Midweek Review

Focus on early stage of ‘unwinnable’ Eelam conflict over a decade after Nandikadal confrontation

Published

3 years ago

2023/10/18

Sahan Weerasooriya

The author hands over a copy Mihidan Nowu Minisa to Defence Secretary retired Gen. Kamal Gunaratne

Let us set the record straight, officially

Sarath Weerasekera

Retired Rear Admiral Sarath Weerasekera recently declared that in his capacity as Chairman of the Sectoral Oversight Committee on National Security he would present to President Ranil Wickremesinghe a comprehensive report on how the war was conducted.

The recent US denial of a visa to Adm. Weerasekera underlines the need to take tangible measures to safeguard the interests of serving and ex-military personnel, especially when being unfairly targeted by foreign entities with ulterior motives, like wanting to break up Sri Lanka in pursuit of their agendas.

The announcement was made at a media briefing held at the Presidential Media Centre (PMC). Sri Lanka needs to prepare an all-inclusive dossier on the war. Regardless of some retired/serving officers sharing their experience by way of books and social media, successive governments failed to compile a complete book on the conflict that didn’t belong to any service, a particular regiment or an individual.

The efforts made by individual officers to share their experience should be encouraged but the responsibility of the government is to produce an official record taking into consideration all factors.

It would be pertinent to mention that Sri Lanka is the only country on earth to betray her war-winning armed forces. The Geneva betrayal on 01 October, 2015, underscored the treachery on the part of the then shameless Yahapalana administration. Let there be a genuine effort to restore the pride of our armed forces who saved the country from anarchy in 1971, 1987-1990 and from separatist LTTE terrorism.

By Shamindra Ferdinando

Daredevil Armoured Corps officer Ranjan Wijedasa, 52, shared his battlefield experiences in Mihidan Nowu Minisa ( The man who did not get buried) launched in September this year, 15 years after the combined security forces brought the war against the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) to a successful end. Sri Lanka proved that what had been termed an unwinnable war here and abroad could be won. The LTTE caught up in a multi-pronged offensive that involved several Divisions and Task Forces in the East and then Vanni theatre, lasting just two years and months.

The recent Hamas attack on Israel that involved groups of heavily armed men invading the Jewish state from the air, sea and ground while thousands of missiles fired from Gaza caused unprecedented death and destruction underscored Sri Lanka’s triumph over the LTTE though the circumstances cannot be compared. The Hamas offensive is a grim reminder how lapses on the part of the political-military setup could cause catastrophe of unprecedented proportions. Judging by international reportage of the latest Israel-Gaza war, there cannot be any dispute regarding the assertion that the Jewish state never expected Hamas to undertake such a large-scale offensive. In that background, let me discuss the Eelam war experienced by an officer who had served the Army at a time eradication of terrorism seemed impossible.

Thrice wounded Wijedasa, now a Brigadier, serving the National Defence College as the Senior Directing Staff, had to quit active service following the amputation of his left hand below the elbow in Aug., 1997 due to injuries suffered during offensive action at Puliyankulam. The young tank officer, in spite of being married to Ruchirani Siriwardena in May 1997, gladly joined the largest ever ground offensive Jayasikurui (Victory Assured) conducted before Eelam War IV (Aug 2006-May 2009). But, Jayasikurui meant to restore the Overland Main Supply Route (MSR) to the Jaffna peninsula had been nothing but a disaster that sent shockwaves through the then political establishment. That offensive should be examined against the backdrop of subsequent LTTE counter-offensive that at one-time threatened even Vavuniya, a strategically important town situated north of Anuradhapura.

Wijedasa had been on the staff of the then Director, Operations Brigadier Udaya Perera during Eelam War IV. One-time Sri Lanka Deputy High Commissioner in Malaysia (2009-2011) Perera, who retired in 2017, is on the US list of war criminals. That categorization has been made in Dec. 2021. Sri Lanka never made a genuine effort to counter unsubstantiated war crimes allegations, thereby facilitating the despicable Western agenda. It would be pertinent to mention that the treacherous UNP-SLFP Yahapalana administration shamelessly betrayed the war-winning military by sponsoring an accountability resolution against one’s own country because that impossible victory was attained against the LTTE by their political rival and to please the West, in early Oct. 2015 by co-sponsoring a US-led move, one of the world’s worst human rights offenders.

Let us get back to Wijedasa’s account of his fighting experience with the Armoured Corps (1991-1997) after having joined the Army in January 1990, several weeks before India pulled out her forces from the then temporarily-merged Northern and Eastern Province. The Eelam War II erupted in the second week of June 1990 while Wijedasa was undergoing training at the Diyatalawa Military Academy. Slain President Ranasinghe Premadasa allowed an LTTE build-up during a 14-month long ‘honeymoon’ with LTTE leader Velupillai Prabhakaran that paved the way for the group to exploit the ground situation. Their experience in fighting the Indian Army had been an added advantage against isolated detachments along the Kandy-Jaffna A9 road north of Vavuniya. The Army lost Thandikulam –Elephant Pass stretch within weeks after the resumption of hostilities in the second week of June 1990. The Army Commander ended up with egg on his face. Sandhurst trained Hamilton Wanasinghe was his name (Aug. 1988-Nov. 1991). Jayasikurui was meant to regain the MSR at any cost.

