Midweek Review

Mother of all challenges faced by SLPP!

Published

5 years ago

2021/12/29

Sahan Weerasooriya

Yugadanavi legal wrangle:

By Shamindra Ferdinando

The Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) government faces an overwhelming challenge from within, at the beginning of the New Year. The continuing dispute between the SLPP and a section of its constituent parties is threatening to overwhelm the ruling coalition over the backdoor offer by the New York-based US Company to purchase a 40 percent stake in Yugadanavi Power Plant, along with an almost monopoly status to supply LNG.

The SLPP appeared to have been caught off guard by three ministers, Vasudeva Nanayakkara (General Secretary, Democratic Left Front), Wimal Weerawansa (Leader, the National Freedom Front) and Attorney-at-Law Udaya Gammanpila (Leader, the Pivithuru Hela Urumaya), throwing their weight behind petitions against the deal. The three constituents have eight lawmakers in Parliament.

The Supreme Court will resume hearing the Fundamental Rights petitions challenging the Yugadanavi-related deals in the second week of January. A fuller bench of the SC heard those petitions on Dec 16 and 17, 2021. The next hearing is set for January 10, 2022, before a five-judge-bench consisting of Chief Justice Jayantha Jayasuriya, Justice Buwaneka Aluwihare, Justice Priyantha Jayawardena, Justice Vijith Malalgoda and Justice L.T.B. Dehideniya.

The Yugadanavi hearing will resume a week before Parliament meets again, following the much-debated prorogation. The President resorted to a tactical move in the wake of Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) leader Anura Kumara Dissanayake tabling the hither to secret Yugadanavi agreement. The JVPer delivered a knockout blow a few hours before the vote on the 2022 Budget on Dec 10 evening.

President Gotabaya Rajapaksa prorogued Parliament immediately after the House approved the 2022 Budget. The Parliament is scheduled to meet again on January 18. Whatever the outcome of the Yugadanavi case, it’ll deliver a debilitating setback to the ruling coalition, struggling on several fronts. However, the relations between the two groups, in the coalition, have deteriorated so much, the SLPP and the rebellious partners may not be in a position to resolve their differences, out of Court. And if the differences are irreconcilable within the SLPP, the breakup of the coalition may become inevitable, especially with other dissenters in its own ranks, smarting from the fact they did not get any Cabinet portfolios to use the opportunity to teach the ruling clique a lesson. But they may very well end up cutting their proverbial nose to spite the face. But since the rebels took a principled and not a spiteful stand on the issue, both the President and PM will likely treat the partner rebellion as a storm in a tea cup. Premier Mahinda Rajapaksa has already stated in public that the rebel coalition partners have a right to dissent.

The declaration that Attorney General Sanjay Rajaratnam, PC, wouldn’t appear for the three ministers supporting the challenge, however, underscored the crisis within the government. They have retained private Counsel.

In addition to Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa, the Cabinet of Ministers, New Fortress Energy Inc., West Coast Power (Private) Limited, the Ceylon Electricity Board, the AG is a respondent in this case.

The case is heard in terms of Article 132(3) of the Constitution. The petitioners are Samagi Jana Balavegaya General Secretary Ranjith Madduma Bandara, former JVP Parliamentarians Sunil

Hadunneththi and Wasantha Samarasinghe, Archbishop of Colombo Malcolm Cardinal Ranjith, Ven. Elle Gunawansa Thera and Viduli Sevaka Sangamaya have moved the Supreme Court against the agreements between the government and New Fortress Energy Inc., in relation to the sale of 40% of the shares of Yugadanavi Power Plant, located at Kerawalapitiya.

The petitioners said on 7th of July 2021, the framework agreement was signed between the government of Sri Lanka and New Fortress Energy Inc., for the disposal of 40% of the total shares held by West Coast Power (Private) Limited in the Yugadanavi (Pvt) Ltd for USD 250 million. Critics have repeatedly pointed out that there was nothing wrong in selling the 40 percent stake for that amount, the problem lay in the fact that New Fortress was also getting a monopoly status to supply LNG, ostensibly for five years, at the beginning, but who knows what would happen later on once they get themselves entrenched here with the corrupt bureaucracy and politicians.

Earlier both the CEB and Telecom were wrangled in so many corrupt deals, especially involving certain French multi-nationals, but many of them were undone especially during the tenure of former Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe in the 1990s. Such deals were a drain on the private sector-friendly UNP government. So finally Western lenders themselves told the French enough was enough. It was a case of French selling us outdated equipment and charging us premium prices to keep them going. For example in those days after each heavy downpour many telephone lines in the country would go dead, but luckily for us all that was corrected with the privatisation of Telecom by Minister Mangala Samaraweera and clipping of the wings of the then all-powerful trade union UPTO. It was a classic case of trapping them using their greed.

The petitioners said agreements had been further entered for the execution of the Terminal Project which includes Floating Storage Regasification Unit (FSRU), Mooring system and the Pipelines, and the supply of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) to West Coast Power (Pvt) Ltd.

They state that to the best of their knowledge, the Share Sales and Purchase Agreement (SSPA) pertaining for the sale of 40% of the shares in West Coast Power (Pvt) Ltd., and the Gas Supply Agreements have not been placed before the Cabinet of Ministers to date.

