Connect with us

Midweek Review

Indo-Lanka relations: The ‘Quad’ factor

Published

on

General Naravane and wife, Veena, arrive in Trincomalee where Naravane served with the Indian Army. Major General Channa Weerasuriya, the Commander Security Forces – East, together with Mrs Dhanusha Weerasuriya, welcome them on their arrival at the SLAF Base, China Bay.

By Shamindra Ferdinando

Against the backdrop of escalating tensions between the US and China, Chief of Army Staff General Manoj Mukund Naravane arrived in Colombo on Oct 12 on a five-day visit. The Indian Army website announced the visit on Oct 12. The announcement headlined ‘CHIEF OF ARMY STAFF PROCEEDS ON A VISIT TO SRI LANKA’ dealt with the former IPKF (Indian Peace Keeping Force) member’s first visit here as the Chief of Army Staff.

General Naravane’s visit coincided with the second phase of Malabar exercise in the Bay of Bengal off Visakhapatnam. The 25th edition of the exercise involved navies of the US, India, Japan and Australia. It was the 25th edition of the naval exercise, which began as a bilateral exercise between India and the U.S. way back in 1992, two years after the IPKF quit Sri Lanka. The first phase of Malabar exercise was held in August near Guam. The US Navy hosted it. Japan joined the Malabar exercise in 2015 and Australia followed in 2020.

 Quadrilateral Security Dialogue aka Quad consists of those countries participating in the Malabar exercise. It would be pertinent to mention that Quad suffered quite a serious setback at the beginning. Australia quit the alliance during Premier Kevin Rudd’s tenure (Dec 2007 to June 2010) though Australia returned to the US-led grouping with the change of government in 2010. Australia joined the Malabar exercise much later.

General Naravane’s visit here should be studied taking into consideration Quad alliance’s overall interest in Sri Lanka vis-a-vis much stronger China-Sri Lanka relations. In spite of Sri Lanka repeatedly vowing neutrality in its foreign policy, the Quad is seriously concerned about Chinese intentions here. Chinese strategy remains on track regardless of hindrance caused by the yahapalana administration. The finalisation of 99-year-lease on the Hambantota port in 2017 at the expense of Sri Lanka’s national interest underscored the Chinese capacity to turn even die- hard pro-western governments.

 Mahinda Samarasinghe, who signed the controversial agreement on the Hambantota port, in his then capacity as Ports and Shipping Minister (SLFP) on behalf of the then yahapalana government recently received appointment as the country’s top envoy in Washington.

Samarasinghe gave up his Kalutara district parliamentary seat to replace career diplomat Ravinatha Aryasinghe, who retired from service. Samarasinghe’s predecessor, Arjuna Ranatunge quit the ministerial post as he didn’t want to sign the Hambantota agreement which he called a sellout. Interestingly, another former minister Milinda Moragoda recently received appointment as Sri Lanka’s High Commissioner in New Delhi. President Gotabaya Rajapaksa went ahead with Moragoda’s appointment with a rather unusual ministerial rank, regardless of strong opposition from some of those who had backed him and the SLPP at the 2019 and 2020 presidential and parliamentary polls, respectively. Some of those opposed to Moragoda went to the extent of complaining to the Parliamentary High Posts Committee chaired by Speaker Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena. Their protests were ignored. Moragoda, who had served both Presidents Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga and Mahinda Rajapaksa governments as a Cabinet minister, entered active politics from the UNP.

Quad is determined to keep Sri Lanka under its influence. High level visits from New Delhi are part of their overall strategy. Struggling to cope up with a range of domestic issues, including unprecedented increase in prices of essential items and services, in addition to a serious balance of payments crisis, Sri Lanka is vulnerable to foreign interventions. Recent disclosure of offshore financial dealings of former parliamentarian Nirupama Rajapaksa and her husband, Thirikumar Nadesan, has not made things easier for the Rajapaksa administration.

Visitors from New Delhi

 Indian Foreign Secretary Harsh Vardhan Shringla undertook an official visit to Colombo from Oct 2-5. The Defence Attaché of the German Embassy in New Delhi, accredited to Sri Lanka, Captain Gerald Koch, called on the Commander of the Navy Vice Admiral Nishantha Ulugetenne, at the Navy Headquarters, on Oct 05. Deputy Ambassador of the German Embassy in Colombo, Olaf Malchow, Deputy Defence Attaché of the German Embassy in New Delhi, Lieutenant Colonel Jan Cihar and Political and Protocol Officer at the German Embassy in Colombo Ms. Dharini Daluwatte, accompanied them. The Defence Attaché of the Israeli Embassy in New Delhi, and accredited to Sri Lanka, Colonel Assaf Mahler, called on the Commander of the Navy, VA Ulugetenne at the Navy Headquarters on Oct 06. The Defence Attaché of the French Embassy in New Delhi and accredited to Sri Lanka, Captain Yves LE CORRE paid a courtesy call on Navy Commander Ulugetenne at the Navy Headquarters also on Oct 06. Deputy Head of Mission, Aurélien Maillet at the French Embassy in Colombo, Deputy Defence Attaché of the French Embassy in New Delhi, Group Captain Norbert GAINE, Navy Commissioner, Roberto LEMOS and Mr. Jean Baptiste TROUCHE from the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Defence Attachés’ Assistant, Adjutant Cedric FOURNIER were also present on the occasion.