Devastating losses at Puliyankulam

: Brig. Ranjan Wijedasa addressing a gathering at Rock House Armoured Corps camp, Mattakkuliya, at the launch of his memoirs (pics courtesy MoD)

At the time Wijedasa suddenly received orders to take over the command of ‘Alpha’ squadron assigned for the Jayasikurui offensive, he was preparing to leave Vavuniya to receive an appointment at the Directorate of Personnel, Army headquarters. Without referring to the Divisions that had been involved in the disastrous bids to capture fiercely defended Puliyankulam, the author described the effort made by the Armoured Corps to bring the town under its control after assaults spearheaded by the infantry failed. The operation involved the 53 Division. It included elite formations with vast experience in fighting in both eastern and northern theatres but couldn’t overcome fierce resistance offered by the enemy or thwart a series of counter attacks which paralyzed fighting Divisions.

The author recalled the devastating outcome of the battle between the Armoured Corps and LTTE units armed with Rocket Propelled Grenades (RPGs) and the effective use of monster landmines capable of immobilizing a 40-tonne Main Battle Tank (MBT). Of the 48 tanks that had been assigned for the task, only three were able to penetrate enemy defences and reach Puliyankulam town. Each tank had been accompanied by three Armoured Fighting Vehicles (AFVs) but accurate RPG attacks on one of the AFVs and the author’s T-55 MBT forced the Armoured Corps to retreat. In hindsight, the Army, at that time, lacked sufficient fighting battalions to conduct large scale offensive operations and the strategy- opening a front with the objective of restoring the MSR seemed reckless at a time the enemy could move within the vast Vanni region without hindrance.

Within 24 hours after suffering injuries, Wijedasa had been transferred from the battlefield to Vavuniya in a Bell 212, then from there to Anuradhapura in Y12 fixed wing aircraft before being airlifted to the National Hospital, Colombo.

Jayasikurui launched in May, 1997 was meant to restore overland MSR to the Jaffna peninsula as the government found it extremely difficult to maintain the sea supply route from Trincomalee to Kankesanthurai. Perhaps, author Wijedasa should have dealt with the loss of MSR soon after the LTTE resumed hostilities in the second week of June 1990. Isolated detachments along the MSR north of Vavuniya were either destroyed or vacated by the Army in quick succession as President Premadasa quickly lost control of the war, having conspired with the LTTE to oust the Indian Army.

Regardless of heavy losses, the then President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga, in her capacity as the Commander-in-Chief of armed forces pressed ahead with Jayasikurui. Finally, Kumaratunga called off the offensive in early Dec. 1998 after the Army acknowledged it couldn’t sustain the offensive any longer. Maj. Gen. Asoka Jayawardena, in his capacity as the Overall Operations Commander (OOC) commanded Jayasikurui. Instead, in a bid to divert public attention from the debacle, troops were deployed to capture Oddusuddan and annex the areas covering Mankulam, Oddusuddan and Nedunkerni in the Vanni east. That, too, ended with disastrous consequences. That offensive was called Rivi Bala.

By the time Mrs. Kumaratunga won a second term at the Dec. 1999 presidential election, the LTTE had the upper hand in the northern theatre of operations. The election was conducted following a series of severe battlefield defeats leading to the worst single ever debacle suffered by the Army in April 2000. The LTTE defeated the 54 Division plus troops deployed at Elephant Pass sector that encompassed Iyakachchi and Vettilaikerni on the Mullaitivu coast. Eventually, the then Lt. Gen. Fonseka’s Army restored overland MSR in January 2009 following major battlefield success both west and east of the Kandy-Jaffna A9 road.

The reportage was subjected to military censorship. The military resorted to harsh censorship to prevent the public from knowing the actual situation. Devastating losses suffered by Armoured Corps were not allowed to be reported in the print media at a time television didn’t cover the conflict and social media never heard of. The losses suffered by the Armoured Corps remained unreported until Brig. Wijedasa went public

The LTTE allowed Rivi Bala troops to advance. Prabhakaran refrained from resisting the latest offensive that involved the 53 and 55 Divisions and some elements of the 56 Division that had been previously involved in Operation Jayasikuru, to bring back Oddusuddan under government control, situated north of Nedunkerni, as it shifted focus of offensive action to east of the A9 road. The LTTE didn’t resist as troops secured Oddusuddan, situated 14 km north of Nedunkerni.

This writer had the opportunity to visit the new frontlines at Nedunkerni-Oddusuddan on Oct. 6, 1998, along with a group of journalists when Deputy Defence Minister Anuruddha Ratwatte visited the area. Having participated at a Hindu religious ceremony at Oddusuddan, Minister Ratwatte in camouflaged battle dress was about to get into a Russian built BTR 80 armoured personnel carrier when the LTTE fired four rounds of mortars at the group. At the time of the incident, the visiting group of journalists was about two kilometers south of the scene of the attack. My senior colleague from our sister paper Divaina Sirimevan Kasthuriarachchi was among the group. The group was being moved to Oddusuddan in locally built armoured personnel carriers when the LTTE fired mortars. The convoy stopped in the middle of the road leading to Oddusuddan when the SLA fired artillery in response to the LTTE attack. The group was stuck there for more than an hour. Although Minister Ratwatte, Army chief, Lt. Gen. Daluwatte, SLN Commander, Vice Admiral Cecil Tissera, Air Force Commander, Air Vice Marshal Jayalath Weerakkody and Wanni Security Forces Commander, Maj. Gen. Lionel Balagalle miraculously escaped, the LTTE attack claimed the lives of four SLA personnel, while 42 received injuries. Three bodyguards of Minister Ratwatte were among the wounded (Anuruddha and service chiefs in narrow escape––The Island Dec. 7, 1998).

