Midweek Review

Formation of TNA, post-war politics and Sumanthiran’s role

Published

2 years ago

2024/05/29

MP Dhamalinham Siddharathan with President Wickremesinghe at the Nelum Piyasa Hall, Iranimadu, where land deeds were granted to the people (pic courtesy PMD)

By Shamindra Ferdinando

Jaffna district parliamentarian Mathiaparanan Abraham Sumanthiran’s recent declaration supportive of the militarily defeated Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) particularly captured the public attention.

Then soon after, MP Sumanthiran surprised all by appearing on stage with President Ranil Wickremesinghe, in Jaffna, where the UNP leader bestowed land deeds on a selected group of people.

With them on stage were EPDP leader Douglas Devananda, MP, and Dharmalingam Siddharthan, MP, of PLOTE/TNA whose father, Visvanather Dharmalingam, MP (Jaffna District) was assassinated by TELO at the behest of Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) in Sept 1985. (Siddharthan himself told the writer that his father and colleague Jaffna District MP Arumugam Murugesu Alalasundaram were abducted and killed in a Mafia-style TELO operation). Will deal with Sumanthiran’s Jaffna move later.

Issuing a statement ahead of Tamil Genocide Remembrance Day that was marked on May 18 around the world, Sumanthiran, PC, now in his third term as a lawmaker, said: “Although it is my personal belief that a just political liberation cannot be achieved at the point of a gun, I have repeatedly stated that we cannot today decry or judge the decision taken by the Tamil youth who saw no other option at a time when oppression and military….”

The Illankai Arasu Katchi (ITAK) MP went on to say: “I have also consistently emphasized that the commitment and sacrifices unselfishly made by those who took up arms on our behalf should be regarded very highly.”

Sumanthiran tweeted hours before he paid respects to those who perished in fighting and the civilians at the Mullivaikkal commemoration site. However, Sumanthiran attended another commemoration also on the same day organized at the Viharamahadevi Park by several groups, including the Global Tamil Forum (GTF), to remember “all victims of war over 30 years in the North and South.”

Some found fault with MP Sumanthiran for attending the Colombo event where organizers quite rightly refrained from making reference to any particular group or community. There hadn’t been a similar remembrance event in Colombo since the end of the war 15 years ago. The same group organized an inter-religious prayer event at the Vavuniya Town Hall grounds, also on the same day.

The GTF should be commended for taking a courageous stand in spite of criticism by those who still seek advantage of the LTTE’s crushing defeat.

Perhaps, the GTF-led group should have made reference to Sri Lankans killed overseas due to terrorism, Indian military deaths here (July 1987-March 1990) and former Indian Premier Rajiv Gandhi’s assassination in May 1991 while campaigning during a general election by a brainwashed LTTE teenage suicide cadre.

The Tamil community shouldn’t confine the war dead commemoration to those who died during the last phase of the fighting with the focus on Mullivaikkal. Commemorations whether in the North, East or Colombo should be devoid of any petty racial connotation, for all were human beings. Such events shouldn’t be allowed to cause further divisions among the communities, under any circumstances. Those who make unnecessary interventions with a view to attracting media attention should be appropriately dealt with by law enforcement authorities.

We also like to ask self-proclaimed international do-gooders why they don’t show even an iota of interest in the unimaginable suffering undergoing by Palestinians at the hands of the Israelis, while they make a song and dance about imaginary genocide they claim to have happened here during the last phase of fighting.

The ITAK is the main constituent of the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) that had been formed in late Oct 2001 in line with the community’s overall politico-military strategy to achieve Eelam. Against the backdrop of the worst-ever battlefield defeat that had been inflicted on the Army in April 2000, Eelam seemed achievable. Having defeated the 54 Division, deployed at the Elephant Pass sector then widely believed to be impregnable, thereafter the LTTE almost succeeded in overwhelming the Army in the rest of the peninsula.