 Two Japanese Maritime Self-Defence Force (JMSDF) ships, helicopter carrier JS Kaga with a planned conversion into an aircraft carrier and destroyer JS Murasame visited the Colombo harbour on their way to join the Malabar exercise in the Bay of Bengal. The statement issued by the Japanese Embassy in Colombo regarding the ship visits didn’t mention their participation in the US-led exercise. The Japanese vessels left Colombo on Oct 4. Since Sri Lanka and Japan entered into a Comprehensive Partnership on Oct 1, 2015, there had been over 30 Japanese ship visits to the Colombo and Trincomalee harbours. Japanese Defence Minister Itsunori Onodera during an unprecedented visit in August 2018, declared in spite of the leasing of Hambantota port there was an agreement that the port remains free of military activities. Onedera was quoted as having said this after meeting President Sirisena and Premier Wickremesinghe. Onedera said he raised the Chinese issue with Sri Lanka. President Gotabaya Rajapaksa held a teleconference with Japanese Defence Minister Kishi Nobuo in July this year.

While Gen Naravane paid floral tribute to the IPKF war memorial at Pelawatte, Battaramulla, and subsequently observed joint exercise ‘Mitra Shakthi VIII’ at the Maduru Oya Special Forces Training School (SFTS) grounds, Chief of Naval Staff, Indian Navy, Admiral Karambir Singh interacted with the US Navy in the Bay of Bengal. Chief of US Naval Operations Admiral Michael Gilday hosted Admiral Karambir Singh and 11 other senior military officials aboard the nuclear-powered Nimitz-class aircraft carrier Carl Vinson in the Bay of Bengal.

“This visit to Carl Vinson during Malabar was an important opportunity to see first-hand the integration between our two navies at-sea,” Adm Gilday said in a statement issued by the U.S. Navy. “By our navies continuing to exercise together, as we are doing right now alongside Japanese and Australian naval forces, there is no doubt our partnership will only continue to grow. Cooperation, when applied with naval power, promotes freedom and peace, and prevents coercion, intimidation and aggression.”

At Maduru Oya an all arms contingent of 120 Jawans and an equal number of Vijayabahu Infantry Regiment concluded the exercise on Oct 15 that commenced on Oct.3

During the deployment of the IPKF (July 1987-March 1990), the then Captain Naravane had served in Trincomalee. The Indian Army website merely stated that Naravane, commissioned in The Sikh Light Infantry Regiment in Jun 1980, had been part of the IPKF in Sri Lanka.

The detections made by the Navy in the seas off Point Pedro and Vettilaikerni during Gen. Naravane’s visit highlighted the problems caused by Indian fishers brazenly invading Sri Lankan waters. The detections led to the arrest of 23 Indian poachers along with two fishing vessels engaged in bottom trawling on Oct 13, the day after General Naravane’s arrival. Quad member India has the wherewithal to thwart large scale crossings across the Indo-Lanka maritime boundary though it continues to turn a blind eye.

The threat posed by Covid-19 gave the Indian fishing fleet an opportunity to poach quite freely in Sri Lankan waters. The Navy apprehended five fishing vessels along with 54 Indian poachers on March 24, 2021. That was the detection made prior to it limiting operations due to the Covid threat.

Fisheries Minister Douglas Devananda, during a meeting he had with Indian FS Shringla, raised the contentious issue of large scale destructive poaching on an industrial scale. Interestingly, statements issued by both India and Sri Lanka conveniently refrained from commenting on the issue at hand. However, Fisheries Ministry briefed the media regarding the problem of large scale poaching by Indian fishermen affecting the livelihoods of their counterparts here. Minister Devananda should receive the appreciation of all Sri Lankans for taking up the issue at hand. During his meeting with Shringla, Devananda, who had been among those who received terrorist training, courtesy India in the early 80s, complained about massive continuing destruction caused by the Indian fishing fleet, particularly through bottom trawling, a practice banned world over. Devananda has explained the immeasurable losses caused by destructive methods adopted by the Indian fishing fleet in Sri Lankan territorial waters. In spite of a series of talks between India and Sri Lanka, industrial scale poaching continues unabated much to the disappointment of the Northern and Eastern Province Tamil speaking community. About a week after his meeting with Shringla, Devananda took up the issue with the visiting senior BJP politician Subramanian Swamy. Devananda subsequently told the media Swamy, who serves as a nominated Member of Parliament in Rajya Sabha, the upper house of the Indian Parliament acknowledged the need to curb Indian poaching.

Focus on energy security

 Two other issues that had received much media attention were the future of the Trincomalee oil tank farm, with the Samagi Jana Balavegaya (SJB) and Energy Minister Udaya Gammanpila trading accusations over the status of the strategic assets and the controversial agreement with US-based New Fortress Energy Inc. The company has declared that it struck a deal with Sri Lanka to supply 1.2 million gallons of liquefied natural gas to supply a plant it is planning to buy a stake in and others. In a statement dated Sept 21, New Fortress said they had executed a ‘definitive agreement’ to invest in West Coast Power Ltd, a firm in which the government has a controlling stake, but operations and maintenance is done by a private company.

 Controversy surrounds the Indian role in Trincomalee oil tank farm and the stealthy US investment in the energy sector. Sri Lanka seems to be utterly disorganised in its dealings with foreign powers as well as investors. A glaring case in point is the Trincomalee oil tank farm. Gammanpila insisted that in terms of an agreement the then UNP-led UNF signed on Feb.07, 2003 those 99 oil tanks had been handed over to India, whereas SJB lawmaker Kabir Hashim says only 15 were handed over and they, too, would be returned to Sri Lanka in 2023. The Finance Ministry should set the record straight. Lawmaker Hashim, one-time Chairman of the UNP is on record as having claimed their government only signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) in respect of 15 oil tanks, while Gammanpila demanded in Parliament that MoU be presented. Gammanpila believes Indian agents and their puppets are working overtime to thwart his plans to regain the oil tank farm.

