka also conveniently failed to condemn the February 28 assassination of Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, while that country was holding talks with the US, with Oman serving as the mediator.

Condemning the unilateral attack on Iran, as well as the retaliatory strikes by Iran, Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha and Congress leader Rahul Gandhi on Tuesday (March 3, 2026) questioned India’s silence on the Middle East developments.

In a post on social media platform X, Gandhi said Prime Minister Narendra Modi must speak up. “Does he support the assassination of a Head of State as a way to define the world order? Silence now diminishes India’s standing in the world,” he said.

Under heavy Opposition fire, India condoled the Iranian leader’s assassination on March 5, almost a week after the killing. Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri met the Iran Ambassador in Delhi and signed the condolence book, though much belatedly.

SL-US relations

The Opposition questioned the NPP government’s handling of the IRIS Dena affair. They quite conveniently forgot that any other government wouldn’t have been able to do anything differently than bow to the will of the US. Under President Trump, Washington has been behaving recklessly, even towards its longtime friends, demanding that Canada become its 51st state and that Denmark handover Greenland pronto.

SJB and Opposition leader Sajith Premadasa cut a sorry figure demanding in Parliament whether Sri Lanka had the capacity to detect submarines or other underwater systems. Sri Lanka should be happy that the Southern Command could swiftly deploy three FACs and call in SLPA tug, thereby saving the lives of 32 Iranians and recovering 84 bodies of their unfortunate colleagues. Therefore, of the 180-member crew of IRIS Dena, 116 had been accounted for. The number of personnel categorised as missing but presumably dead is 64.

There is no doubt that Sri Lanka couldn’t have intervened if not for the US signal to go ahead with the humanitarian operation to pick up survivors. India, too, must have informed the US about the Iranian request for IRIS Lavan to re-enter Indian waters. Sri Lanka, too, couldn’t have brought the Iranian auxiliary vessel without US consent. President Trump is not interested in diplomatic niceties and the way he had dealt with European countries repeatedly proved his reckless approach. The irrefutable truth is that the US could have torpedoed the entire Iranian group even if they were in Sri Lankan or Indian Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) that extends to 200 nautical miles from its coastline.

In spite of constantly repeating Sri Lanka’s neutrality, successive governments succumbed to US pressure. In March 2007, Mahinda Rajapaksa’s government entered into Acquisition and Cross- Servicing Agreement (ACSA) with the US, a high profile bilateral legal mechanism to ensure uninterrupted support/supplies. The Rajapaksas went ahead with ACSA, in spite of strong opposition from some of its partners. In fact, they did not even bother to ask or take up the issue at Cabinet level before the then Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa, a US citizen at the time, and US Ambassador here Robert O. Blake signed it. Close on the heels of the ACSA signing, the US provided specific intelligence that allowed the Sri Lanka Navy to hunt down four floating LTTE arsenals. Whatever critics say, that US intervention ensured the total disruption of the LTTE supply line and the collapse of their conventional fighting capacity by March 2009. The US favourably responded to the then Vice Admiral Wasantha Karannagoda’s request for help and the passing of intelligence was not in any way in line with ACSA.

That agreement covered the 2007 to 2017 period. The Yahapalana government extended it. Yahapalana partners, the SLFP and UNP, never formally discussed the decision to extend the agreement though President Maithripala Sirisena made a desperate attempt to distance himself from ACSA.

It would be pertinent to mention that the US had been pushing for ACSA during Rail Wickremesinghe’s tenure as the Premier, in the 2001-2003 period. But, he lacked the strength to finalise that agreement due to strong opposition from the then Opposition. During the time the Yahapalana government extended ACSA, the US also wanted the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) signed. SOFA, unlike ACSA, is a legally binding agreement that dealt with the deployment of US forces here. However, SOFA did not materialise but the possibility of the superpower taking it up cannot be ruled out.

Gotabaya Rajapaksa, who won the 2019 presidential election, earned the wrath of the US for declining to finalise MCC (Millennium Challenge Corporation) Compact on the basis of Prof. Gunaruwan Committee report that warned that the agreement contained provisions detrimental to national security, sovereignty, and the legal system. In the run up to the presidential election, UNP leader Ranil Wickremesinghe declared that he would enter into the agreement in case Sajith Premadasa won the contest.