Muslims’ dilemma

The Sinhalese and Tamils should also publicly repent the suffering experienced by the Muslim community. That community suffered untold hardships for being steadfastly taking a stand against separatism. Had they thrown their weight behind the LTTE, the country could have been overwhelmed and the 2009 absolute victory over the LTTE couldn’t have been achieved. So, do not hesitate to recognize the Muslims’ commitment as a whole to Sri Lanka’s unitary status. They paid a very heavy price for being always supportive of the government stand for a united Sri Lanka, whoever was in power.

The 2019 Easter Sunday massacre, carried out by a group of extremist misguided Muslims, shouldn’t in any way be used against the community. Officers and men of the Muslim and Tamil communities served in the armed forces and police with distinction and made quite a contribution to the overall success of the war.

Just five months after the LTTE resumed war in June 1990 in the wake of the IPKF withdrawal from the temporarily-merged North and East Provinces, the LTTE ordered the Muslims out of the Northern region, comprising Jaffna, Kilinochchi, Mannar, Mullaithivu and Vavuniya giving them a matter of hours to leave. The then President Ranasinghe Premadasa’s government couldn’t do anything about it. The international community turned a blind eye. Tamil politicians remained silent. No one dared to challenge the LTTE’s inhumane and drastic move.

Twenty-one years later a deranged Norwegian Andres Breivik massacred 77 persons, mostly children in two attacks the attacker claimed was influenced by the LTTE’s eviction of the Muslim community from Northern Sri Lanka.

Did the late LTTE theoretician and ideologue Anton Balasingham approve of Velupillai Prabhakaran’s plan to force Muslims out of the Northern Province? Balasingham, the one-time British High Commission employee in Colombo, passed away in the UK, in Dec 2006, of kidney failure, a couple of months before the LTTE lost control of the Eastern Province.

Far right Breivik, then 32, a few hours before he went on the rampage on July 22, 2011, made reference to the LTTE’s eviction of the Muslim community from the Northern Province, in his so-called manifesto posted online. The following are the references (1) Pro-Sri Lanka (supports the deportation of all Muslims from Sri Lanka) (Page 1235) and (2) Fourth Generation War is normally characterized by a ‘stateless’ entity fighting a state or regime (the EUSSR). Fighting can be physical such as the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) to use a modern example. (Page 1479).

Perhaps, Sri Lanka should have asked those who had been demanding international inquiry to include the Norwegian massacre in their agenda. One of Sri Lanka’s foremost diplomats, the late Jayantha Dhanapala, appearing before the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) in 2010, stressed on the need for accountability on the part of foreign governments. The then Mahinda Rajapaksa government, probably blinded by unfathomable victory, was not bothered. It only saw immediate political advantage out of the developments even forgetting the long term ramifications for the country.

Focus on Sumanthiran

Sumanthiran on his knees before the Mullaivaikkal monument
(pic courtesy Tamil Guardian)

Maybe MP Sumanthiran should have recognized the LTTE as the group that continued the war until the very end. The parliamentarian shouldn’t have hesitated to do so though terrorism cannot be justified under any circumstances. The LTTE, however, proved its conventional capabilities throughout the war. The casualties, and the losses the group inflicted on the Indian Army underscored its fighting capabilities.

As Sumanthiran entered Parliament at the 2010 General Election, perhaps he hadn’t been affected by the LTTE’s wartime strategies and unprecedented developments that characterized the conflict, with him comfortably settled down in Wellawatte.

The writer first met Sumanthiran at A.J.M. Muzammil’s (incumbent Governor of the Uva Province) residence at No 07, Alfred House Road, Colombo 03 in June 2011. Muzammil, who had been a UNP member of the Western Provincial Council (WPC), arranged the writer to interview former Tamil Nadu State Assembly Congress I member Hasanali Kuddus at his residence. The new entrant to the Parliament Attorney-at-Law Sumanthiran, too, was there on that occasion and the writer had an opportunity to seek his opinion on some contentious matters.