 Shringla, accompanied by Indian High Commissioner in Colombo Gopal Baglay, visited the Lanka IOC facility. It was Baglay’s second visit there this year. Eldos Mathew Punnoose, Head – Press, Information and Development Cooperation at the Indian High Commission in Colombo, dealt with a range of issues taken up during the high profile visit. Referring to Shringla’s visits to Kandy, Trincomalee and Jaffna, signifying their cultural, economic and historical importance, respectively, the Indian HC spokesperson said: “In Kandy, the visiting Foreign Secretary offered prayers at the Sri Dalada Maligawa. In Trincomalee, the Foreign Secretary visited the Oil Tank Farms, a symbol of the potential and strong energy partnership between the two countries, where LIOC briefed him about the development undertaken by it at the Lower Tank Farms and its advantages to Sri Lanka’s economy. During his visit to Jaffna, the Foreign Secretary inspected the Jaffna Cultural Centre and interacted with the Governor of the Northern Province, several Members of Parliament, academicians and business leaders.”

The Federation of National Organisation (FNO) recently complained to the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption (CIABOC) against the agreement with New Fortress. The FNO that backed the SLPP at the 2019 presidential and 2020 parliamentary election called for an investigation into the conduct of the Treasury Secretary S.R. Attygalle. The civil society organisation questioned the responsibility on the part of the Cabinet of ministers in signing the agreement with New Fortress. Having lodged a complaint with the CIABOC, FNO convener Dr. Gunadasa Amarasekera told the media, waiting outside, that the US energy deal should be examined against the backdrop of continuing ‘confrontation’ between Quad and China. Malcolm Cardinal Ranjith and Ven Elle Gunawansa moving the Supreme Court against the New Fortress deal must have surprised the government.

US Ambassador to Sri Lanka and the Maldives, Alaina Teplitz in April this year warned Sri Lanka of unplanned consequences of nefarious actors, who may try to misuse a China-funded Colombo Port City’s easy business rules as a permissive money laundering haven amid concerns of tax leaks. Any legislation relating to the Port City has to be considered very carefully for its economic impact, Teplitz told a selected group of journalists in an online discussion. And, of course among those unintended consequences could be creating a haven for money launderers and other sorts of nefarious actors to take advantage of what was perceived as a permissive business environment for activities that would actually be illegal.

In spite of on and off protests/opposition, both in and out of Parliament, India and China have quite successfully pursued their strategies. The recently concluded agreement on the proposed Colombo Port’s Western Container Terminal (WCT) can be cited as an example of the successful Indian strategy. After intense protests derailed previous plans to invest in the East Container Terminal (ECT), India’s Adani Group late last month sealed a deal with the Sri Lanka Ports Authority (SLPA) to build, develop and run the proposed WCT.

 India is the second foreign port operator in Sri Lanka. China secured a terminal at the Colombo port during Mahinda Rajapaksa’s tenure as the President. Colombo International Container Terminals Ltd., (CICT) is a joint venture Company between China Merchants Port Holdings Co., Ltd. (CMPort) and the SLPA. China holds 85% of the partnership whereas the balance 15% is held by SLPA. At the Hambantota port, too, China took 85% while the SLPA retained 15%. Now the agreement with Adani Group, too, has been finalised on the same lines with the SLPA given 15 % while Adani Group and its local agent John Keells Holdings shared the remaining stake 51 % and 34%, respectively.

This should be examined against the backdrop of the SLPA signing a memorandum of cooperation in May 2019 with India and Japan to develop the ECT during the previous Sirisena government. The Colombo Port trade unions opposed that proposal to give investors from India and Japan 49 % stake in the ETC and Sri Lanka to hold 51%. They demanded the ECT to remain 100 percent owned by the SLPA as opposed to the 51 percent. Now, the SLPA has ended up with just 15% at the WCT.

 It would be relevant to stress that John Keells Holdings is among the consortium of companies that own the successful SAGT (South Asia Gateway Terminal) , the first shipping sector PPP (Public Private Partnership) established in 1999 during the Kumaratunga presidency. The primary stakeholders are Danish A.P. Moller Group and John Keells Holdings. Now, John Keells Holdings has expanded its influence by joining Adani Group in the proposed WCT project. Like at CICT and Hambantota projects, SLPA has received 15% of shares.

Time has come for the country to review the entire gamut of issues in respect of foreign investments and related matters. Examination of existing agreements prove that whoever in power had struck agreements in a way severely inimical to the national interest, but to the benefit of those responsible and accountable for ensuring the country’s best interest. Parliament should wake up.



Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Midweek Review

Batalanda and complexities of paramilitary operations

Published

on

Former President Ranil Wickremesinghe’s recent combative ‘Head-to-Head’ interview with British-American Mehdi Hasan on Al Jazeera has opened a can of worms. As to why Hasan raised the Batalanda Presidential Commission report, during a 49-minute interview conducted at the London’s Conway Hall, with a clearly pro LTTE audience, remains a mystery. This must be yet another notorious way to show how even-handed they are as in the case of its coverage of Russia, China, Palestine or Ukraine for their gullible viewers.