A proud father’s advice

Ranjan’s father had served the Army and retired in the rank of Captain. Having studied at Isipathana College, Colombo, where he attended the primary, Ranjan and his three brothers – one elder to him and two younger – the family moved to Mahena, a village near Warakapola, after the retirement of Captain W.A. Wijedasa in 1979. The Brigadier’s narrative of their simple way of life and the boys’ escapades captured the readers’ interest. References were made to the retired officer being recalled in 1983 in the wake of July riots following the killing of 13 soldiers at Thinnaveli, Jaffna, and the emergence of the second JVP insurrection. The enjoyable time Ranjan and his elder brother had at Minneriya Infantry Training Centre and the opportunity granted to the boys to engage in exercises meant for soldiers perhaps influenced their decision to join the Army.

At the time, Ranjan had been chosen for the prestigious Diyatalawa Military Academy, his elder brother Manjula was there. The author’s description of nearly two yearlong training there made good reading but nothing could have been as important as advice he received from his father on the day he was commissioned as a Second Lieutenant of 33 Intake of SLMA. His brother, now retired after serving the military for nearly 20 years, too, had served the Armoured Corps though the two brothers were not assigned to the same unit during the conflict.

The author quoted his father as having told him that there were various funds in the Army. “Never touch those funds. If you need money, give me a call. Don’t smear insignia with faeces by stealing money.” Unfortunately, such high morals seemed to have made no impact on the overall public service, including the armed forces if allegations traded in Parliament and outside are true. The country is in dire straits due to waste, corruption, irregularities and mismanagement. With both the private and public sectors badly affected, the armed forces and police, too, deteriorated since the conclusion of the conflict in May 2009. Corruption takes a heavy toll on post-war bankrupt Sri Lanka with the economy in such a precarious state with many complaining the difficulties were worse than the time of conflict.

Fifteen years after the end of the conflict, the government is in the process of gradually reducing the Army’s strength to 135,000 by the end of next year and 100,000 by 2030. At the time a soldier shot Velupillai Prabhakaran through the head on the banks of the Nanthikadal lagoon on the morning of May 19, 2009, the Army strength stood at approximately 205,000. The gradual reduction commenced during Mahinda Rajapaksa’s tenure as the President. By the time, President Gotabaya Rajapaksa was forced out of office, the Army strength was down to approximately 168,000. The continuing economic crisis has compelled the Wickremesinghe-Rajapaksa government to go ahead with further downsizing of the Army and by next year the strength is expected to be down to 135,000 and 100,000 six years later.

It would be pertinent to mention that the war couldn’t have been won if not for President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s approval of Lt. Gen. Sarath Fonseka’s call for a larger Army. From some 116,000 officers and men, while the Army was fighting on multiple fronts over a period of three years, the strength was increased to 205,000, a tremendous achievement in an environment of instability, uncertainty and political turmoil.

Brig. Wijedasa paid a glowing tribute to Field Marshal Fonseka while recalling the Sinha Regiment hero’s declaration that he wouldn’t leave the war unfinished. Fonseka gave that assurance at a time the LTTE remained a formidable fighting force with conventional fighting capacity in land, sea and even in air with a rudimentary air force, which was used to bomb Colombo on at least two occasions.

DK visits Pooneryn

Brigadier Wijedasa disclosed a hitherto unheard visit by the then Northern Commander Maj. Gen. Denzil Kobbekaduwa to isolated Pooneryn-Nagathevanthurai military base at an early stage in the author’s career. Pooneryn-Nagathevabthurai had been perhaps one of the most difficult bases to serve during the war and was the scene of one of the fiercest attacks carried out by the LTTE on the Vanni east. The Army lost hundreds of men. Kobbekaduwa, also of the Armoured Corps during the visit to Pooneryn had declared that MBTs could operate anywhere in the Pooneryn sector whereas the author dared to disagree with the deployment of such heavy equipment in boggy conditions. Kobbekaduwa seemed to have been offended by the junior officer’s suggestion and ordered the author to prepare a MBT to move from Pooneryn to Kalmunai Point a distance of about 20 kms towards the Jaffna lagoon. Wijedasa recalled how he accompanied by Lt. Colonel Chitral Punchihewa, the Commanding Officer of the infantry deployed therein left Pooneryn atop T-55 MBT and after covering a distance of about 10 km was unexpectedly bogged down. The only other MBT that had been deployed at Pooneyn was called in to pull the bogged down T- 55. The rescuer, too, had got bogged down at the same location where those assigned for the two MBTs had to remain there for three weeks until a tank recovery vehicle was brought in from Mullaithivu by ship to Trincomalee and then overland to Pooneryn to pull the T 55s.

Regardless of orders issued by the Northern Commander in this regard, other officers senior to Wijedasa at that time had found fault with him for the fiasco. However, Lt. Col. Punchihewa had taken the responsibility for the incident thereby saved Wijedasa from being tainted. Wijedasa recollected Punchihewa’s sacrifice with love and gratitude while revealing the death of his savior in a landmine blast that ripped apart his Land rover speeding towards Kalmunai Point. What is really poignant in Punchihewa’s death is that the Lt. Col. had stopped on his way to Kalmunai Point after seeing Wijedasa at the helipad with another officer and inquired what they were doing in the hot sun. The incident underscored the senior officer’s humanitarian qualities amidst a brutal war.