Naturally, matters raised herein included the recognition of the LTTE by the TNA as the sole representative of the Tamil speaking people ahead of the signing of the Ceasefire Agreement (Feb 2002), LTTE-TNA joint boycott of 2005 presidential poll that cost UNP leader Ranil Wickremesinghe victory (the writer wouldn’t humiliate the defunct LTTE by repeating allegation that the Rajapaksas bribed the LTTE to order the boycott. The LTTE may have accepted money but the boycott was not certainly inspired by that) and still unbelievable was the TNA backing for the war-winning Army Chief Gen. Sarath Fonseka at the 2010 Presidential Poll. The TNA ensured a comfortable victory for Fonseka in the entire then merged North-East Province though he lost badly in the rest of the country. Mahinda Rajapaksa secured a second term by obtaining 1.8 mn votes more than Fonseka. A silly claim of computer “jilmaart” by Fonseka’s camp made his defeat even worse.

Kuddus, in an exclusive interview with The Island, strongly defended the eradication of the LTTE though concerns remained of atrocities allegedly committed by the military. Declaring that Sri Lanka couldn’t be punished on the basis of unsubstantiated war crimes allegations, Kuddus said that no country would be safe if legitimate governments were deprived of the opportunity to neutralize threats posed by terrorism. If Sri Lanka could be questioned over its right to hit back hard at the LTTE, what would be the position of the Indian military battling those who had taken up arms? (Congress I member Hasanali speaks out, The Island, June 16, 2011 edition)

At the April 2010 General Glection, the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) won 14 seats. Thirteen were elected while the party secured just one of the 29 National List slots. The TNA picked Sumanthiran as its NL member. It would be pertinent to mention that the TNA was placed third in terms of the number of seats won at that election. The UPFA secured a staggering 144 seats, including 17 NL slots whereas the UNP-led United National Front obtained 60 seats. Nine NL MPs were among them.

The TNA tally drastically dropped due to the eradication of the LTTE. At the previous general election conducted in April 2004, close on the heels of the devastating split in the group, the TNA won a record 22 seats, including two NL slots. The European Union Election Observation Mission, in its report found fault with the TNA for being the beneficiary of poll violence unleashed by the Tigers to stuff ballot boxes in TNA’s favour. That was the best outcome for the TNA at a general election.

At the last General Election, the TNA tally was reduced to 10 MPs. It is a pity that Sumanthiran couldn’t gain the leadership of the ITAK at a keenly contested election in January this year. Jaffna District lawmaker Sivagnanam Sritharan secured 184 votes while M.A. Sumanthiran obtained 137 votes.

Let us get back to MP Sumanthiran’s appearance on stage in Jaffna with President Wickremesinghe last week. During his brief statement, the President’s Counsel made reference to the LTTE-TNA boycott of the 2005 Presidential Poll that caused Wickremesinghe’s defeat, Mahinda Rajapaksa’s election and the unthinkable annihilation of the LTTE. The Presidential Media Division (PMD) quoted Sumanthiran as having told the gathering: “It is possible that the challenges in the North may have impeded your journey in 2005, a fact that I believe is now regretfully acknowledged by the people of the region.”

In the wake of a minor commotion over MP Sumanthiran’s appearance on stage with Wickremesinghe, the PC tweeted that his attendance at the state functions in his electorate shouldn’t be considered as an endorsement of the UNP leader’s candidature at the forthcoming Presidential Poll. The Jaffna District MP’s tweet is irrelevant. His declaration pertaining to the 2005 Presidential Poll clearly meant his support for Wickremesinghe.

The bottom line is that if not for that strategic mistake made by the LTTE and TNA in 2005, they could have achieved military superiority in the North after the then expected UNP victory as Wickremesinghe hardly making even a whimper against the LTTE. MP Sumanthiran’s politically charged statement in Jaffna should be examined also taking into consideration two key developments-in April 2003 (LTTE quit negotiating table) and January 2010 (backed General Fonseka).

The TNA could have used the opportunity to reach a consensus with President Rajapaksa if the party at least adopted a neutral stance. Instead, the TNA joined with the UNP and the JVP to defeat President Rajapaksa, thereby causing a lot of hostility. Backing Fonseka also dealt a severe blow to the TNA’s credibility in the backdrop of war crimes accusations directed at the Army.