Bundling the contracts for the Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) terminal, construction of pipelines and Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) supply in a single unsolicited proposal and awarding them to a foreign-based company, without following a transparent procedure, poses a serious threat to the national energy security of the country, they point out.

They said the proposal to purchase 40% of the shares in the West Coast Power (Private) Limited is contrary to the National Energy Policy and Strategies.

Manohara and Romesh on
opposing sides

Perhaps, the top SLPP leadership believed the trio wouldn’t go the whole hog though they opposed the deal. However, following consultations among the rebel group, the DLF, NFF and PHU decided to challenge the Cabinet of ministers in the Supreme Court even at the risk of losing their ministerial portfolios. Their relationship with the dominant partner has been damaged severely. In fact, irreparable damage may have been caused.

When the writer sought an explanation from Minister Gammanpila, one-time heavyweight of the Jathika Hela Urumaya (JHU), the lawmaker didn’t mince his words. “Whatever happens, we cannot remain committed to the so called collective responsibility of the Cabinet at the expense of national interest.

Dismissing the Attorney General’s stand vis-a-vis the defiant ministerial group, lawmaker Gammanpila declared that either those (three ministers) or the Attorney General had lied to the Supreme Court in respect of the Yugadanavi deal. Underscoring the fact that both represented the government, lawyer Gammanpila pointed out that in case the Supreme Court ruled one party furnished falsehood in an affidavit that party faced a three-year prison term.

The five-judge bench dismissed the Attorney General’s assertion that as the fundamental rights cases hadn’t been filed within the stipulated period, they should be dismissed. Having proposed to conduct proceedings on Dec 21 and 22 following hearings on Dec 16 and 17, judges put off the proceedings to January 10, 2022, on a request by the Attorney General. If not for the Attorney General’s plea, a lot more would have been in the public domain now.

Two of the country’s top lawyers, Manohara de Silva, PC and Romesh de Silva, PC, appeared for the opposing sides. Manohara, who openly campaigned against the yahapalana lot, appeared for petitioner Lanka Viduli Sevaka Sangamaya whereas Romesh represented respondent the Ceylon Electricity Board (CEB). The case has taken an unexpected turn with the disclosure of CEB Chairman M.C. Ferdinando’s controversial role in the whole process, particularly his endorsement of the agreement as an Advisor to the Finance Ministry. Ferdinando is the seventh among 73 respondents named in a petition filed by 12 persons represented by Manohara de Silva, PC. Interestingly, three Commissioners of the CIABOC (Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption) are among the respondents.

What really made the submissions made by Manohara and Romesh interesting was their role in the new Constitution making process. The nine member expert team tasked with producing a draft constitution consists of Romesh de Silva (Chairperson), Gamini Marapana PC, Manohara de Silva PC, Sanjeewa Jayawardena PC, Prof. Naseema Kamurdeen, Dr. A. Sarveshwaran, Samantha Ratwatte PC, Prof. Wasantha Seneviratne and Prof. G.H. Peiris.

They haven’t been able to bring the process to a successful conclusion so far though the government repeatedly assured both in and out of Parliament, the draft Constitution would be presented by President Gotabaya Rajapaksa before completing two years in office. That failure cannot be blamed on the Covid-19 global epidemic. Silly efforts to blame everything on Covid-19 reached a new level when Provincial Council and Local Government State Minister Roshan Ranasinghe asserted that Local Government polls scheduled to take place before the third week of March 2022 was unlikely due to the threat posed by the new COVID variant Omicron.

Before examination of submissions made before the Supreme Court, it would be pertinent to mention that the Attorney General conceded before the five-judge bench the agreement on energy didn’t come within the laid down procurement process. The Attorney General, however, took up the stand that there is no basis for the case. Uditha Igalahewa, PC, appeared for the ministers.

Manohara issues dire warning

The Counsel for Lanka Viduli Sevaka Sangamaya has asserted in court that the Yugadanavi deal posed quite a threat to the sovereignty of the country as well as its national security. In response to Manohara’s warning, Attorney General Sanjaya Rajaratnam asked for the dismissal of cases without hearing them. The request was made on the basis the agreement being challenged outside the time allocated in terms of the Constitution. Manohara alleged that the then US Ambassador Alaina Teplitz interfered by lobbying on behalf of the US-based New Fortress Energy. Teplitiz, who recently completed her term in Colombo, had made representations on June 22, 2020, on behalf of the US Company to the Presidential Secretariat. The latter, in turn, has sent the US proposal to the Power and Energy Secretary along with a letter dated Jun 24, 2020. The letters signed by Telpitz and Dr. P.B. Jayasundera, respectively, for the US Embassy and the Presidential Secretariat have been presented to the Court. Manohara brought to the notice of the Court how the proposal made outside the laid down process undermined stability.

Accusing the US of interference in domestic affairs, Manohara explained how the US Ambassador sought to achieve their objectives with the help of corrupt Sri Lankan officials. This deal would create a US monopoly in the supply of LNG to Sri Lanka, Manohara predicted, asserting that the project created a dangerous situation. Alleging that the agreement betrayed national interests, the legal luminary painted a bleak picture of Sri Lanka’s future in case the deal materialised. Manohara questioned how the government entered into the agreement at the behest of the US even before the Chief Government Valuer provided his assessment pertaining to the Yugadanavi Power Plant. Romesh de Silva responded asserting that a proper valuation had been done before the signing of the agreement took place.