Recorded in February and aired in March 2025, the interview is definitely the most controversial the UNP leader, who is also an Attorney-at-Law, ever faced during his political career; always used to getting kid glove treatment, especially after taking over the party in 1994.

The continuing public discourse on Batalanda should provoke a wider discussion on Sri Lanka’s response to separatist Tamil terrorism, since the cold blooded murder of Jaffna SLFP Mayor Alfred Duriappah, which signalled the beginning of the LTTE terror campaign that ended in May 2009 with the crushing military defeat of the Tigers on the banks of the Nathikadal lagoon, as well as two southern insurgencies in 1971 and 1987-1990.

As Nandana Gunatilleke (one time JVP General Secretary and ex-MP), Dr. Wasantha Bandara (ex-JVPer and close associate of the slain JVP leader Rohana Wijeweera), Indrananda de Silva (ex-JVPer, incumbent Central Committee member of Frontline Socialist Party [FSP] and ex-military photographer) and Uvindu Wijeweera (Rohana Wijeweera’s son and leader of Dewana Parapura) agreed during the recent Hiru ‘Balaya’ discussion, conducted by Madushan de Silva, the Batalanda operation was in line with the overall counter-terrorist/insurgency strategy of the then government.

The issues at hand cannot be discussed at all without taking into consideration the JVP terrorism that, at one-time, almost overwhelmed the UNP’s unbroken rule, since 1977, carried out while openly brushing aside most of the universally accepted genuine parliamentary norms. The country’s second Republican constitution, promulgated by the UNP regime with a 5/6 majority in Parliament, in 1978, had been amended no less than 13 times by the time they were finally ousted in 1995. This was mainly to facilitate their continuous rule. Unfortunately, all stakeholders have sought to take advantage of Batalanda, thereby preventing a proper dialogue. Quite surprisingly, none of the guests, nor the interviewer, bothered, at least, to make a reference to the JVP bid on President J.R. Jayewardene’s life in Parliament on the morning of July 18, 1987. At the time, JVPer Ajith Kumara, working in the House as a minor employee, hurled two hand grenades towards JRJ, with the then Prime Minister Ranasinghe Premadasa seated next to JRJ. While one government MP lost his life, several others suffered injuries, including then National Security Minister Lalith Athulathmudali, whose spleen had to be removed.

At one point, Gunatilleke declared that they assassinated UNP MP for Tangalle Jinadasa Weerasinghe on July 3, 1987, in response to the government killing well over 100 people, in Colombo, protesting against the signing of the Indo-Lanka accord on July 29, 1987. The parliamentarian was killed near the Barawakumbuka-Welangahawela bridge on the Colombo-Rathnapura-Embilipitiya Road. The UNPer was killed on his way home after having declined Premier Premadasa’s offer to make an SLAF chopper available for him to reach home safely.

Against the backdrop of MP Weerasinghe’s assassination and the grenade attack on the UNP parliamentary group that claimed the life of Keethi Abeywickrema (MP for Deniyaya), the government had no option but to respond likewise. The operation, established at the Batalanda Housing scheme of the State Fertiliser Corporation, constituted part of the counter-insurgency strategy pursued by the UNP.

Those who called Batalanda complex Batalanda torture camp/ wadakagaraya conveniently forgot during the second JVP inspired insurgency, the military had to utilize many public buildings, including schools, as makeshift accommodation for troops. Of course the UNP established Batalanda under different circumstances with the then Industries Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe providing political authority. Batalanda had been an exclusive police operation though the Army had access to it whenever a requirement arose.

Those who had been suddenly withdrawn from the Northern and Eastern Provinces, to meet the rapidly evolving security threat in the South, required accommodation. FSP CC member Indrananada de Silva had received unhindered access to Batalanda in his capacity as a military photographer and the rest is history.

As to why Indrananda de Silva switched his allegiance to the FSP should be examined, taking into consideration his previous role as a trusted military photographer, formerly a Lance Corporal of the Military Police. An influential section of the JVP, led by Kumar Gunaratnam, formed the FSP in April 2012 though it didn’t receive the much anticipated public support. Both Indrananda de Silva and Nandana Gunatilleke, who aligned himself with the UNP, found fault with the JVP-led National People’s Power (NPP) over its handling of the Batalanada issue.

Paramilitary operations

Paramilitary operations had been an integral part of the overall counter-insurgency campaign, directed at the JVP responsible for approximately 6,600 killings. Among those death squads were PRRA primarily drawn from the SLMP (Sri Lanka Mahajana Party) and SRRA (the socialist Revolutionary Red Army). PRRA had close links with the Independent Student Union (ISU) whose leader Daya Pathirana was slain by the JVP. The vast majority of people do not remember that Daya Pathirana, who led the ISU during the turbulent 1985-1986 period, was killed mid-Dec. 1989. The second insurgency hadn’t started at that time though the JVP propagated the lie that they took up arms against the UNP government following the signing of the Indo-Lanka peace accord on July 29, 1987.

In addition to PRRA and SRRA, the government made use of paramilitary groups, namely Kalu balallu, Ukkusso, Rajaliyo, Kaha balallu, Kola koti, Rathu Makaru, Mapila, Gonussa, Nee, Keshara Sinhayo, Le-mappillu and Kalu koti.

