Midweek Review
National Voters’ Day celebration amidst economic chaos, deepening political uncertainty

Poor response from political parties
By Shamindra Ferdinando
Nimal Punchihewa, soft spoken Chairman of the Election Commission (EC), didn’t mince his words when he underscored the loss of public confidence as well as overall disappointment in the electoral system last week. Punchihewa stressed the need for far reaching changes in the electoral system while reiterating the EC’s proposals meant to improve and discipline utterly corrupt and wasteful electoral processes. The continuing failure on the part of Parliament to address the grievances of the electorate would be catastrophic and may pose a threat to political stability, he warned.
Attorney-at-Law Punchihewa said so at the ‘National Celebration of Voters’ held at the Galadari Hotel, Colombo, on March 11, the first such event since the establishment of the independent EC in terms of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution.
The House enacted the 19th Amendment, in early 2015, with an overwhelming 2/3 majority. However, the present five-member EC, headed by Punchihewa, came into being in Dec 2020 in terms of the 20th Amendment to the Constitution, enacted in October of the same year, repealing the trouble ridden 19th Amendment, especially when it came to members of so-called independent commissions, some of whom behaved as if they were a law unto themselves. At least one lawyer, in one such commission had the audacity to attack the Opposition in a partisan way outside his ambit.
Punchihewa, one-time public servant and civil society activist, explained the remedial measures that could be taken to address deficiencies and limitations in the electoral system.
The EC Chairman also discussed the need for punitive measures against offending lawmakers, regardless of their standing in society and the contentious issue of campaign funding. The EC Chief pointed out how both external and internal elements could influence political parties through campaign funding.
Punchihewa, who had served the previous EC, too, cannot be unaware of the way then US Secretary of State John Kerry’s boastful public declaration in 2016 how they funded Sri Lanka’s Opposition at the 2015 national elections (presidential and parliamentary polls in January and August, 2015, respectively) and similar stunts in several other countries.
The EC never inquired into the matter of the US interference in Lankan polls after openly boasting of it, even though the issue was raised both in and outside Parliament. The writer personally raised the US interference with the previous three- member EC, headed by Mahinda Deshapriya, but the outfit always side-stepped the issue. Even the European Union Election Observation Mission sidestepped the issue when the matter was raised at a media briefing held at the Colombo Hilton.
President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, Premier Mahinda Rajapaksa, Speaker Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena, Chief Government Whip Dinesh Gunawardena, Foreign Minister Prof. G.L. Peiris, who is also the Chairman of the ruling Sri Lanka Podujana Peremuna (SLPP) and Punchihewa’s predecessor, Mahinda Deshapriya, were among those in the audience. Deshapriya now serves as the Chairman of the Delimitation Committee. The EC attracted criticism during Deshapriya’s tenure as the outfit’s Chairman with the controversial recognition of the now main Opposition Samagi Jana Balavegaya (SJB) in early 2020 being one of the major controversies. The breakaway UNP faction won 54 seats, including seven National List slots at the expense of the UNP at the Aug 2020 general election. The UNP was reduced to just one National List member that was also filled months, after the lapsing of the stipulated time, to fill National List slots.
Punchihewa dealt with the EC’s one-year progress since its appointment in terms of the 20th Amendment to the Constitution and the way forward for a better democracy after Saman Sri Ratnayake, Commissioner General of the Election Commission, greeted the invitees. Reference was made to the absence of Opposition Leader and leader of the Samagi Jana Balavegaya (SJB) Sajith Premadasa. SJB members were not seen though the UNP Chairman and former Minister Vajira Abeywardena, attended the event.
Punchihewa, one-time EC’s Director General, Legal, emphasised the urgent need to introduce, what he called, quite a lot of amendments to existing laws to achieve the desired results. Attorney General Sanjay Rajaratnam, PC, was among the invitees. Perhaps, the EC should have invited Auditor General W.P.C. Wickramaratne, whose officers have, over the years, exposed how lawmakers, Secretaries to the Ministries, senior officials and some sections of the public sector, caused the revenue losses to the government, running into billions of rupees.
Education Minister Dinesh Gunawardena recently acknowledged, at the Public Petitions Committee, the failure on their part to implement recommendations of parliamentary watchdog committees. Chairman of the Committee on Public Enterprises (COPE) Prof. Charitha Herath, too, has on several occasions pointed out lapses in the law contributed to the deterioration of public finances. But, the powers that be have chosen to turn a blind eye.
In a way, Punchihewa’s statement is nothing but condemnation of the utterly corrupt political party system that has ruined the country. But, the EC should also work closely with the Auditor General, if the Commission is seriously interested in, the much-touted ‘system change.’ Corruption has become a way of public life with the Parliament, responsible for enactment of new laws and ensuring financial discipline, has pathetically failed in its responsibilities. The situation is so bad and appears to be out of control, the Parliament has become a mere spectator as the parliamentary system of governance continues to promote waste, corruption and irregularities by not taking remedial measures. The reports issued by the Committee on Public Enterprises (COPE), the Committee on Public Accounts (COPA) and the Committee on Public Finance (COPF) reveal corruption at every level.