Brigadier Wijedasa’s memoirs is a must read for those really interested in the conflict and how the military absorbed the youth. It would be the responsibility of the top brass to ensure the young officers and men learn from the past as it were. Wijedasa’s memoirs Mihidan Nowu Minisa can be purchased from Design Waves Private Ltd. Tel 011 2150 100 (www.designwaves.lk)

All News Advertisement

Related Topics:Brig. Ranjan Wijedasa Mihidan Nowu Minisa

Up Next

Point of No Return

Don't Miss

Throw-away Baby

Click to comment

Midweek Review

Israeli-US aggression won’t go unanswered -Iranian Ambassador

Published

6 days ago

2026/05/27

Sahan Weerasooriya

Dr. Alireza Delkhosh responds to The Island queries

Iranian Ambassador in Colombo Dr. Alireza Delkhosh says the Islamic Republic of Iran remains fully prepared to face US-Israeli aggression.

In an interview with The Island at the Iranian Embassy, in Colombo, Dr. Delkhosh emphasised that in case of a fresh outbreak of hostilities, the aggressors, as well as those who provided bases for unprovoked military campaign ,should be prepared to face the consequences.

Excerpts of the interview:

The Island: Did Iran anticipate Israel-US launching unprovoked attacks in the midst of indirect nuclear talks between Iran and US in Geneva, mediated by Oman?

Ambassador: Iran’s wall of mistrust towards the US is rooted in decades of hostile policies and, specifically, Washington’s dark record of broken promises. We always welcomed diplomacy in good faith and serious intent, entering diplomatic channels accordingly; yet, we have repeatedly witnessed the US chose the path of betraying diplomacy in the midst of negotiations.

We do not build our foreign policy on optimism toward the US, as we fundamentally do not view the current US administration as a trustworthy party. The recurrence of provocative patterns and coordination with the Zionist regime’s actions during sensitive negotiations indicate a systematic approach to discredit diplomacy.

From our perspective;

“Any coercive or military action taken alongside mediation efforts serves as further evidence of Washington’s lack of sincere will for diplomacy and its attempt to exert pressure under the guise of dialogue—an approach that will not go unanswered.”

The Island: Do you think the latest war and regional developments, such as the UAE pulling out of OPEC, should be examined, taking into consideration the Oct0ber 7, 2023, Hamas attack on southern Israel.

Ambassador: Allow me to rephrase your question: Is there a link between the attacks carried out by the US and Israel against Iran and the Zionist regime’s warmongering policies? My answer is a definitive “yes”.

Any serious analysis of the current regional dynamics must be placed within the broader historical and structural context of the Palestinian question and the continuation of occupation and blockade. Iran has consistently maintained that the developments of October 7, 2023, did not emerge in a vacuum, but are rooted in decades of unresolved injustice, the denial of legitimate rights of the Palestinian people, and the absence of a credible political horizon.

From this perspective, the subsequent escalation in the region reflects a chain of reactions shaped by long-standing structural tensions, rather than isolated incidents. Iran has repeatedly emphasised that sustainable stability can only be achieved through ending occupation, addressing the root causes of the crisis, and upholding the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people.

Thus, it is important not to reduce complex geopolitical developments to a single starting point. Energy market decisions, alliance shifts, and military escalations are influenced by a broader set of strategic, economic, and political factors.

The Island: What is the status of talks mediated by Pakistan?

Ambassador: A high-ranking Iranian delegation attended an intense day of negotiations, with American negotiators, in Pakistan, on 12th of April, to permanently end a US-Israeli aggression against the country. Iran agreed to participate in the negotiations after US authorities indicated they had accepted Iran’s general conditions as a baseline for peace deal discussions. However, during 20 hours’ intense talks, the US changed its position.

The main sticking point in the talks was the US reluctance to agree to Iran’s legitimate rights to have a peaceful nuclear programme, which Iran has insisted on for years and just before entering the talks, based on the UNSC resolution and the relevant laws.

Iran’s foreign policy is firmly grounded in the principles of dignity, mutual respect, and rejection of coercion or imposed negotiations. Within this framework, Iran has consistently stated that it remains open to indirect diplomatic engagement through mediators, including regional partners, such as Pakistan, provided that diplomacy is conducted in a balanced and credible environment. At the same time, Iran has repeatedly emphasised that the effectiveness of any negotiating track is directly undermined by the US coercive measures, unilateral sanctions, and pressure-based policies.

Sustainable diplomacy necessitates a complete decoupling from pressure tactics; it must be grounded in genuine reciprocity and respect for national rights and interests. Guided by this principled approach, Iran continues to engage in mediation efforts, in good faith, while resolutely safeguarding its sovereign rights and rejecting any framework that resembles ‘dictation under pressure’.”

The Island: The UN has pathetically failed to intervene in the current West Asia conflict. Both Israel and the US simply ignored the UN and the world body seems irrelevant. As a seasoned diplomat what is your opinion on the UN? What is wrong with the global body”

Ambassador: Iran views the UN as an important multilateral institution established to safeguard international peace and security; however, its effectiveness has increasingly been constrained by the selective application of its Charter and the politicisation of decision-making, particularly within the Security Council.