The UNP also involved some elements of Indian trained Tamil groups (not of the LTTE) in paramilitary operations. Such operations, that had been backed by respective Cabinet Ministers, were supervised by local law enforcement authorities. Paramilitary operations had been in line with psychological warfare that was meant to cause fear among the JVP, as well as the general population. Military operations that had been combined with paramilitary actions received the blessings of the political leadership at the highest level. In the case of Batalanda (1988-1990) President J.R. Jayewardene and Ranasinghe Premadasa knew of its existence.

Even after the eradication of the top JVP leadership, by Nov. 1989, police, military and paramilitary operations continued unabated. Former JVPers appearing on ‘Balaya’ agreed that counter-insurgency operations were actually brought to an end only after D.B. Wijetunga succeeded President Ranasinghe Premadasa after the latter’s assassination on May Day 1993.

After the LTTE resumed war in June 1990, just a couple of months after the withdrawal of the Indian Army (July 1987-March1990), the UNP authorized paramilitary operations in the northern and eastern areas. Members of TELO, PLOTE, EPRLF as well as EPDP were made part of the overall government security strategy. They operated in large groups. Some paramilitary units were deployed in the Jaffna islands as well. And these groups were represented in Parliament. They enjoyed privileged status not only in the northern and eastern regions but Colombo as well. The government allowed them to carry weapons in the city and its suburbs.

These groups operated armed units in Colombo. The writer had the opportunity to visit EPDP and PLOTE safe houses in Colombo and its suburbs soon after they reached an understanding with President Ranasinghe Premadasa. Overnight at the behest of President Premadasa, the Election Department granted these Tamil groups political recognition. In other words, armed groups were made political parties. The Premadasa government accepted their right to carry weapons while being represented in Parliament.

It would be pertinent to mention that thousands of Tamil paramilitary personnel served the government during that period. There had been many confrontations between them and the LTTE over the years and the latter sought to eliminate key paramilitary personnel. Let me remind you of the circumstances, the EPRLF’s number 02 Thambirajah Subathiran alias Robert was sniped to death in June 2003. Robert was engaged in routine morning exercises on the top floor of the two-storeyed EPRLF office, on the hospital road, Jaffna, when an LTTE sniper took him out from the nearby Vembadi Girls’ high school. The operation of the Norway managed Ceasefire Agreement (CFA) made no difference as the LTTE removed Robert who led the party here in the absence of leader Varatharaja Perumal, the first and the only Chief Minister of the North-Eastern Province.

In terms of the CFA that had been signed by Premier Ranil Wickremesinghe and LTTE leader Velupillai Prabhakaran, in Feb. 2002, the government agreed to disarm all paramilitary personnel. Many wouldn’t remember now that during Premadasa’s honeymoon with the LTTE, the Army facilitated the LTTE onslaught on paramilitary groups in selected areas.

Muthaliff’s role

During the ‘Balaya’ discussion, the contentious issue of who shot JVP leader Rohana Wijeweera came up. Nandana Gunatilleke, who contested the 1999 Dec. presidential election. as the JVP candidate, pointing to an article carried in the party organ that dealt with Wijeweera’s assassination said that he wrongly named Gaffoor as one of the persons who shot their leader whereas the actual shooter was Muthaliff. The headline named Thoradeniya and Gaffoor as the perpetrators.

Declaring that he personally wrote that article on the basis of information provided by Indrananda de Silva, Gunatilleke named Asoka Thoradeniya and Tuan Nizam Muthaliff of the Army as the perpetrators of the crime. Thoradeniya served as Sri Lanka’s High Commissioner in the Maldives during the Yahapalana administration, while Muthaliff was killed by the LTTE in Colombo in late May 2005. The shooting took place at Polhengoda junction, Narahenpita. Muthaliff was on his way from Manning town, Narahenpita, to the Kotelawala Defence University.

The programme was told that the JVP had over the years developed close relationship with Thoradeniya while Indrananda de Silva accused Dr. Wasantha Bandara of duplicity regarding Muthaliff. How could you recognize Muthaliff, slain by the LTTE, as a war hero as he was actually one of the persons who shot Rohana Wijeweera, the latter asked.

At the time of his assassination, Muthaliff served as the Commanding Officer, 1 st Regiment Sri Lanka Military Intelligence Corps. The then parliamentarian Wimal Weerawansa was among those who paid last respects to Maj. Muthaliff.

At the time of Rohana Wijeweera’s arrest, Muthaliff served as Lieutenant while Thoradeniya was a Major. Indrananda de Silva strongly stressed that atrocities perpetrated by the police and military in the South or in the northern and eastern regions must be dealt with regardless of whom they were conducting operations against. The former JVPer recalled the Army massacre in the east in retaliation for the landmine blast that claimed the lives of Northern Commander Maj. Gen. Denzil Kobbekaduwa and a group of senior officers, including Brigadier Wijaya Wimalaratne, in early Aug. 1990 in Kayts.

Dr. Wasantha Bandara warned of the Western powers taking advantage of what he called false narrative to push for a Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

It would be pertinent to mention that the LTTE also used the underworld as well as some corrupt Army personnel in planning high profile assassinations. Investigations into the assassination of Muthaliff, as well as Maj. Gen. Parami Kulatunga, killed in a suicide attack at Pannipitiya, in June 2006, revealed the direct involvement of military personnel with the LTTE.