Those who were represented by Manohara in their petition stated that the Ceylon Electricity Board informed the Secretary to the Ministry of Power by letter dated 07.07.2021 that competitive open international tendering for the supply of Liquefied Natural Gas to Sri Lanka had already commenced and that to entertain an arbitrary proposal presented by an independent party who is not a party to the procurement process would adversely affect the transparency and fairness of the procurement process. In spite of that, Treasury Secretary S.R. Attygalle signed the Framework Agreement on July 07, 2021, to pave the way the sale of 40 percent shares of the power station owned by the government.

The share structure of the power station comprises; the government 50%, Employees’ Provident Fund 27%, Lanka Electricity Company 18% and LTL Holdings 5%.

SLFP takes questionable stand

In spite of backing the rebel ministers’ cause against the Sri Lanka-US deal, the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) conveniently skipped an opportunity to join the Supreme Court action. The SLFP parliamentary group consists of 14 members. The second biggest constituent in the 145-member government Parliamentary Group, the SLFP owed an explanation why at least one of its ministers, out of the two, namely Nimal Siripala de Silva or Mahinda Amaraweera failed to join the rebellious colleagues, Vasudeva Nanayakkara, Wimal Weerawansa and Udaya Gammanpila, in their principled stand against the controversial deal. General Secretary of the SLFP Dayasiri Jayasekera, however, flayed Yugadanavi agreement at the launch of a high profile campaign, on Oct 29, at Solis Hall, Pitakotte.

In an interview with political weekly Anidda in its Dec 26, 2021 edition, lawmaker Jayasekera, having challenged the legality of the Yugadanavi deal, vowed not to allow the implementation of the energy project, under any circumstances. The SLFPer strongly rejected the stand taken by Chief Government Whip Johnston Fernando as regards the Yugadanavi agreement.

If the SLFP is sincere of its position vis-a-vis the US energy deal, former President Maithripala Sirisena, MP, should have given his party the go ahead to join the challenge in the Supreme Court. The SLFP’s participation in legal action would have certainly strengthened the case against the Cabinet of ministers. Anidda interviewer should have sought an explanation from lawmaker Jayasekera over the SLFP not being part of the real opposition to the Yugadanavi deal.

Veteran politician Vasudeva Nanayakkara recently referred to those who backed Yugadanavi, opposed it and then took a sort of neutral stand. Was he referring to the SLFP? In addition to the DLF, the NFF and the PHU that have challenged the Cabinet of ministers over the Yugadanavi deal, SLFP, Communist Party, LSSP, Yuthukama civil society and National List MP Tiran Alles have declared opposition to the same. Of the 225 lawmakers, approximately 25 elected and appointed on the SLPP National List are believed to be opposed in line with the decision taken by their respective parties. In addition to them, Ven. Athureliye Rathana, National List MP of Ape Jana Bala Pakshaya backs the campaign.

A govt. in turmoil

The Yugadanavi crisis is just one among a spate of issues gravely troubling the government. The cash-strapped regime sought to project the Yugadanavi deal as a success primarily on the basis it would please the ever antagonistic Washington and the US firm paying USD 250 mn in two installments. Those who support the project propagate the line or lie that the deal would make available electricity at a much cheaper rate. There had never been a previous agreement that ended up having a section of Cabinet ministers who represent the legislature moving Court against their colleagues. The issue should be examined taking into consideration that the President is the head of the Cabinet. Where does the President stand? Did the appearance of CEB Chairman M.C. Ferdinando at a special media briefing arranged by the Presidential Media Division (PMD) signifies the President’s stand? In case the Supreme Court ruling pertaining to Yugadanavi petitions goes against the government, what will it do? Is there a fallback position? What will become of the SLPP’s relationship with those who opposed the project?

The much-debated ‘One Country, One Law’ concept has caused controversy primarily due to the appointment of Ven. Galagodaatte Gnanasara Thera, the recipient of presidential pardon from previous President Sirisena, after his ruffian behaviour even in a court of law, as the head of the relevant Presidential Task Force. The handling of State Minister Ratwatte’s inexcusable behaviour at the Welikada and Anuradhapura prisons badly exposed the government.

The government will have to address a series of other issues with the daunting challenge in servicing foreign and local debt as well as ruination of the Maha crop as a result of the hasty ban on agro-chemicals. The sacking of Agriculture Secretary Senior Prof. Udith J. Jayasinghe has prompted the angry official to fire a broadside at the government. The government appeared to have been sort of surprised by Prof. Jasasinghe’s response. The SJB has lambasted Prof. Jayasinghe and held him and the SLPP political leadership responsible for the crisis whereas the former now portrayed himself as the one who represented the interests of the public.

The government cannot depend on its overwhelming parliamentary majority to overcome the crises. Actually, the near 2/3 majority does not mean a thing as the government continues to weaken itself by utterly misplaced strategies. The SLPP is in such a desperate situation, the situation cannot be overcome or public attention diverted by propaganda on mainstream or social media.