Post-Aragalaya setup

Since the last presidential election held in September 2024, Admiral Steve Koehler, a four-star US Navy Admiral and Commander of the US Pacific Fleet visited Colombo twice in early October 2024 and February this year. Koehler’s visits marked the highest-level U.S. military engagement with Sri Lanka since 2021.

Between Koehler’s visits, the United States and Sri Lanka signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) formalising the defence partnership between the Montana National Guard, the US Coast Guard District 13, and the Sri Lanka Armed Forces under the Department of War’s State Partnership Programme (SPP). The JVP-led NPP government seems sure of its policy as it delayed taking a decision on one-year moratorium on all foreign research vessels entering Sri Lankan waters though it was designed to block Chinese vessels. The government is yet to announce its decision though the ban lapsed on December 31, 2024.

The then President Ranil Wickremesinghe was compelled to announce the ban due to intense US-Indian pressure.

The incumbent dispensation’s relationship with US and India should be examined against allegations that they facilitated ‘Aragalaya’ that forced President Gotabaya Rajapaksa out of office. The Trump administration underscored the importance of its relationship with Sri Lanka by handing over ex-US Coast Guard Cutter ‘Decisive ‘to the Sri Lanka Navy. The vessel, commanded by Captain Gayan Wickramasooriya, left Baltimore US Coast Guard Yard East Wall Jetty on February 23 and is expected to reach Trincomalee in the second week of May.

Last year Sri Lanka signed seven MoUs, including one on defence and then sold controlling shares of the Colombo Dockyard Limited (CDL) to a company affiliated to the Defence Ministry as New Delhi tightened its grip.

Sri Lanka-US relations seemed on track and the IRIS Dena incident is unlikely to distract the two countries. The US continues to take extraordinary measures to facilitate war on Iran. In a bid to overcome the Iranian blockade on crude carriers the US temporarily eased sanctions to allow India to buy Russian oil.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent declared a 30-day waiver was a “deliberate short-term measure” to allow oil to keep flowing in the global market. The US sanctioned Russian oil following Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine, forcing buyers to seek alternatives.

The US doesn’t care about the Ukraine government that must be really upset about the unexpected development. India was forced to halt buying Russian oil and now finds itself in a position to turn towards Russia again. But that would be definitely at the expense of Iran facing unprecedented military onslaught.

By Shamindra Ferdinando

Midweek Review

A Living Legend of the Peradeniya Tradition:

Published

5 days ago

2026/03/11

Sahan Weerasooriya

Prof. H. L. Seneviratne

A Tribute to Professor H. L. Seneviratne – Part I

My earliest memories of the eminent anthropologist, Professor H. L. Seneviratne date back to my childhood, when I first encountered his name through the vivid accounts of campus life shared by my late brother, Sugathapala de Silva, then a lecturer in the Department of Sinhala at the University of Peradeniya. By the time I became a first-year sociology student in 1968/69, I had the privilege of being taught by the Professor, whose guidance truly paved the way for my own progression in sociology and anthropology. Even then, it was clear that he was a towering presence—not just as an academician, but as a central figure in the lively cultural and literary renaissance that defined that era of the university’s intellectual history.

H.L. Seneviratne stood alongside a galaxy of intellectuals who shaped and developed the literary consciousness of the Peradeniya University. His professorial research made regular appearances in journals such as Sanskriti and Mimamsa, published Sinhala and English articles, and served as channels for the dissemination of the literary consciousness of Peradeniya to the population at large. These texts were living texts of a dynamic intellectual ferment where the synthesis of classical aesthetic sensibilities with current critical intellectual thought in contemporary Sri Lanka was under way.