Indrananda de Silva disclosed that soon after Anura Kumara Dissanayake won the presidential election last September, the FSP, in writing, requested the JVP leader to inquire into killings during that period, including that of Rohana Wijeweera. The FSPer alleged that President Dissanayake refrained from even acknowledging their letter. Indrananda de Silva emphasized that Al Jazeera never disclosed anything new as regards Batalanda as he exposed the truth years ago. The former JVPer ridiculed the ruling party tabling the Batalanda Commission report in the wake of Wickremesinghe’s Al Jazeera interview whereas the matter was in the public domain for quite some time.

Indrananda de Silva and Nandana Gunatilleke exchanged words over the latter’s declaration that the JVP, too, was subjected to investigation for violence unleashed during the 1987-1990 period. While the FSPer repeatedly declared that those who carried out directives issued by the party were arrested and in some cases killed, Nandana Gunatilleke took up the position that the party should be held accountable for crimes perpetrated during that period.

The interviewer posed Nandana Gunatilleke the question whether he was betraying his former comrades after joining the UNP. Nandana Gunatilleke shot back that he joined the UNP in 2015 whereas the JVP joined UNP as far back as 2009 to promote retired Army Chef Sarath Fonseka’s presidential ambition even though he wiped out the JVP presence in Trincomalee region during the second insurgency.

JVP’s accountability

Nandana Gunatilleke is adamant that the party should accept responsibility for the killings carried out at that time. The former JVPer declared that Vijaya Kumaratunga (Feb. 16, 1988), first Vice Chancellor of the Colombo University (March 08, 1989) Dr. Stanley Wijesundera, Ven. Kotikawatte Saddhatissa thera (Aug. 03, 1988) and Chairperson of the State Pharmaceutical Corporation Gladys Jayewardene (Sept. 12, 1989) were among those assassinated by the JVP. SPC Chairperson was killed for importing medicine from India, the former Marxist aligned with the UNP said, while actor-turned-politician Kumaratunga’s assassination was attributed to his dealings with President J.R. Jayewardene.

According to Nandana Gunatilleke, except for a few killings such as General Secretaries of the UNP Harsha Abeywickrema (Dec 23, 1987) and Nandalal Fernando (May 20, 1988), the vast majority of others were ordinary people like grama sevakas killed on mere accusation of being informants. The deaths were ordered on the basis of hearsay, Nandana Gunatilleke said, much to the embarrassment of others who represented the interest of the JVP at that time.

One quite extraordinary moment during the ‘Balaya’ programme was when Nandana Gunatilleke revealed their (JVP’s) direct contact with the Indian High Commission at a time the JVP publicly took an extremely anti-Indian stance. In fact, the JVP propagated a strong anti-Indian line during the insurgency. Turning towards Dr. Wasantha Bandara, Gunatilleke disclosed that both of them had been part of the dialogue with the Indian High Commission.

It reminds me of the late Somawansa Amarasinghe’s first public address delivered at a JVP rally in late Nov. 2001 after returning home from 12 years of self-imposed exile. Of the top JVP leadership, Somawansa Amarasinghe, who had been married to a close relative of powerful UNP Minister Sirisena Cooray, was the only one to survive combined police/military/paramilitary operations.

Amarasinghe didn’t mince his words when he declared at a Kalutara rally that his life was saved by Indian Premier V.P. Singh. Soft spoken Amarasinghe profusely thanked India for saving his life. Unfortunately, those who discuss issues at hand conveniently forget crucial information in the public domain. Such lapses can be both deliberate and due to negligence.

By Shamindra Ferdinando

Continue Reading

Midweek Review

Independent Monitor

Published

on

You may think sloth comes very easy,

To your kingly monitor of the shrinking marsh,

As he lies basking smugly in the morn sun,

But he is organized and alert all the while,

As he awaits his prey with patience infinite,

Free of malice, a professional of a kind,

His cumbrous body not slowing his sprite….

But note, he’s no conspirator spitting guile,

And doesn’t turn nasty unless crossed,

Nor by vengeful plans is he constantly dogged,

Unlike those animals of a more rational kind,

Whose ways have left behind a state so sorry.

By Lynn Ockersz

Continue Reading

Midweek Review

Rajiva on Batalanda controversy, govt.’s failure in Geneva and other matters

Published

on

Wickremesinghe responds to Hasan during the controversial interview recorded in London

Former President Ranil Wickremesinghe’s recent interview with Mehdi Hasan on Al Jazeera’s ‘Head-to-Head’ series has caused controversy, both in and outside Parliament, over the role played by Wickremesinghe in the counter-insurgency campaign in the late’80s.

The National People’s Power (NPP) seeking to exploit the developing story to its advantage has ended up with egg on its face as the ruling party couldn’t disassociate from the violent past of the JVP. The debate on the damning Presidential Commission report on Batalanda, on April 10, will remind the country of the atrocities perpetrated not only by the UNP, but as well as by the JVP.

The Island sought the views of former outspoken parliamentarian and one-time head of the Government Secretariat for Coordinating the Peace Process (SCOPP) Prof. Rajiva Wijesinha on a range of issues, with the focus on Batalanda and the failure on the part of the war-winning country to counter unsubstantiated war crimes accusations.