All News Advertisement

Midweek Review

A ‘partnership’ like no other!

Published

18 hours ago

2026/09/16

Sahan Weerasooriya

Indian Defence Minister Rajnath Singh at the Indian Army memorial

Against the backdrop of the economic crisis that erupted in 2021/2022 Sri Lanka’s dependence on Indian economic and military support is growing. INS Udayagiri, Indian Navy’s indigenously built multi-role stealth frigate, that arrived at Colombo Port hours before Indian Defence Minister Rajnath Singh arrived here, brought essential machinery/equipment spares for Sri Lanka Navy and Sri Lanka Air Force. INS Udayagiri departed on 11 September, less than 24 hours after Singh concluded his three-day visit. The list of Indian support is long. In June this year, India swiftly transferred military stores worth USD 5.5 million to Sri Lanka Army on gratis basis from its operational stocks. India stepped in when Sri Lanka appealed for assistance to deploy over 1,000-member military contingent in Haiti under the UN command to help maintain order in that violence ridden country.

By Shamindra Ferdinando

Parliament on 9 Sept. passed the Chief of Defence Staff (Repeal) Bill, over one and half years after the last Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) General Shavendra Silva retired.

The wartime General Officer Commanding (GoC) of the celebrated 58 Division (former Task Force 1) bid farewell to the Sri Lanka Army (SLA) on 1 January, 2025, following some record breaking achievements, leading his troops from the front in the final phase of the war to eradicate the Tiger terrorists.

Following the debate on the second reading of the Bill, on 9 Sept., the Bill was passed without a division. It clearly indicated that the Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB)-led Opposition wasn’t at least interested in making an obvious issue out of it. The Bill has been introduced to repeal the Chief of Defence Staff Act, No. 35 of 2009, enacted in 2009, to carry out functions, including the coordination of activities among the Armed Forces and the Ministry of Defence.

Pointing out that the relevant Bill had been enacted after the conclusion of the war, the National People’s Power (NPP) government declared in Parliament that the abolition of the Office of the CDS wouldn’t harm national security. The NPP emphasised that the Mahinda Rajapaksa administration created that post to accommodate war-winning Army Commander Lt. Gen. Sarath Fonseka after he firmly turned down the offer to accept a non-military post as Secretary to the Sports Ministry.

Amidst rapidly deepening turmoil within the government, Fonseka received the appointment as the first CDS on 15 July, 2009, in terms of the newly enacted Act. It would be pertinent to mention that the government had no option but to placate Fonseka by establishing the Office of CDS through a parliamentary Act to ensure the change of command take place, as planned.

The writer was among those assigned to cover Fonseka receiving the appointment as CDS and Maj. Gen. Jagath Jayasuriya taking over the command of the war-winning Army from Fonseka. This was against a background of Fonseka wanting Chief of Staff Maj. Gen. G.A. Chandrasiri succeeded him. Instead, the Rajapaksas brought in Maj. Gen. Jagath Jayasuriya as Fonseka’s successor. Chandrasiri was made to retire and those who had been senior to Jayasuriya sidelined as the government tightened its grip on the Army. Therefore, the creation of the Office of the CDS to accommodate Fonseka should be considered in the appropriate context.

But, Fonseka quit the CDS post in November 2009 after reaching a consensus with the UNP-JVP combine to contest the presidential election. Air Chief Marshal Roshan Goonetileke succeeded Fonseka as CDS, on 16 November, 2009, while continuing his duties as the Commander of the Air Force.

The NPP, at the inception of its administration, quite clearly wanted to abolish the post of CDS. Silva, who received the appointment as Acting CDS, on 1 January, 2020, while serving as the Commander of the Army, relinquished the substantive post on 1 June, 2022. That happened in the wake of the 9 May countrywide systematic violence unleashed by those spearheading the high profile project to oust President Gotabaya Rajapaksa after the increasingly humiliated SLPP by the siege laid by Aragalaya activists on important government institution with a foreign dictated agenda, ordered a goon attack on those Galle Face protesters.

Retired Maj. Gen. K.B. Egodawele, former Minister Wimal Weerawansa, foreign affairs commentator Asanga Abeyagoonasekera and Prof. Sunanda Maddumabandara, who authored books on the 2022 regime change project, all pointed to external hands in the mayhem. Abeyagoonasekera went to the extent of alleging direct Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) role in the operation, while Prof. Maddumabandara named then Indian High Commissioner Gopal Baglay as the one who asked Speaker Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena to take over the presidency, along with the backing of the likes of Omalpe Sobitha thera. That brought an end to the repeated attacks on US Ambassador Julie Chung over an alleged meeting with Abeywadena on the eve of President Rajapaksa being forced to flee the country.

India never challenged Prof. Maddumabandara’s declaration, widely believed to be based on revelation made by Abeywardena.

A significant visit

Indian Defence Minister Rajnath Singh’s historic three-day official visit to Colombo coincided with the House passing the Chief of Defence Staff (Repeal) Bill. What a coincidence it was!

A rapidly deepening partnership spanning defence, economic aid, and regional connectivity under India’s Neighbourhood First policy dominates bilateral relations.