Currently, the international community is witnessing highly dangerous interpretations of ‘peace,’ ‘rights,’ and ‘aggression’ by the US and the Israeli regime. In their lexicon, if they attack a country, it is labelled a ‘peace operation’ or ‘legitimate defence’; yet, if a nation defends itself, it is branded as ‘warmongering.’

“When the innocent people of Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, Iran, and Iraq are stripped of their fundamental human and humanitarian rights and endure profound suffering due to attacks, genocides, and inhumane sanctions, it is as if—in the prevailing international discourse—’human rights’ are not being violated at all.”

The world witnessed, on many occasions, that when certain permanent members are directly involved, or aligned with one side of a conflict, the UN’s ability to act impartially is significantly weakened.

From this perspective, the current situation does not reflect irrelevance of the United Nations itself, but rather highlights the structural imbalance in the international order, where enforcement mechanisms are often subject to geopolitical considerations. Iran has, therefore, consistently called for fundamental reform of global governance structures, including democratisation of the Security Council and strengthening of multilateralism, based on justice, equality, and respect for sovereignty.

The Islamic Republic of Iran supports a United Nations that truly represents the rights of nations and establishes justice. The current state of global affairs reflects the failure of certain powers to adhere to the fundamental principles of the UN Charter.

While emphasising the necessity of effective multilateralism to guarantee international peace and security, the Islamic Republic of Iran has consistently reaffirmed its commitment to an international order, based on international law and the principles of the UN Charter.

In conclusion, I must state that: “Unilateralism negates the essential and fundamental principles of the United Nations. Unilateralism is an invitation to injustice, confrontation, and war.”

The Island: In spite of sustained US pressure, its NATO allies declined to join military action against Iran or commit forces to Hormuz Strait. The British and French positions caused an unprecedented rift between them and the US. Do you think NATO countries’ split position on Iran war caused irreparable damage to the largest military organisation in the world?

Ambassador: Differences among NATO members on the use of force in external theatres are not unprecedented. Divergent approaches to specific regional conflicts can place strain on political unity and strategic messaging within this alliance. Whether such differences translate into long-term structural damage depends on how effectively members manage internal consultation and reaffirm shared principles.

Let’s not forget that NATO is fundamentally a military alliance shaped by the strategic priorities of the United States, and differences among its members often reflect not a principled divergence, but rather varying degrees of alignment with Washington’s regional policies.

What is presented as “internal consultation” within NATO is frequently constrained by asymmetric influence, where key decisions on the use of force are effectively driven by the US agenda.

In this context, disagreements among NATO members on external military actions are seen in Tehran less as an institutional safeguard and more as evidence of the alliance’s limited strategic autonomy, particularly in relation to West Asia. Therefore, these divergences do not merely represent tactical differences, but highlight a deeper structural issue: the growing questioning of interventionist policies and the sustainability of military blocs in addressing complex regional crises.

The Island: When did you first hear about the unprovoked US attack on Iran frigate off Galle? (The date and time, please). Who told you about the unfortunate incident? What was your first reaction?

Ambassador: What was particularly concerning was that the IRIS Dena was understood to be undertaking a routine passage in the region, returning from an official visit to India, and was not engaged in any combat or hostile activity. Any incident involving a naval vessel, under such circumstances, is naturally a matter of serious concern and a war crime, especially when it raises questions about maritime safety and the protection of unarmed or non-combat assets.

My immediate priority, upon receiving credible confirmation about this attack, would have been the safety of personnel and the prevention of any escalation. From the first moments of receiving this information, I have been in direct talks and consultations with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Sri Lanka and other relevant government authorities, while ensuring that no conclusions are drawn until all facts are verified.

The Island: Did you visit the Iranian vessel and sailors now at Trincomalee?

Ambassador: At this stage, I would like to state that the primary responsibility of the mission has been to maintain continuous contact with the relevant Sri Lankan authorities and ensure the safety, welfare, and proper handling of Iranian personnel and assets involved. In this regard, we have been in close and ongoing coordination with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Sri Lanka and other competent government institutions to follow up on all necessary arrangements.

Our focus has been on ensuring that all matters are addressed through official diplomatic channels in accordance with international maritime and humanitarian procedures. The well-being of our personnel and the proper management of the situation remain our highest priority.

The Island: Ambassador, you presented your credentials to the then President Ranil Wickremesinghe in late October, 2023. What were the previous diplomatic stations you served before taking over the Colombo mission?

Ambassador: Prior to my mission in Sri Lanka and the Maldives, I served in various diplomatic capacities in Turkey, Sweden, and Uzbekistan.”

The Island:Would you mind stating Iranian red lines about issues that Iran would never give up such as the right to use nuclear power for civilian purposes and control over Hormuz Strait?

Ambassador: Iran’s foreign policy is based on the principles of sovereignty, deterrence, and the rejection of coercion and unilateral pressure, while simultaneously affirming its commitments under international law. In this framework, we have consistently emphasised that the Islamic Republic will never relinquish its inalienable right to peaceful nuclear energy, including enrichment for civilian purposes, such as energy production, medical applications, and scientific development. As we continually maintained, this right is fully consistent with the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

At the same time, Iran regards the security and management of the Strait of Hormuz as a strategic national responsibility, given that it lies within Iran’s sovereign waters and is one of the world’s most sensitive maritime corridors. Our officials have repeatedly stated that the security of the Persian Gulf and Hormuz must be maintained by regional states themselves, without external militarisation or domination.