Q:

The former President and UNP leader Ranil Wickremesinghe’s interview with Al Jazeera exposed the pathetic failure on the part of Sri Lanka to address war crimes accusations and accountability issues. In the face of aggressive interviewer Mehdi Hasan on ‘Head-to-Head,’ Wickremesinghe struggled pathetically to counter unsubstantiated accusations. Six-time Premier Wickremesinghe who also served as President (July 2022-Sept. 2024) seemed incapable of defending the war-winning armed forces. However, the situation wouldn’t have deteriorated to such an extent if President Mahinda Rajapaksa, who gave resolute political leadership during that war, ensured a proper defence of our armed forces in its aftermath as well-choreographed LTTE supporters were well in place, with Western backing, to distort and tarnish that victory completely. As wartime Secretary General of the Government’s Secretariat for Coordinating the Peace Process (since June 2007 till the successful conclusion of the war) and Secretary to the Ministry of Disaster Management and Human Rights (since Jun 2008) what do you think of Wickremesinghe’s performance?

A:

It made him look very foolish, but this is not surprising since he has no proper answers for most of the questions put to him. Least surprising was his performance with regard to the forces, since for years he was part of the assault forces on the successful Army, and expecting him to defend them is like asking a fox to stand guard on chickens.

Q:

In spite of trying to overwhelm Wickremesinghe before a definitely pro-LTTE audience at London’s Conway Hall, Hasan further exposed the hatchet job he was doing by never referring to the fact that the UNP leader, in his capacity as the Yahapalana Premier, co-sponsored the treacherous Geneva Resolution in Oc., 2015, against one’s own victorious armed forces. Hasan, Wickremesinghe and three panelists, namely Frances Harrison, former BBC-Sri Lanka correspondent, Director of International Truth and Justice Project and author of ‘Still Counting the Dead: Survivors of Sri Lanka’s Hidden War,’ Dr. Madura Rasaratnam, Executive Director of PEARL (People for Equality and Relief in Lanka) and former UK and EU MP and Wickremesinghe’s presidential envoy, Niranjan Joseph de Silva Deva Aditya, never even once referred to India’s accountability during the programme recorded in late February but released in March. As a UPFA MP (2010-2015) in addition to have served as Peace Secretariat Chief and Secretary to the Disaster Management and Human Rights Ministry, could we discuss the issues at hand leaving India out?

A:

I would not call the interview a hatchet job since Hasan was basically concerned about Wickremesinghe’s woeful record with regard to human rights. In raising his despicable conduct under Jayewardene, Hasan clearly saw continuity, and Wickremesinghe laid himself open to this in that he nailed his colours to the Rajapaksa mast in order to become President, thus making it impossible for him to revert to his previous stance. Sadly, given how incompetent both Wickremesinghe and Rajapaksa were about defending the forces, one cannot expect foreigners to distinguish between them.

Q:

You are one of the many UPFA MPs who backed Maithripala Sirisena’s candidature at the 2015 presidential election. The Sirisena-Wickremesinghe duo perpetrated the despicable act of backing the Geneva Resolution against our armed forces and they should be held responsible for that. Having thrown your weight behind the campaign to defeat Mahinda Rajapaksa’s bid to secure a third term, did you feel betrayed by the Geneva Resolution? And if so, what should have the Yahapalana administration done?

A:

By 2014, given the total failure of the Rajapaksas to deal firmly with critiques of our forces, resolutions against us had started and were getting stronger every year. Mahinda Rajapaksa laid us open by sacking Dayan Jayatilleke who had built up a large majority to support our victory against the Tigers, and appointed someone who intrigued with the Americans. He failed to fulfil his commitments with regard to reforms and reconciliation, and allowed for wholesale plundering, so that I have no regrets about working against him at the 2015 election. But I did not expect Wickremesinghe and his cohorts to plunder, too, and ignore the Sirisena manifesto, which is why I parted company with the Yahapalanaya administration, within a couple of months.

I had expected a Sirisena administration to pursue some of the policies associated with the SLFP, but he was a fool and his mentor Chandrika was concerned only with revenge on the Rajapaksas. You cannot talk about betrayal when there was no faith in the first place. But I also blame the Rajapaksas for messing up the August election by attacking Sirisena and driving him further into Ranil’s arms, so that he was a pawn in his hands.

Q:

Have you advised President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s government how to counter unsubstantiated war crimes allegations propagated by various interested parties, particularly the UN, on the basis of the Panel of Experts (PoE) report released in March 2011? Did the government accept your suggestions/recommendations?

A:

Prof. Rajiva Wijesinha

I kept trying, but Mahinda was not interested at all, and had no idea about how to conduct international relations. Sadly, his Foreign Minister was hanging around behind Namal, and proved incapable of independent thought, in his anxiety to gain further promotion. And given that I was about the only person the international community, that was not prejudiced, took seriously – I refer to the ICRC and the Japanese with whom I continued to work, and, indeed, the Americans, until the Ambassador was bullied by her doctrinaire political affairs officer into active undermining of the Rajapaksas – there was much jealousy, so I was shut out from any influence.

But even the admirable effort, headed by Godfrey Gunatilleke, was not properly used. Mahinda Rajapaksa seemed to me more concerned with providing joy rides for people rather than serious counter measures, and representation in Geneva turned into a joke, with him even undermining Tamara Kunanayagam, who, when he supported her, scored a significant victory against the Americans, in September 2011. The Ambassador, who had been intriguing with her predecessor, then told her they would get us in March, and with a little help from their friends here, they succeeded.

Q:

As the writer pointed out in his comment on Wickremesinghe’s controversial Al Jazeera interview, the former Commander-in-Chief failed to mention critically important matters that could have countered Hasan’ s line of questioning meant to humiliate Sri Lanka?

A:

How could you have expected that, since his primary concern has always been himself, not the country, let alone the armed forces?

Q:

Do you agree that Western powers and an influential section of the international media cannot stomach Sri Lanka’s triumph over separatist Tamil terrorism?