Singh, a senior member of the ruling Bharatiya Janatha Party (BJP), laid a wreath at the Indian Army memorial, in Pelawatte, Sri Jayewardenepura, on 9 September, on the second day of his visit, as the Parliament announced the repealing of the Bill. The memorial is a stark reminder of a despicable Indian destabilisation project directed at smaller, economically weak Sri Lanka in the 80s.

Singh, who is on his second term as Defence Minister, would go down in history as the first Indian Defence Minister to pay respect at the memorial built in memory of Indian Army officers and men killed in Sri Lanka. Having established a large scale terrorist project in Sri Lanka, the Congress government destabilised Sri Lanka to facilitate signing of the so-called Indo-Lanka Peace Accord after the arm twisting by its infamous ‘parippu’ drop over Jaffna, humiliating and bringing to its knees the then ‘all-powerful’ JRJ government when its powerful friends in the West turned their backs on their perennial vasal here, dubbed the ‘20th Century Fox’. The deployment of the Indian Army followed, beginning 29 July, 1987, on a mission to ostensibly disarm terrorist groups, including the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE).

The then Indian Defence Minister K.C. Pant visited Colombo on May 30-June 1, 1988, in the run-up to the presidential election at the time the Indian Army was engaged in operations against the LTTE. India never sent another defence minister here even after Sri Lanka built a memorial near Battaramulla, in August 2008. It had been put up on a recommendation by the late Gen. Lionel Balagalle, Commander of the Army and CDS following an official visit to New Delhi in Dec., 2003.

Indian High Commissioner Ashok Kantha was the first top Indian government representative to pay floral tribute at the memorial on 15 August, 2010, over a year after Sri Lanka brought the once Indian sponsored war to a successful conclusion.

There is another Indian Army memorial in Palaly, Jaffna, built by the Indian Army in memory of 33 officers and men killed in a disastrous heli-borne assault on the LTTE, based in the Jaffna University. That assault took place on 12 Oct., 1987, at the onset of Indian operations. However, among the Indian dead inscribed on the memorial was Lieutenant Colonel Arun Kumar Chhabra who served the 10 Para (SF), elite battalion of the Parachute Regiment involved in the Jaffna University assault. Chhabra died on 14 Oct., 1989, during a gun battle with the LTTE.

The point is whatever various interested parties say today about the Indian intervention here, the truth is Premier Indira Gandhi destabilised this country in line with her strategy meant to address separatist sentiments in Tamil Nadu. India cannot absolve itself of the responsibility for the massive death and destruction caused not only in Sri Lanka but also the assassination of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi who advanced his slain mother’s strategy by deploying the Indian Army here.

Indian trained terrorists, the People’s Liberation Organisation of Tamil Eelam (PLOTE), almost succeeded in overthrowing Maldivian President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom in Nov., 1988. Two boat loads of PLOTE terrorists passed under the nose of the Indian Navy, at that time responsible for controlling all movements within Sri Lanka territorial waters, to reach the Maldives. The Indian intervention in the Maldives to save the Gayoom’s administration was hailed as a spectacular Indian military operation. No one found fault with India for sponsoring PLOTE. In fact, the PLOTE, widely believed to have been disarmed by the Indian Army in line with the Indo-Lanka peace accord signed under duress, retained weapons to mount the operation. That proved the much publicised project to disarm terrorist groups, including the LTTE and PLOTE, was more a farce than anything else.

The top BJPer’s, who recently concluded his visit to Colombo, emphasised the nearly four decades long absence of an Indian Defence Minister paying respects at the Jayewardenepura monument. Interested parties have sought to depict the monument as a testament to India sacrificing life to protect Sri Lanka. But, the truth is the monument reminds the world of a politically motivated terror project that ruined Sri Lanka, caused deaths of at least 1,200 Indian military personnel, and paved the way for a coup attempt in the Maldives. Names of 1169 Indians, including 55 officers, are inscribed therein. The catastrophic Indian project also led to the invention of suicide attacks (human bombs), a tactic now practiced in different parts of the world. India experienced the horrors of suicide bombing when a Sri Lanka woman blew up Rajiv Gandhi at Sriperumbudur, Tamil Nadu, on 21 May, 1991, over a year after India pulled out its Army from Sri Lanka.

Two Battaramulla memorials

Sri Lanka and Indian media reported Defence Minister Singh’s visit to the Indian Army memorial at Battaramulla. Unfortunately, print, electronic and social media failed to mention that the National War Memorial, with names of nearly 29,000 officers and men, who paid the supreme sacrifice, inscribed, is situated a walking distance from the Indian Army memorial. Perhaps the Indian Defence Minister should have laid a wreath at the National War Memorial, a gesture that may have somewhat atoned for an utterly irresponsible and reckless political decision.

The two memorials situated just 1.1 kms apart underscore the horrors of conflict engineered and sustained by regional power that almost destroyed Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka was trapped in separatist terrorism and a simultaneous insurgency in the South that ripped the country apart.

Sri Lanka transformed its ceremonial armed forces to a worthy fighting formation over the years. The Office of the CDS had been in place throughout the war though it was not constituted by a specific law (Chief of Defence Staff Act, No. 35 of 2009).