The event at Galadari could have been held without high tea as well as wholly unnecessary dance performances at a time the vast majority of voters, regardless of the candidate and the party they voted for at the last presidential and parliamentary elections in Nov 2019 and Aug 2020, respectively, were struggling to make ends meet.
Although 15 political parties/groups represented the current Parliament, only a few were present on the occasion. The Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP), the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP), the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) as well as the Sri Lanka Muslim Congress (SLMC) were very conspicuous by their absence. General Secretary of the Democratic Left Front and Water Supply Minister Vasudeva Nanayakkara, in spite of breaking ranks with the government over the SLPP’s economic policy, sat with SLPP leaders whereas his rebellious former ministerial colleagues, Wimal Weerawansa and Udaya Gammanpila too were notable absentees. Nanayakkara along with Weerawansa and Gammanpila backed the fundamental rights petitions against the Yugadanavi deal (sale of 40 percent of Treasury owned shares of the power station to the US-based New Fortress Energy along with the controversial move to hand over a monopolistic position on supplying of LNG). The Supreme Court, however, dismissed the petitions. The SC didn’t give an order but stated the submissions were considered and leave to proceed refused. The SC didn’t give reasons at all though the case was heard for several days. When making submissions AG Rajaratnam said that the court should maintain harmony with the executive.
It would be pertinent to recall the devastating accident at an insecticide plant in India in the 80s.
On December 3, 1984, about 45 tonness of the dangerous gas methyl isocyanate escaped from an insecticide plant that was owned by the Indian subsidiary of the American firm Union Carbide Corporation. The gas drifted over the densely populated neighbourhoods around the plant, killing thousands of people immediately and creating panic as tens of thousands of others attempted to flee the area. The final death toll was estimated to be between 15,000 and 20,000. Some half a million survivors suffered respiratory problems, eye irritation or blindness, and other maladies, resulting from exposure to the toxic gas; many were awarded compensation of a few hundred dollars
(Britannica). And for some inexplicable reasons the Indian Supreme Court upheld that pittance of a compensation package! Indian Chief Justice at the time P.N. Bhagawati, when he came to Sri Lanka as a champion of peace about a decade ago, a cheeky Lankan journalist asked him about that controversial decision of the Indian Supreme Court and he got virtually tongue tied and avoided answering the question.
A House in turmoil
Can political chaos be addressed through electoral reforms and constitutional amendments? Has the EC really examined the current crisis and how political uncertainty, in addition to waste, corruption and irregularities, contributed to the overall deterioration of the country’s financial status and unprecedented instability.
A few hours after the end of the National Voters’ day celebration, the government announced an inevitable increase in diesel and petrol prices. It would be pertinent to mention that India, too, now exercise the right to intervene here by way of revising fuel prices. Lanka India Oil Company (LIOC) that set up base here in 2003, is affiliated to Indian Oil Corporation Limited that comes under the purview of its Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas.
One-time distinguished career diplomat Hardeep Singh Puri, who had served the Indian High Commission in Colombo during the volatile1984-1988 period when Indian-trained terrorists waged war against Sri Lanka, is India’s Minister of Petroleum and Natural Gas and Housing and Urban Affairs. Rightly or wrongly he was then suspected to be involved in much more than diplomacy by especially those who saw how he and his wife lobbied certain key journalists behind the scene and the clout they wielded.
On March 10, the day LIOC announced staggering price increases in petrol and diesel that caused turmoil here, Sri Lanka’s High Commissioner in New Delhi Milinda Moragoda met Minister Puri. The meeting took place at the Ministry of Urban Affairs in New Delhi. Let me reproduce a statement verbatim issued by the Sri Lankan High Commission in New Delhi following the meeting between Moragoda and Puri: “At the outset, High Commissioner Moragoda thanked Minister Puri for the assistance that India has provided to Sri Lanka as envisaged under the four-pillars of cooperation, agreed during the visit of Sri Lankan Finance Minister Basil Rajapaksa to India in December last year, in particular the USD 500 million line of credit to purchase petroleum products. Additional assistance, too, has been provided by India to enhance Sri Lanka’s petroleum stocks.
“High Commissioner Milinda Moragoda also briefed Minister Puri on the challenges that Sri Lanka is currently facing as regards to the supply and distribution of petroleum products and their impact on the Country’s energy sector. The High Commissioner and the Minister discussed modalities through which India and Sri Lanka could further expand cooperation in the petroleum sector to help overcome the present crisis.
The discussion also focused on a range of issues pertaining to the energy sector, including ways and means through which Sri Lanka could establish long-term strategic ties in the petroleum, oil, gas and related logistics sectors.”
The Government increased fuel prices at midnight on March 11 following LIOC price revisions on Feb 06, 24 and March 10 that resulted in the sharpest difference in retail price of a litre of petrol and diesel at LIOC and Ceypetco service stations, Rs 92 and Rs 77, respectively. The bottom line is that Sri Lanka’s pricing formula is in the hands of India.