GR meets Sampanthan at India House

Sumanthiran cannot be unaware of an attempt made by India in 2011 to work out an arrangement between President Rajapaksa’s government and the TNA.

TNA leader R. Sampanthan has been keen to normalize relations between his party and the government. The veteran politician appeared to have felt that such an arrangement could have helped his community and sought Indian intervention. But a section of the party sabotaged that effort, thereby undermining reconciliatory moves.

Following an incident at Alaveddi that had been staged by the group opposed to Sampanthan’s bid, an angry Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa told the writer of a hitherto unreported meeting between him and Sampanthan at India House on June 08, 2011. The meeting that had taken place in the presence of the then Indian High Commissioner Ashok Kantha could have facilitated post-war reconciliation.

Pointing out that the June 16 incident at Alaveddi was meant to harm reconciliatory moves, Gotabaya Rajapaksa said that unwarranted interventions made by various interested parties, including the US, caused complications (GR alleges TNA split over Sampanthan’s reconciliation move with strapline ‘TNA pressured US State Department, several diplomatic missions to take up Alaveddi issue’ in the June 20, 2011 edition of The Island.

Recently SJB MP Mano Ganesan attacked TNA over what he called its post-war honeymoon with the government. A comprehensive post-war examination of political developments, commencing with the formation of the TNA at the behest of the LTTE, is necessary to comprehend the situation today.

The arrest of four persons in February 2017 during the Yahapalana administration, over an alleged attempt on Sumanthiran’s life, underscores the need for a wider examination of developments. The suspects held under Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) were granted bail in Oct 2022.

During that administration, the TNA played quite an important role with Sampanthan receiving the Opposition Leader’s post though his party had only 16 seats, including two NL slots whereas the breakaway UPFA faction comprised over 50 MPs. But, Yahapalana bosses decided in favour of TNA. In return, the TNA helped thwart President Maithripala Sirisena’s bid to form a new government under the premiership of Mahinda Rajapaksa. Formed in late Oct 2018, the Sirisena-Rajapaksa effort collapsed in 52 days. Sumanthiran played a significant role in the counter attack in support of ousted Wickremesinghe, who continued to insist he was the Premier regardless of the appointment made by Sirisena. Finally, the SC ruled in favour of Wickremesinghe. The rest is history. However, in the wake of 2019 Easter Sunday carnage, MP Sumanthiran said something which he shouldn’t have said under any circumstances. Addressing the first anniversary event of the political weekly ‘Annidha’ on April 29, 2019 at the BMICH, the TNA spokesman justified the heinous crime. He warned of dire consequences unless the government addressed the grievances of the minorities.

Sumanthiran is best remembered for his role in working out a tripartite agreement on a hybrid war crimes court as announced in Washington in June 2016.

Political parties need to make a genuine effort to move forward. The post-war reconciliation wouldn’t be realistic until parties represented in Parliament stopped playing politics with the war. The Tamil community should accept the LTTE had ample opportunities to reach consensus with the Sinhala leadership, particularly Ranil Wickremesinghe, who pursued a strategy even at the expense of his political life. The LTTE’s cardinal sin or serious error of judgment was the April 2003 withdrawal from the Norway-led peace effort. That was meant to create an environment conducive for full scale war that the group felt could have been brought to a successful conclusion by it. The LTTE was certainly ready for war in August 2005. If not, Prabhakaran wouldn’t have ordered Foreign Minister Lakshman Kadirgamar’s assassination. Full scale war commenced exactly a year later and what was widely believed to be an invincible force collapsed within two years and 10 months. Had the military not taken the civilian factor into consideration, the LTTE could have been wiped out much earlier. The ICRC said so as revealed by WikiLeaks.

All News Advertisement

Related Topics:President Wickremesinghe Sumanthiran

Up Next

President’s agenda on track

Don't Miss

15th anniversary reflections: Sri Lanka’s diplomatic victory, Geneva, May 2009

Click to comment

Midweek Review

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

Published

4 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

4 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.