As the armed forces expanded, the country needed a headquarters for better coordination among the armed forces and police. The Joint Operations Command (JOC) was established in 1985. In 1999, during the tenure of President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga, the JOC was replaced by Joint Operations Bureau (JOB), a civilian led set up that failed miserably to meet the challenging task. In the same year, Kumaratunga, in her capacity as the Defence Minister, did away with the JOB and established Joint Operations Headquarters.

Kumaratunga created the Office of CDS in 2000 ahead of major northern battles. That functioned till the end of the war in May, 2009, and no one ever thought of enacting a specific Bill to constitute the Office of CDS. The NPP told Parliament, on 9 September, that a staggering Rs 8.7 bn had been spent on the Office of CDS, since 2009.

Multi-role stealth frigate INS Udayagiri at the Colombo port. The ship
visit coincided with Singh’s 3-day tour

The Indian political establishment largely ignored the humiliating loss of lives suffered during the mission in Sri Lanka. They conveniently forgot the disastrous intervention though the High Commissioner here visited the Battaramulla memorial in 2010. However, Modi, having captured power at the 2014 general election, initiated his own strategy. He first visited the Battaramulla memorial, in March, 2015, less than a year after becoming the Premier. He again visited the memorial in April, 2025, when he visited Colombo to sign seven Memorandum of Understanding (MoUs), including one on defence.

Having backed Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s ouster in 2022, Modi (Rajnath Singh served as the Defence Minister during the US-Indian operation in Colombo) endorsed the candidature of Anura Kumara Dissanayake, in February, 2024, by extending an official invitation to the leader of the NPP, as well as the JVP. Dissanayake was given the opportunity to meet External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar and National Security Advisor Ajit Doval. The message from New Delhi was loud and clear. Although Al Jazeera described the Indian move as an unlikely invitation, those who have carefully analyzed New Delhi’s actions here may realise the importance of the unexpected rescue of Somawansa Amarasinghe, in the early 90s, as the UNP government was about to capture him. Had Amarasinghe ended up in the custody of the military, the same fate that befell other party seniors, including Rohana Wijeweera, too, would have been his.

The UNP showed no mercy at all to the JVPers. Amarasinghe escaped with Indian help in February, 1990, three months after the Army executed Wijeweera. Although some speculated about a possible Indian role in saving Amarasinghe, no one could prove it. Then, unexpectedly, Amarasinghe himself, at a rally held in Kalutara, in late 2001, disclosed how India saved his life. The revelation was made at the first rally he addressed after returning home, following a 12-year exile.

Dissanayake received a second invitation from New Delhi after his historic unlikely victory achieved, thanks to outside machinations, mainly by the West ,in the run up to the Sept. 2024 presidential election. Modi announced their consensus on entering into MoU on defence at the conclusion of Dissanayake’s Dec. 2024 visit, though the joint statement didn’t say so. India swiftly moved to finalise the Defence MoU along with six other MoUs in the first week of April 2025 when Modi visited Colombo.

By then even the JVP/NPP had forgotten that the JVP waged insurgency against the UNP over the signing of the Indo-Lanka Accord. The emergence of the NPP as the undisputed political power in Colombo has facilitated the Indian strategy here. It also facilitated US strategy, as well as joint US-Indian scheme, the future of it now very much in doubt, especially with erratic actions of President Trump.

Immediately after Modi concluded his April 2025 visit, the Colombo West International Terminal (CWIT), Sri Lanka’s first fully automated container terminal with an $800 million investment, officially commenced operations. The project that offered a significant boost to the maritime economy marked a major milestone in India–Sri Lanka infrastructure collaboration.

By then, India has secured the controlling interests of the Colombo Dockyard Limited (CDL), a move facilitated by Japan. Although the announcement regarding Japan’s Onomichi Dockyard parting with its 51% of shares to India’s state-owned Mazagon Dock Shipbuilders Limited, supplier of warships to India et al. It was India’s first-ever acquisition of a foreign shipyard.

India never had such a hold on Sri Lanka during the war of post-conflict period. In fact, the current Indo-Lanka partnership or whatever you choose to call it seemed to be fait accompli.

The way forward

‘Yankie Dicky’s’ (JRJ was known as Yankie Dicky because of his ardent pro-American stands) nephew Ranil Wickremesinghe, in his capacity as President and Defence Minister, declared a moratorium on foreign scientific research vessels during 2024. Wickremesinghe, struggling to cope up with economic difficulties amidst being at the mercy of US and India, announced the moratorium on such ship visits. It was meant to deprive Sri Lanka of the opportunity to receive Chinese vessels. Wickremesinghe’s announcement came in the wake of US backed Indian protests over Chinese vessels Yuan Wang 5 and Shi Yan 6 vessels visiting Sri Lanka. But, Wickremesinghe’s moratorium still remains in force as the incumbent government shied away from making its position known to the public. China, having acquired the strategically situated Hambantota Port and Colombo International Container Terminals (CICT), South Asia’s premier deep water terminal, Beijing consolidated its position here. Perhaps many people do not remember that the Colombo Terminal project was awarded to a consortium involving China, in Sept, 2010, then a joint venture established under a 35-year Build–Operate and Transfer (BOT) project in 2011 and the facility inaugurated in August 2013 though construction continued till April 2014.