However, Iran has consistently expressed concern over certain regional developments in which neighbouring territories have been utilised for the projection of external military power, including by the United States, which, in Tehran’s view, contributes to heightened tensions and undermines regional stability. From Iran’s perspective, such dynamics are among the key factors affecting and jeopardising the security environment of the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz.

Within this framework, Iran has emphasised that any threat to its sovereignty, territorial integrity, or strategic security interests would be met with firm and proportionate resistance, while at the same time reaffirming its commitment to freedom of navigation in accordance with international law.

Taken together, from a broader perspective: “The overarching framework of Iran’s foreign policy is built upon three primary pillars: countering diplomatic pressures, maintaining autonomy in strategic decision-making while safeguarding national interests and sovereignty, and emphasising the principle of reciprocity. This approach—rooted in the three guiding principles of ‘Dignity, Wisdom, and Expediency’—reflects Tehran’s explicit opposition to unilateralism and bullying in the global arena.”

The Island: Iran proved that it had the strength and the will power to face daunting military challenges and, in spite of civilian protests, influenced by economic hardships, the public stood by the leadership during the hour of crisis. What is Iran’s message to the world?

Ambassador: Iran is the heir to a great civilisation, spanning several millennia. Iran’s message to the world is that national resilience is ultimately rooted in the bond between the state and its nation, particularly, during times of external pressure and security challenges. Despite economic hardships, the Iranian people have demonstrated that in moments of national crisis, priorities converge around the defence of sovereignty, territorial integrity, and national security.

From this perspective, the experience of recent years is a clear testimony that external pressure, military threats, or coercive policies do not weaken national cohesion; rather, they reinforce a shared sense of resistance and the bond between the leadership and segments of society around core national principles. It highlights that such domestic economic issues are addressed within the framework of national stability, not through external intervention.

There exists an inviolable principle: “Sustainable national cohesion is achieved only in the light of full sovereignty over internal affairs and the rejection of any intervention or the politicisation of domestic developments by foreign powers.”

The Island:Wishful Israel-US assessment for regime change, following the Supreme Leader’s assassination failed. Against the backdrop of US success in Venezuela, they seemed to have wrongly asserted the situation and Iranian military response. How do you see the next few weeks as the US and Israel maintain a fragile ceasefire, regardless of some isolated incidents?

Ambassador: The assumptions that external pressure, military action, or targeted scenarios, such as the assassination of its leadership, would lead to structural political change in Iran, have repeatedly proven to be a strategic miscalculation. “Iran’s security architecture is not modelled after classic Western patterns that could be brought down, through sanctions or threats; rather, it possesses its own unique design.

Iran’s strategic decision-making is rooted in institutional continuity, national sovereignty, and a well-established defence and command structure—one that cannot be disrupted by external pressures or short-term military developments.”

Regarding the current situation, the existing ceasefire environment looks to be fragile and highly sensitive. As repeatedly stressed by our officials and leadership, stability cannot be sustained through coercive measures, continued military pressure, or selective escalation. Therefore, any lasting calm depends on adherence to commitments, respect for sovereignty, and cessation of hostile actions.

In the coming weeks, the situation will remain volatile, yet manageable, and Iran will continue to maintain its readiness to respond to any potential adventurism.

Iran continues to emphasise that sustainable regional security cannot be built on failed assumptions of regime change or military superiority, but only through recognition of political realities and mutual respect under international law.

The Island: Finally, the senseless killing of over 150 schoolgirls and teachers at an Iranian school, at the onset of the latest conflict, horrified the world. However, the response of Western governments, and various human rights bodies, seemed inadequate. Some refrained from commenting on the incident. The situation in Lebanon, too, is deteriorating. Why do they act differently when the perpetrators happened to be the US or Israel?

Ambassador: I believe that the disparity in reactions reflects a long-standing flaw in the international system: the selective application of international law and humanitarian principles, based on political considerations rather than universal standards.

As you noted, when incidents involve the US or Israel, many international actors—including certain Western governments and institutions—tend to interpret events through the narratives of ‘security,’ ‘self-defence,’ or ‘strategic necessity.’ The brutal attack on the Minab girls’ school, which resulted in the slaughter of over 168 students and teachers, has pulled back the curtain on the double standards of those who claim to champion human rights. While the smallest incidents in other countries trigger immediate global outcries. We witness a response characterised by silence, projection, and brazen falsehoods regarding this blatant crime—as well as the horrific atrocities in Gaza and Lebanon. These tactics aim at nothing but distorting reality and whitewashing the perpetrators of these tragedies. This pattern has undermined the credibility of international law and the global human rights framework, as it ignores the principle of ‘sovereign equality’ and suggests that accountability is not applied equally to all members of the international community.

This is not merely a legal issue but an expression of a structural imbalance in the international order, where political alliances and strategic interests dictate the interpretation and enforcement of norms. Therefore, I maintain that: “The only way to restore trust in the international system is through the consistent and non-selective enforcement of international law, without exceptions or double standards, regardless of the identity of the parties involved.”