The concept of a ‘Peradeniya tradition or culture’, a term which would later become legendary in Sri Lankan literary and intellectual circles, was already being formed at this time. Peradeniya culture came to represent a distinctive synthesis: cosmopolitanism entwined with well-rooted local customs, aesthetic innovation based on classical Sinhala styles, and critical interaction with modernity. Among its pre-eminent practitioners were intellectual giants such as Ediriweera Sarachchandra, Gunadasa Amarasekara, and Siri Gunasinghe. These figures and H.L. Seneviratne himself, were central to the shaping of a space of cultural and literary critique that ranged from newspapers to book-length works, public speeches to theatrical performance.

Unlimited influence

H.L. Seneviratne’s influence was not limited to the printed page, which I discuss in this article. He operated in and responded to the performative, interactive space of drama and music, situating lived artistic practice in his cultural thought. I recall with vividness the late 1950s, a period seared into my memory as one of revelation, when I as a child was fortunate enough to witness one of the first performances of Maname, the trailblazing Sinhala drama that revolutionised Sri Lankan theatre. Drawn from the Nadagam tradition and staged in the open-air theatre in Peradeniya—now known as Sarachchandra Elimahan Ranga Pitaya—or Wala as used by the campus students. Maname was not so much a play as a culturally transformative experience.

H.L. Seneviratne was not just an observer of this change. He joined the orchestra of Maname staged on November 3, 1956, lending his voice and presence to the collective heartbeat of the performance. He even contributed to the musical group by playing the esraj, a quiet but vital addition to the performance’s beauty and richness. Apart from these roles, he played an important part in the activities of Professor Sarathchandra’s Sinhala Drama Society, a talent nursery and centre for collaboration between artists and intellectuals. H.L. Seneviratne was a friend of Arthur Silva, a fellow resident of Arunachalam Hall then, and the President of the Drama Circle. H.L. Seneviratne had the good fortune to play a role, both as a member of the original cast, and an active member of the Drama Circle that prevailed on lecturer E.R. Sarathchandra to produce a play and gave him indispensable organizational support. It was through this society that Sarachchandra attracted some of the actors who brought into being Maname and later Sinhabhahu, plays which have become the cornerstone of Sri Lanka’s theatrical heritage.

The best chronicler of Maname

H.L. Seneviratne is the best chronicler of Maname. (Towards a National Art, From Home and the World, Essays in honour of Sarath Amunugama. Ramanika Unamboowe and Varuni Fernando (eds)). He chronicles the genesis of Ediriweera Sarachchandra’s seminal play Maname, framing it as a pivotal attempt to forge a sophisticated national identity by synthesizing indigenous folk traditions with Eastern theatrical aesthetics. Seneviratne details how Sarachchandra, disillusioned with the ‘artificiality’ of Western-influenced urban theatre and the limitations of both elite satires and rural folk plays, looked toward the Japanese Noh and Kabuki traditions to find a model for a ‘national’ art that could appeal across class divides. The author emphasises that the success of Maname was not merely a solo intellectual feat but a gruelling, collective effort involving a ‘gang of five’ academics and a dedicated cohort of rural, bilingual students from the University of Ceylon at Peradeniya. Through anecdotes regarding the discovery of lead actors like Edmund Wijesinghe and the assembly of a unique orchestra, Seneviratne highlights the logistical struggles—from finding authentic instruments to managing cumbersome stage sets—that ultimately birthed a transformative ‘oriental’ theatre rooted in the nadagama style yet refined for a modern, sophisticated audience.

Born in Sri Lanka in 1934, in a village in Horana, he was educated at the Horana Taxila College following which he was admitted to the Department of Sociology at the University of Peradeniya. H.L. Seneviratne’s academic journey subsequently led him to the University of Rochester for his doctoral studies. But, despite his long tenure in the United States, his research has remained firmly rooted in the soil of his homeland.

His early seminal work, Rituals of the Kandyan State, his PhD thesis turned into a book, offered a groundbreaking analysis of the Temple of the Tooth (Dalada Maligawa). By examining the ceremonies surrounding the sacred relic, H.L. Seneviratne demonstrated how religious performance served as the bedrock of political legitimacy in the Kandyan Kingdom. He argued that these rituals at the time of his fieldwork in the early 1970s were not static relics of the past, but active tools used to construct and maintain the authority of the state, the ideas that would resonate throughout his later career.