The Hambantota Port was acquired in 2017 during the Yahapalana government, in the wake of the Colombo Port City controversy. In spite of issues, China has established control over Colombo Port City, CICTT, as well as the Hambantota Port.

Sri Lanka may overtly take a stand that may see us as bei pro-India but at the end of the day whoever wielded political power as well as those in the Opposition wouldn’t be able to disregard Chinese interests. President Gotabaya Rajapaksa realised his folly when he declared intention to renegotiate the Hambantota Port deal. China simply dismissed the President’s proposal. The President was compelled to issue a clarification at his own expense.

The recent statement attributed by the Defence Ministry to Defence Secretary AVM (retd) Sampah Thyuyakontha regarding Sri Lanka’s readiness to seek NATO assistance drew a sharp response from General Secretary of the Communist Party of Sri Lanka Dr. G. Weerasinghe. Thuyakontha made the statement during a recent visit to Canada where he represented the government at the 28th Annual Indo-Pacific Chiefs of Defence (CHOD) Conference, held in Victoria, Canada, from 31 August to 2 September 2026.

There hadn’t been a previous instance of Sri Lanka seeking NATO assistance. The CP Chief questioned Sri Lanka’s unexpected declaration while examining post-2024 presidential polls developments. It would be pertinent to mention that it was Mahinda Rajapaksa who first entered into ACSA (Acquisition and Cross-Servicing Agreement) in March, 2007. The CP, without hesitation, criticised President Rajapaksa’s action. President Sirisena extended that agreement in 2017 though he pretended he didn’t approve it. Since the change of government in 2024, the NPP has enhanced defence relations with the US and the next year’s extension of ACSA is a foregone conclusion. Sri Lanka is set to go ahead with US-India strategies though China remains a factor that cannot be ignored, under any circumstances.

Midweek Review

Feeling political sadness as signs of hope and resistance

Published

18 hours ago

2026/09/16

Sahan Weerasooriya

by Sasanka Perera
(The writer is on X as @sasmester)

A few weeks ago, a friend in India wrote to me about Ghazala Jamil’s book, What to Do with Political Sadness and Other Essays on Death, Destruction and Hauntology (2026). It had just been published by New Delhi’s Simon & Schuster India and Yoda Press. And thanks to the kindness of yet another friend, I managed to get a copy of the book. I think we are all surrounded by different forms of ‘political sadness’ both in our own country and beyond. And some of us might actually ask ourselves the same question Jamil has posed in the title of her book: What to do with political sadness? In this situation, since the book spoke to me directly, I ended up writing notes on it and reflecting on what she had to say as I read.

Globally, we live in an era governed by systemic attrition, state-sanctioned violence, and the steady dismantling of democratic institutions. In this situation, despair is frequently framed as a personal pathology or a personal tragedy that is difficult for one to reconcile with. This is particularly the case if one lives in conditions of political instability burdened with a conscience — knowing full well what is right and what is wrong but not having the power to make a difference. Contemporary neoliberal politics routinely urge the disenfranchised to practice ‘resilience’ or ‘mindfulness’ without offering serious means to deal with unbearable situations. That process helps strong-man and dictatorial politics to not only survive but also justify their destructive politics.

Ghazala Jamil thoughtfully and reflectively deals with what happens when one must deal with politics of violence up front in her collection of essays. Jamil argues that the political sadness felt by marginalized people experiencing juridical, economic, and physical destruction is neither an aberration nor a personal failure. It is, instead, a rational and ethically sound response to state power built on dispossession and intimidation. For Jamil, political sadness is a method of both perseverance in difficult conditions and a means of generating hope as well as a way of imagining a future despite being surrounded by orchestrated death, destruction and dispossession.

Rather than attempting to ‘cure’ this sadness or dismiss it as weakness, Jamil interrogates its anatomy in an attempt to locate something far more durable than passive optimism or taken-for-granted fatalism so familiar in South Asia. That is a radical, unyielding form of idealism rooted in memory and a refusal to be silenced. Idealism in this sense is increasingly becoming a scarce resource in the circumstances where most of us live and work. While reading Jamil’s essays and writing these thoughts, I was also contemplating on the unfolding politics in Sri Lanka. A recent tweet by me in response to a news item pertaining to the UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, Margaret Satterthwaite requesting information from the Sri Lankan government’s proposed judicial reforms in Sri Lanka drew much criticism.

While I was concerned overall on the reforms meant to increase the retirement age of judges across the judicial hierarchy on matters of principle and potential impact on democratic governance in the country, my immediate concern was the UN’s established bias in responding to these kinds of issues. That is, the blatant lack of equality where people at the receiving end usually happen to be nations without a veto or the ability to control one in the UN. Many people, both known and unknown, were upset with the tweet claiming I did not know how the UN system worked or had not done my homework. My sense was, I was considered naïve or even stupid as I harboured a sense of idealism, which sadly they had lost. Jamil, on the other hand, might agree with me.

Across nineteen essays, spanning political philosophy, urban sociology, and cultural critique, the collection is based on a close reading of three primary and closely related theoretical positions buttressed by immediate life experiences in both India and beyond.