As a final word: “Ibn Khaldun 1332-1406, a famous philosopher and historian, believes that ‘politics is the product of geography.’ The essence of this hypothesis is that the temporary presence of extra-regional powers in West Asia and the Persian Gulf must not lead certain small coastal states of the Persian Gulf into a strategic miscalculation.

The time will come when outsiders are expelled from this region, leaving only the neighbours who are destined to coexist. Instead of focusing on Outsourced Security and legitimacy from distant powers, they must return to geographical realities. They ought to study history to recognise which nation has been the source of security and stability in the Persian Gulf for millennia.

By Shamindra Ferdinando

Midweek Review

JVP/NPP government and social media

Published

6 days ago

2026/05/27

Sahan Weerasooriya

‘Aragalaya’ betrayed? ‘The treason of the intellectuals’ in the age of populism – Part III

The JVP/NPP government, which relied heavily on social media to come to power, seems to be deeply afraid that it will be overthrown by a second aragalaya fuelled by social media. The government has been accused of organising and directing forces—including pro-government social media activists—from behind the scenes to prevent criticism of the government’s actions from shaping public opinion against the government through social media. Critics say that the aim is to discourage, silence, and drive away critics of the government through ridicule, insults, obscene statements, and intimidation.

Leaving aside these behind-the-scenes manoeuvers, the news that a group of YouTubers, who are identified as “dhobies” or “washers,” recently attended a private press conference at the JVP party headquarters at the invitation of the President and the Minister of Mass Media and Cabinet Media Spokesperson, is a powerful example of the weight the current government places on social media.

“Dhobies”/”washers”

The intelligentsia and intellectuals in democracies play a key role in shaping public opinion, which is traditionally vital in determining the outcome of elections or in building public protests. In the era of social media ubiquity, the primary location of the intelligentsia engaged in politics has shifted to social media. Influencing social media users is now seen as the key to political victory—hence the significance of the phenomenon identified by the term “dhobies”/”washers” (literally laundrymen).

Manifested as a voluntary social media activity—dominated by Facebook and primarily occurring in the Sinhala medium (this article does not cover Tamil social media)—the phenomenon of “washers” is an unprecedented and unique addition to the political process in Sri Lanka. This is an activity of political significance with a certain level of intellectual content that goes beyond the level of mere social media activism, and is carried out by the intelligentsia and intellectuals. These “washers”, alongside the academics who lead them, emphatically state that it is their responsibility to work vigorously to protect this government—one that they brought to power and which aligns with the ideology they believe in.

This group also includes social media journalists who identify themselves as left-wing political activists and as ‘analytical’ discussion presenters via content creation—podcasts and video interviews—as opposed to being mere social media activists.

To achieve their goal, the “washers” understand their role as “cleaning” or “whitewashing” the government in the face of criticism or controversy. They seek to prove the government right by targeting, attacking, and silencing critics through quibbling and intimidation, thereby “protecting” the government.

Although these attacks primarily come in the form of “intellectual” attacks, the range of attacks unleashed under that “intellectual leadership” includes ridicule, insults, and harassment, which are encouraged to be directed at opponents at various levels. Posts are published subtly or directly inviting the “people” who habituate social media as “friends” to post their emojis—likes, dislikes, laughter, ridicule—which may take the form of reaction images, or verbal “comments” against political opponents who publish their views on social media.

In addition to organised “washers,” there are highly credentialed academics who contribute to the “washing” process on their own Facebook pages, either directly or in tacit, subtle ways. Those who do not actively join indicate their support tacitly as “friends” of the organized “washers”—either via emojis or by participating through seemingly innocuous comments that nevertheless get the job done.

They claim this activity of ‘washing’ is the real ground on which politics is determined today. Their stated argument is that in the current era of social media, ridicule, insults, and harassment are inevitable in politics; therefore, those who cannot face them should not be involved in politics. In other words, in this view, politics dominated by social media seems to reenact Hobbes’”state of nature,” which is “nasty, poor, solitary, brutish, and short,” indicating an unprecedented level to which Sri Lanka’s intellectual culture has descended.

Isn’t it an indictment of academia that the practice of “washing” led by academics comes under serious scrutiny from their academic “friends” on social media, especially in relation to the vocation of intellectuals and their role in politics? Notably, the self-identified intellectual leaders of left populism—some of whom are themselves drawn from academia—circulate within these same social media circles.

What they are trying to protect the government from by silencing their rivals and banishing them from the public arena is a second aragalaya that they and the government seem to firmly believe will build on social media operations if criticism of the government is allowed to spread unabated. Hence, there is the need to somehow suppress criticism while giving the act a veneer of intellectual activity. They are participating in this effort, rallying as both organisations and individuals at different levels.

It needs to be added that while these “washing” activities take place mainly in the medium of Sinhala, related “higher” intellectual content is aired in the English medium as well, mainly in the form of interviews with academics.

Criticising the government from a left political perspective

What has come to be expressed as the essence of this “washing” process is the idea, presented in the form of a theoretical formulation, that when criticising the current government from a leftist political perspective, one should first consider who benefits from it. What it means is that if the current government is criticised from a leftist perspective, it could result in a second aragalaya, leading to the return of those who are currently out of power.

A related question that critics are often asked is this; whom do they see as the leaders of a government that could replace the current government? It is as if citizens should only criticise a government that affects their lives if they have a clear alternative to replace it. It is as if criticism is not something that can be done with the intention of correcting something, or a way to develop an alternative.