The Work of Kings

Perhaps, his most provocative contribution arrived with the publication of The Work of Kings published in 1999. In this sweeping study, H.L. Seneviratne traced the transformation of the Buddhist clergy, or Sangha, from the early 20th-century ‘social service’ monks, who focused on education and community upliftment, to the more politically charged nationalist figures of the modern era. He analysed the shift away from a universalist, humanistic Buddhism toward a more exclusionary identity, sparking intense debate within both academic and religious circles in Sri Lanka.

In The Work of Kings, H.L. Seneviratne has presented a sophisticated critique and argued that in the early 20th century, influenced by figures like Anagarika Dharmapala, there was a brief ‘monastic ideal’ centred on social service and education. This period saw monks acting as catalysts for community development and moral reform embodying a humanistic version of Buddhism that sought to modernize the country while maintaining its spiritual integrity.

However, H.L. Seneviratne contends that this situation was eventually derailed by the rise of post-independence nationalism. He describes a process where the clergy moved away from universalist goals to become the vanguard of a narrow ethno-religious identity. By aligning themselves so closely with the state and partisan politics, H.L. Seneviratne suggests that the Sangha inadvertently traded their moral authority for political influence. This shift, in his view, led to the ‘betrayal’ of the original social service movement, replacing a vision of broad social progress with one centred on political dominance.

The core of his critique lies in the disappearance of what he calls the ‘intellectual monk.’ He laments the decline of the scholarly, reflective tradition in favour of a more populist and often inflammatory rhetoric. By analysing the rhetoric of key monastic figures, H.L. Senevirathne illustrates how the language of Buddhism was repurposed to justify political ends, often at the expense of the pluralistic values that he believes are inherent to the faith’s core teachings.

H.L. Seneviratne’s work remains highly relevant today as it provides a framework for understanding contemporary religious tensions. His analysis serves as a warning about the consequences of merging religious institutional power with state politics. By documenting this historical shift, he challenges modern Sri Lankans—and global observers—to reconsider the role of religious institutions in a secular, democratic state, urging a return to the compassionate and socially inclusive roots of the Buddhist tradition.

Within the broader context of Sri Lankan anthropology, H.L. Seneviratne is frequently grouped with other towering figures of his generation, most notably Stanley Jeyaraja Tambiah and Gananath Obeyesekere. Together, this remarkable cohort revolutionized the study of Sri Lanka by applying structural and psychological analyses to religious and ethnic identity. While Tambiah famously interrogated the betrayal of non-violent Buddhist principles in the face of political violence, H.L. Seneviratne’s work is often seen as the essential sociological counterpart, providing the detailed historical and institutional narrative of how the monastic order itself was reshaped by these very forces.

Reation to Seneviratne’s critque

The reaction to H.L. Seneviratne’s critique has been as multifaceted as the work itself. In academic circles, particularly those influenced by post-colonial theory, he is celebrated for speaking truth in a public place. Scholars have noted that because he writes as an insider—both a Sinhalese and a Buddhist, that makes them both credible and, to some, highly objectionable. His work has paved the way for a younger generation of Sri Lankan sociologists and anthropologists to move beyond traditional functionalism towards more radical articulations of competing interests and political power.

However, his analysis has also made him a target for nationalist critics. Those aligned with ethno-religious movements often view his deconstruction of the Sangha’s political role as an attack on Sinhalese-Buddhist identity itself. These detractors argue that H.L. Seneviratne’s intellectualist or universalist view of Buddhism fails to account for the necessity of the clergy’s role in protecting the nation against neo colonial and modern pressures. This tension highlights the very descent into ideology that H.L. Seneviratne has spent his career documenting.

H.L. Seneviratne’s legacy is defined by this ongoing dialogue between scholarship and social reality. His transition from the detached scholar seen in his early work on Kandyan rituals to the socially concerned intellectual of The Work of Kings mirrors the very transformation of the Sangha and Buddha Sasana he studied. By refusing to look away from the complexities of the present, he has ensured that his work remains a cornerstone for any serious discussion on the future of religion and governance in Sri Lanka.