A:

There was opposition to our victory from the start, but this was strengthened by the failure to move on reconciliation, creating the impression that the victory against the Tigers was seen by the government as a victory against Tamils. The failure of the Foreign Ministry to work with journalists was lamentable, and the few exceptions – for instance the admirable Vadivel Krishnamoorthy in Chennai or Sashikala Premawardhane in Canberra – received no support at all from the Ministry establishment.

Q:

A couple of months after the 2019 presidential election, Gotabaya Rajapaksa declared his intention to withdraw from the Geneva process. On behalf of Sri Lanka that announcement was made in Geneva by the then Foreign Minister Dinesh Gunawardena, who became the Premier during Wickremesinghe’s tenure as the President. That declaration was meant to hoodwink the Sinhala community and didn’t alter the Geneva process and even today the project is continuing. As a person who had been closely involved in the overall government response to terrorism and related matters, how do you view the measures taken during Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s short presidency to counter Geneva?

A:

What measures? I am reminded of the idiocy of the responses to the Darusman report by Basil and Gotabaya Rajapaksa, who went on ego trips and produced unreadable volumes trying to get credit for themselves as to issues of little interest to the world. They were planned in response to Darusman, but when I told Gotabaya that his effort was just a narrative of action, he said that responding to Darusman was not his intention. When I said that was necessary, he told me he had asked Chief-of-Staff Roshan Goonetilleke to do that, but Roshan said he had not been asked and had not been given any resources.

My own two short booklets which took the Darusman allegations to pieces were completely ignored by the Foreign Ministry.

Q:

Against the backdrop of the Geneva betrayal in 2015 that involved the late Minister Mangala Samaraweera, how do you view President Wickremesinghe’s response to the Geneva threat?

A: Wickremesinghe did not see Geneva as a threat at all. Who exactly is to blame for the hardening of the resolution, after our Ambassador’s efforts to moderate it, will require a straightforward narrative from the Ambassador, Ravinatha Ariyasinha, who felt badly let down by his superiors. Geneva should not be seen as a threat, since as we have seen follow through is minimal, but we should rather see it as an opportunity to put our own house in order.

Q:

President Anura Kumara Dissanayake recently questioned both the loyalty and professionalism of our armed forces credited with defeating Northern and Southern terrorism. There hadn’t been a previous occasion, a President or a Premier, under any circumstances, questioned the armed forces’ loyalty or professionalism. We cannot also forget the fact that President Dissanayake is the leader of the once proscribed JVP responsible for death and destruction during 1971 and 1987-1990 terror campaigns. Let us know of your opinion on President Dissanayake’s contentious comments on the armed forces?

A: I do not see them as contentious, I think what is seen as generalizations was critiques of elements in the forces. There have been problems, as we saw from the very different approach of Sarath Fonseka and Daya Ratnayake, with regard to civilian casualties, the latter having planned a campaign in the East which led to hardly any civilian deaths. But having monitored every day, while I headed the Peace Secretariat, all allegations, and obtained explanations of what happened from the forces, I could have proved that they were more disciplined than other forces in similar circumstances.

The violence of the JVP and the LTTE and other such groups was met with violence, but the forces observed some rules which I believe the police, much more ruthlessly politicized by Jayewardene, failed to do. The difference in behaviour between the squads led for instance by Gamini Hettiarachchi and Ronnie Goonesinghe makes this clear.

Q:

Mehdi Hasan also strenuously questioned Wickremesinghe on his role in the UNP’s counter-terror campaign during the 1987-1990 period. The British-American journalists of Indian origins attacked Wickremesinghe over the Batalanda Commission report that had dealt with extra-judicial operations carried out by police, acting on the political leadership given by Wickremesinghe. What is your position?

A:

Wickremesinghe’s use of thugs’ right through his political career is well known. I still recall my disappointment, having thought better of him, when a senior member of the UNP, who disapproved thoroughly of what Jayewardene had done to his party, told me that Wickremesinghe was not honest because he used thugs. In ‘My Fair Lady,’ the heroine talks about someone to whom gin was mother’s milk, and for Wickremesinghe violence is mother’s milk, as can be seen by the horrors he associated with.

The latest revelations about Deshabandu Tennakoon, whom he appointed IGP despite his record, makes clear his approval for extra-judicial operations.

Q:

Finally, will you explain how to counter war crimes accusations as well as allegations with regard to the counter-terror campaign in the’80s?

A:

I do not think it is possible to counter allegations about the counter-terror campaign of the eighties, since many of those allegations, starting with the Welikada Prison massacre, which Wickremesinghe’s father admitted to me the government had engendered, are quite accurate. And I should stress that the worst excesses, such as the torture and murder of Wijeyedasa Liyanaarachchi, happened under Jayewardene, since there is a tendency amongst the elite to blame Premadasa. He, to give him his due, was genuine about a ceasefire, which the JVP ignored, foolishly in my view though they may have had doubts about Ranjan Wijeratne’s bona fides.

With regard to war crimes accusations, I have shown how, in my ‘Hard Talk’ interview, which you failed to mention in describing Wickeremesinghe’s failure to respond coherently to Hasan. The speeches Dayan Jayatilleke and I made in Geneva make clear what needed and still needs to be done, but clear sighted arguments based on a moral perspective that is more focused than the meanderings, and the frequent hypocrisy, of critics will not now be easy for the country to furnish.

 

By Shamindra Ferdinando

Continue Reading

Trending