This argument rejects the traditional liberal political science argument about bourgeois democracy, which considers holding elections at regular intervals to bring governments to power and changing governments when necessary as positive—which requires accepting as positive the development of a critique of the government in power. Accordingly, it implies that the current government must be kept in power at all costs to prevent the power groups that the people rejected from coming back to power, and that is why the Left should stop criticizing the current government. This is a very strange idea of democracy. It is clearly not the bourgeois liberal democracy we have known so far. So, what kind of democracy is it? As some are wont to do, we can keep on tweaking the term to suit the changing conditions instead of developing a critique in the name of the ideal of democracy. So, what is the new term for what is done with democracy under the new regime? Or, do they think that we have reached an era of post-democracy?

Traditionally, the role of intellectuals and the intelligentsia has been to provide the critical thinking that society needs. But the intellectuals who are engaged in “washing” say that the Left should silence its criticism in order to save the government, and then everything will be fine. Some who support “washing” argue that what the Left should do is not criticize the current government, but push it further to the left. While this argument presumes the government to be Left notwithstanding the Left criticism of it, what it fails to take into account is that one of the reasons the government needs repressive social media forces and “washers” may be that the government is intolerant of criticism that pushes it to the left.

The NPP government came to power by rallying around the NPP organisations and individuals who called themselves liberal, progressive, leftist, radical, etc., outside of the JVP membership. The group that can be called intellectuals among them identified themselves with the NPP through a series of actions—starting from contributing to the work of building the National People’s Power and the formulation of its policies, to taking the leadership of relevant committees at various levels and appearing publicly at various public events of the NPP, even on the election platform. Some of them won the elections on the basis of their identity-based vote blocks or became members of parliament from the national list and even became ministers. Many others, as is customary after an election victory, got themselves appointed to various positions in the government bureaucracy as chairpersons, board/council members, directors, etc., either immediately or later.

Some, whether or not they were appointed, abandoned the critical role they were previously playing in society and have remained silent. Some of them have abandoned the theoretical interventions they were making in the public arena with a view to a “system transformation” until they brought the current government to power, in favour of safe literary or other topics as if the transformation that all those criticisms targeted had been achieved with the coming to power of the current government. Others entered the “washing” business while holding official positions in the current ruling regime. Although not all those involved in the “washing” process are in positions of power, there have been allegations that some of those who are involved without holding positions do so in exchange for payment. Among these groups are those who, traditionally known as independent journalists, are now mostly known as content and/or digital creators, questioning the validity of their claims to represent independent journalism.

Some leftists assume that this will be the last time a left-wing government has come to power in Sri Lanka, and therefore have joined the government believing that they should achieve the maximum good for the people, as if they think that history has ended.

Conclusion: Populism and the treason of intellectuals

In conclusion, returning to the ideology of populism that provided the backdrop for this article, it is relevant to note how some of the key characteristics of populism identified in the literature align with critics’ accounts of the policies followed by the current JVP/NPP government.

At its core, populist ideology presents a dichotomy between a “pure,” idealised conception of the people and a “corrupt” elite. It frames politics as a moral struggle against corruption, seeking to displace the traditional class basis of politics. Being deeply anti-institutional, populism dismisses expert and academic knowledge as elitist.

Driven by a Schmittian logic of friend-versus-enemy politics, populist leaders and the intelligentsia seek to displace the traditional elite, aiming to purge them from politics, academia, and culture with a view to appointing themselves as the new elite.

Populism rejects the democratic state in the name of the people. Political theorist Wendy Brown points out that populism focuses instead on aggressive law and order, statism, and a non-democratic view of liberty—where authority rules, yet individuals claim libertarian freedom.

Globally, populism tends to breed authoritarian leaders who centralise power in the executive branch, stripping judges of their independence and turning elected parliaments into mere rubber stamps. To stay in power, populist movements systematically target checks and balances, the free press, and universities, labeling them as roadblocks against the people’s mandate. Once in control, these regimes use legal gray areas to oppress opposition parties and subvert democracy to ensure they remain in power.

The Treason of the Intellectuals

For the title of my article, I have borrowed the title of a seminal work by the French philosopher and essayist Julien Benda, The Treason of the Intellectuals (1927). Almost a hundred years ago, Benda critiqued the intelligentsia’s betrayal of their vocation as intellectuals, focusing on their abandonment of the Enlightenment ideal of universal humanity. In our case, I would argue that intellectuals have abandoned their vocation in the very name of the “renaissance” and “enlightenment” ideals—or the punarudaya—they claim to stand for, allowing political partisanship to dictate their understanding of the intellectual vocation itself.

In her 2023 book, Nihilistic Times, political theorist Wendy Brown argues that we are living in deeply nihilistic times. Placing this rise in nihilism at the very center of our current political crisis, she warns that it is actively undoing democracy while degrading and confounding both political and academic life. In Brown’s view, nihilism leads to the devaluation of both knowledge and political responsibility—a crisis that is especially clear in academia. She argues that intellectuals have abandoned democracy, the common good, and the pursuit of objective truth, choosing instead to align themselves with whoever holds political or cultural power to serve partisan or authoritarian goals. Ultimately, Brown argues that public intellectuals must act as honest, thoughtful analysts who hold politicians accountable rather than seeking to win their favor. Finally, she issues a direct challenge to left-wing intellectuals to make good on their foundational commitment to true critical thinking.