The first position deals with what might be called, mechanics of state violence. Here, Jamil explores the politics of physical and institutional mechanisms, that range from spatial segregation and legal disenfranchisement — such as the weaponisation of citizenship laws — to the degradation of public resources such as education and transport. In this situation, she considers death and destruction as essential byproducts of governance that may not however be always intended. But ultimately, such mechanisms define the nature and reach of state authority.

The second overall position she deals with has to do with bodily dissent and martyrdom. It is in this discussion that Jamil analyzes extreme forms of political protest, such as hunger strikes and suicide drawing from experiences ranging from India to Ireland. When the state strips vulnerable communities of institutional recourse to justice and fair play, the body becomes the final site of sovereignty and agency. But bodily self-sacrifice forces a public ethical showdown, demonstrating that even the dispossessed retain the agency to expose the moral bankruptcy of majoritarian power. Even so, such extreme protests do not always work, nevertheless keeping alive political sadness, and with it, reservoirs of hope.

The final position Jamil explores is focused on the idea of hauntology and futures. Drawing on Jacques Derrida’s concept of hauntology, Jamil examines the spectral presence of unfulfilled post-colonial promises. In the Indian context, the constitutional ideals of secularism, egalitarianism, and social justice have been systematically compromised or dismantled, even though their ‘ghosts’ refuse to disappear. They haunt the present, reminding us of what was promised, what was destroyed, and what remains to be reclaimed and achieved. Therefore, this also becomes a repository for hope from where futures may be imagined.

As far as my reading is concerned, the core strength of Jamil’s work lies in how she retrieves hope from the debris of political grief. Her kind of idealism rejects toxic positivity, insisting that genuine hope can only emerge after we fully confront actual histories and experiences of destruction. This, I think, is essential, and speaks to me personally and directly in a situation where such idealism has been compromised by an unfortunate combination of naivety and political foolishness.

For Jamil, hauntology acts as an engine of political memory. Ideally, the ghosts of past struggles should prevent us from normalising present atrocities. Idealism, therefore, is not an abstract dream of a utopian future. Instead, it is the stubborn refusal to allow state violence to dictate the limits of human imagination. To feel political sadness is to remember that things were supposed to be different, and that they still could be.

Though Jamil writes from her location in India augmented by theoretical arguments that are in global circulation, what she has to say speaks to the world in the present time. This makes her critique both locally grounded and regionally and globally applicable.

In so far as India is concerned, Jamil’s critique speaks to a situation marked by the relentless rise of ethno-nationalism, religious intolerance, bulldozer politics of dispossession, and the systematic marginalisation of minority identities and their sense of being. Hope in this context is found in grassroots resistance, such as the constitutional consciousness kept alive by student movements, civil rights activists, and community-led dissenters who insist on asserting full citizenship despite systemic hostility. I would locate the recent Cockroach Janta Party agitations in this context.

As far as my own location, Sri Lanka is concerned, Jamil’s exploration of hauntology provides immediate resonance and painful familiarity. Sri Lankan society is haunted by unresolved ghosts of wartime as well as post-war absence of state accountability, forced disappearances, alienation of minorities, and the catastrophic economic collapse that dismantled public security. This is without even venturing into the violence and dispossession orchestrated by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam and Janata Vimukti Peramuna when these entities wielded power in their agitations against the state. The mass uprising of 2022 or the ‘aragalaya’ placed in context both the transformative power of collective hope and the tragic reality of state appropriation. Reading Jamil from Colombo underscores how South Asian states export and replicate tools of division, militarization, and erasure.

Beyond the subcontinent, Jamil’s writing indicates the necessity that localised grief must be connected to globally intertwined histories. From hyper-capitalist labor exploitation to climate displacement, the Global South faces a collective and ongoing crisis of hegemony. Reclaiming hope requires cross-border solidarity, recognising that struggles against authoritarianism or majoritarianism in South Asia and elsewhere constitutes part of a worldwide fight for human dignity.

For me, Ghazala Jamil’s What to Do with Political Sadness is an essential and thoughtful manual for ethical survival and the generation of hope in difficult times. It does not offer easy comfort or simple solutions. Instead, it offers something far more valuable: a framework for ethical survival and persevering with idealism and hope. Let me conclude with my 2022 poem, ‘Island Story’ (Let Us be Silent: Poems, Sarasavi, Nugegoda, 2025).

“To live in the blessed isle
close your ears
guard your tongue
freeze your heart

Then,
hell of despair

would seem
like
heaven of hope”

I attempted to deal with my unhappiness not merely by writing a poem, but by trying not to see what was obvious, as a means of dealing with pain and overshadowing the conscience. Jamil, will have none of this as she has convincingly argued throughout her book. By transforming political grief into an active analytical tool and method for hope, Jamil reminds us that our sadness is proof of our lingering moral clarity. In many ways, her effort is a conversation among theory, life experience and hope. For most of us, living under the shadow of disrupted pasts and lost futures, this book serves as a powerful reminder that as long as we remember what has been destroyed, the blueprint for a just world remains alive.

(A shorter version of this essay was published in The Wire [new Delhi] on 22 August 2026)