That is the unpalatable truth. Obviously, there is no mechanism to ensure that upward or downward revisions of fuel prices are decided through consultations. Instead, a foreign power can take that decision on our behalf. In other words, Sri Lanka’s Energy Minister is actually former High Commission staffer Puri.
How can EC ensure political parties do not follow agendas inimical to Sri Lanka’s national interests? Recent high profile but unsubstantiated accusations that had been directed at Finance Minister Basil Rajapaksa over him pursuing a pro-American agenda are a matter for concern.
President Gotabaya Rajapaksa removed Jathika Nidahas Peramuna (JNP) leader Wimal Weerawansa and Pivithuru Hela Urumaya (PHU) leader Udaya Gammanpila from Industries and Energy portfolios, respectively, following their clash with Basil Rajapaksa, who is also the founder of the SLPP. The political turmoil has taken a new turn with the SJB stepping up attacks on Basil Rajapaksa in Parliament.
The Opposition repeatedly questioned Speaker Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena over Basil Rajapaksa remaining mum in Parliament over the rapid deterioration of the economy. The failure on the part of political parties represented in Parliament to reach a consensus on national response to the current crisis is evidenced by the plight of the electorate. Instead, a sharply divided government has allowed the deterioration by refusing to take remedial measures.
The Opposition has sought to exploit the situation to its advantage whereas a section of the parliamentarians, including some of those accommodated on the SLPP National List, angered the top SLPP leadership by presenting an alternative set of proposals meant to restore the devastated economy.
The EC cannot afford to turn a blind eye to the utter chaos in Parliament and outside for want of a national response at a time of unprecedented crisis.
EC on key issues
The EC comprised five persons, namely Nimal Punchihewa, S.B. Divaratne, K.P.P. Pathirana, M.M. Mohammed and P.S.M. Charles, the only lady in the outfit. The EC has made representations to the Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC) on electoral reforms as well as the nine-member Committee, headed by Romesh de Silva, PC. The EC representations dealt with electoral reforms and constitutional reforms, respectively. The writer would like to briefly discuss the touchy issue of the need to reduce the number of registered political parties and the proposal to recall those who pursue strategies contrary to the pledges they made at the election and in the printed manifestos of the respective political parties.
Having asserted that the country cannot afford to continue with 76 registered political parties, the EC has proposed ways and means to reduce that number. Examination of EC’s proposals submitted to the PSC and Romesh de Silva’s committee proves how unsatisfying the current situation is.
A sensible Parliament will certainly give serious consideration to EC’s proposals. Nothing can be as important as the proposal to recall lawmakers if they stepped out of line. Will leaders of political parties have the strength to accept the proposal to establish a mechanism to remove MPs?
The recent dismissal of charges in respect of the Treasury bond scam perpetrated on March 29, 2016, by the Colombo High Court Trial-at-Bar due to the flawed indictments raised many eyebrows. Yahapalana Finance Minister Ravi Karunanayake has been among those who benefited as a result of the AG’s lapse. The indictments had been filed during Dappula de Livera, PC’s tenure as the AG. Sanjay Rajaratnam succeeded de Livera in May last year.
The Trial-at-Bar comprising Damith Thotawatte (Chairman), Manjula Thilakaratne and M. Izzadeen by a majority decision dismissed the relevant charges.
Can anyone explain the circumstances under which the indictment had been filed against the Perpetual Treasuries Limited (PTL) contrary to the Public Property Act? The AG’s Department cannot be unaware that in terms of the Public Property Act indictments can be filed only against individuals.
The Trial-at-Bar ruling should be examined against the backdrop of the AG and the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption (CIABOC) withdrawing as much as over 50 cases since the last presidential election, in addition to the cases dismissed by various courts.
The AG as well as the CIABOC owed explanation as to how so many cases failed to achieve desired results or were withdrawn under controversial circumstances. The Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) and the civil society should raise these issues. Can BASL and civil society remain silent as the situation continues to deteriorate?
Midweek Review
Batalanda and complexities of paramilitary operations

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
Midweek Review
Independent Monitor

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

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
-
Business7 days ago
Cargoserv Shipping partners Prima Ceylon & onboards Nestlé Lanka for landmark rail logistics initiative
-
News5 days ago
Seniors welcome three percent increase in deposit rates
-
Features5 days ago
The US, Israel, Palestine, and Mahmoud Khalil
-
Business7 days ago
Sri Lankans Vote Dialog as the Telecommunication Brand and Service Brand of the Year
-
News5 days ago
Scholarships for children of estate workers now open
-
News6 days ago
Defence Ministry of Japan Delegation visits Pathfinder Foundation
-
Features7 days ago
The Vaping Veil: Unmasking the dangers of E-Cigarettes
-
News7 days ago
‘Deshabandu is on SLC payroll’; Hesha tables documents