Focus on good governance

In his later years, H.L. Seneviratne has pivoted his focus toward the practical application of his theories, specifically examining how the concept of ‘Good Governance’ interacts with traditional religious structures. He argues that for Sri Lanka to achieve true stability, there must be a fundamental reimagining of the Sangha’s role in the public sphere—one that moves away from the ‘work of Kings’ and returns to a more ethical, advisory capacity. This shift in his recent lectures reflects a deep concern about the erosion of democratic institutions and the way religious sentiment can be harnessed to bypass the rule of law.

Building on this, contemporary scholars like Benjamin Schonthal have expanded H.L. Seneviratne’s inquiry into the legal and constitutional dimensions of Buddhism in Sri Lanka. While H.L. Seneviratne provided the anthropological groundwork for how monks gained political power, this newer generation of academics examines how that power has been codified into the very laws of the state. They explore the ‘path dependency’ created by the historical shifts H.L. Seneviratne documented, looking at how the legal privileging of Buddhism creates unique challenges for a pluralistic society.

New Sangha

Furthermore, his influence is visible in the work of local scholars who focus on ‘engaged Buddhism.’ These researchers look back at H.L. Seneviratne’s description of the early 20th-century social service monks as a blueprint for modern reform. By identifying the moment where the clergy’s mission shifted from social welfare to political nationalism, these scholars use H.L. Seneviratne’s historical milestones to advocate a ‘New Sangha’ that prioritizes reconciliation and inter-ethnic harmony over state-aligned power.

The enduring power of H.L. Seneviratne’s work lies in its refusal to offer easy answers. By mapping the transition within Buddhist practice from ritual to politics, and from social service to nationalism, he has provided an analytical framework in which the nation can see its own transformation. His legacy is not just a collection of books, but a persistent, rigorous habit of questioning that continues to inspire those who seek to understand the delicate balance between faith and the modern state.

H.L. Seneviratne continues to challenge his audience to think beyond the immediate political moment. By documenting the arc of Sri Lankan history from the sacred rituals of the Kandyan kings to the modern halls of parliament, he provides a vital sense of perspective. Whether he is being celebrated by the academic community or critiqued by nationalist voices, his work ensures that the conversation regarding the soul of the nation remains rigorous, historically grounded, and unafraid of its own complexities.

Anthropology and cinema

H.L. Seneviratne identifies the mid-1950s as the critical turning point for this cinematic shift, specifically anchoring the move to 1956 with the release of Lester James Peries’s “Rekava.” This period was a watershed moment in Sri Lankan history, coinciding with a broader nationalist resurgence that sought to reclaim a localized identity from the influence of colonial and foreign powers. H.L. Seneviratne suggests that before this era, the ‘South Indian formula’ dominated the screen, characterized by studio-bound sets, theatrical acting, and musical interludes that felt alien to the island’s actual social fabric. The pioneers of this movement, led by Lester James Peries and later followed by figures like Siri Gunasinghe in the early 1960s, deliberately moved the camera into the open air of the rural village to capture what H.L. Seneviratne describes as the ‘authentic rhythms’ of life. This transition was not merely aesthetic but deeply ideological; it replaced the mythical, exaggerated heroism of commercial cinema with a nuanced exploration of the post-colonial middle class and the crumbling feudal hierarchies. By the 1960s, through landmark works like ‘Gamperaliya,’ these filmmakers were successfully crafting a modern mythology that reflected the internal psychological tensions and the social evolution of a nation navigating its way between traditional Buddhist values and a rapidly modernizing world.

His critique of the relationship between art and the state is particularly evident in his analysis of historical epics, where he has argued that certain cinematic portrayals of ancient kings and battles serve as a form of ‘visual nationalism,’ translating the ideological shifts he documented in The Work of Kings onto the silver screen. By analysing these films, he shows how popular culture can become a powerful tool for constructing a simplified, heroic past that often ignores the multi-ethnic and pluralistic realities of the island’s history.

(To be concluded)

by Professor M. W. Amarasiri de Silva