Midweek Review
Strengthening bilateral relations or opening doors for competition?

President Dissanayake’s historic visits to India and China:
by Prof. Amarasiri de Silva
From December 15 to 17, 2024, President Anura Kumara Dissanayake’s government took steps to ameliorate the geopolitical issues in the Indian Ocean region by paying diplomatic visits to India and China. The parliamentary election win by the NPP/JVP has raised suspicions that the new government might struggle to gain international confidence, partly due to the opposition’s portrayal of the NPP/JVP as stated by the president AKD at a rally in Maharagama recently. To move forward, one of the first steps the new government should take is to win over international confidence, especially from powerful neighbours like India and China. The visit made to India under invitation by the Indian government marked a significant advancement in this regard in the relationship between Sri Lanka and India. During his visit to India, President Dissanayake engaged in one-on-one discussions with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and President Droupadi Murmu, the first person from a tribal community and the second woman to hold this position. The conversations centred on enhancing collaboration in energy partnerships, regional security, trade, investment, and infrastructure development. Several agreements were signed, including a Memorandum of Understanding for the training and capacity-building of Sri Lankan civil servants and a Protocol to amend the Agreement on Avoidance of Double Taxation.
Additionally, they released a joint statement titled ‘India-Sri Lanka Joint Statement-Fostering Partnerships for a Shared Future,’ which underscored their commitment to advancing the bilateral relationship. The Sri Lankan president gave an assurance that Sri Lanka would not allow any nation to engage in espionage against India within Sri Lankan Ocean waters.
Trip to China
Following his visit to India, Dissanayake’s trip to China is seen as a move to balance the influence of these two crucial regional powers, this journey reflects Sri Lanka’s strategic efforts to manage the influences of both China and India, which are critical for its economic revival. The Hambantota Port, leased to China Merchants Port Holdings in 2017 under a 99-year agreement, plays a key role in this context. The port’s strategic position along major shipping routes enhances China’s regional influence and illustrates the country’s Belt and Road Initiative.
Both leaders affirmed their commitment to a mutually beneficial comprehensive partnership in their Joint Statement. India will train 1,500 Sri Lankan civil servants over five years, and a new passenger ferry service will start between Rameshwaram (India) and Talaimannar (Sri Lanka), complementing the existing service between Nagapattinam (India) and Kankesanthurai (Sri Lanka). Additionally, the Kankesanthurai port in Sri Lanka will be redeveloped with grant assistance from the Government of India.
Regarding energy cooperation, the two countries will establish a high-capacity power grid interconnection, and India will supply liquified natural gas (LNG) to Sri Lanka. India, the United Arab Emirates, and Sri Lanka will jointly build a multiproduct pipeline from India to Sri Lanka to ensure safe and reliable energy. India will also support the Sampur solar power project in Sri Lanka and participate in the joint development of offshore wind power in the Palk Straits. Furthermore, the Trincomalee Tank Farms in Sri Lanka will be developed as a regional energy and industrial hub. A Joint Working Group will be set up to implement a Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI) stack in Sri Lanka with Indian assistance, and another Joint Working Group will focus on agriculture. In terms of defence, India will train Sri Lankan defence forces, provide defence equipment, and conduct joint military exercises, maritime surveillance, and defence dialogue and exchanges with Sri Lanka. India will also help Sri Lanka develop disaster mitigation, relief, and rehabilitation capabilities and cooperate in hydrography. Both countries signed an agreement on the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) to boost investment in each other’s count. On the part of India this is a big undertaking.
‘Big Brother behaviour’
The steps taken by India during the visit of President Dissanayake were an example of ‘big brother’ behaviour for some groups and politicians, meaning that India tried to lead and shape the policies of the newly elected president of Sri Lanka through its strategic interests. India has long been involved in Sri Lanka’s affairs as a dominant regional power. While some political analysts, including journalist Nirupama Subramaniam, claim that India’s influence over neighbouring countries like Sri Lanka has diminished over time, we believe the situation is quite different. The historical context indicates that India still plays a crucial role in shaping Sri Lanka’s policies and decisions. Some experts even argue that due to India’s significant economic assistance and support—especially during Sri Lanka’s recent financial crisis—the country has become increasingly reliant on India. This reliance gives India the ability to influence and guide Sri Lankan politics.
The substantial economic aid and backing from India have led to a scenario where Sri Lanka’s economic stability is closely linked to its relationship with India, further reinforcing India’s influence in the region. India has a rich history of engagement in Sri Lanka’s affairs as a leading regional power.
Some perceive these assurances—including the commitment to prevent Sri Lankan territory from being used against India’s interests—as indicative of President Dissanayake kowtowing to India’s position. This perception is rooted in the notion that such assurances are not merely diplomatic gestures but rather significant concessions aligning Sri Lanka’s strategic interests closely with India’s. Critics argue this alignment could undermine Sri Lanka’s sovereignty and ability to pursue an independent foreign policy. They view these assurances as a reflection of President Dissanayake’s willingness to prioritise India’s concerns, possibly at the expense of Sri Lanka’s national interests. The dynamics of this relationship highlight the complex and often contentious nature of regional geopolitics, where smaller nations must navigate the pressures exerted by larger, more powerful neighbours. President Dissanayake’s stance, therefore, can be seen as a balancing act, attempting to maintain favourable relations with India while also managing domestic and international perceptions of sovereignty and independence. The view here holds that the actions of President Dissanayake represent a first in the region and a unique brand of diplomacy that is at variance with the policies pursued by all the other countries bordering India. These assurances are a strategic effort to maintain a positive relationship with India. However, they also raise concerns regarding Sri Lanka’s sovereignty and independence in foreign policy matters.
Power balance in SA
The consequences of these assurances could greatly influence regional dynamics and the power balance in South Asia. Some opposition groups and politicians in Sri Lanka have voiced their criticism of the agreements and policies stemming from the visit, claiming that they excessively favour India and compromise Sri Lanka’s autonomy. They argue that the new administration is too eager to meet India’s demands, which could jeopardize Sri Lanka’s national interests.
When reviewing the history of India’s diplomatic relations with Sri Lanka, India’s hostility and competitive stance over Sri Lanka becomes apparent. The year 1977 saw Sri Lanka take more extraordinary leaps toward a more market-oriented economy during the presidency of J.R. Jayewardene. This again made Sri Lanka the first among the South Asian countries to embark on broad-based economic liberalisation.
At the funeral of Ronnie de Mel, the then president Ranil Wickremesinghe said ‘Today, however, we witnessed a proliferation of shops, establishment of factories, and emergence of new urban centres—all thanks to the open economy policy. Moreover, following this economic liberalisation, Late President J.R. Jayawardena secured funding for major development projects. The construction of the Mahaweli scheme, large reservoirs, land development for agriculture, the Sri Jayewardenepura Kotte Parliament Complex, new infrastructure, roads, trade zones and housing programs all became possible due to his adept management of resources. He demonstrated remarkable skill in funding and overseeing these endeavors’
Economic transition
The regime of Jayewardene adopted a policy package that reconverted the country from a state-controlled economy to a market-oriented economy characterised by deregulation, privatisation, and foreign investment. This was contrary to the earlier socialist policies of state control and economic self-sufficiency. The government that preceded J.R. Jayewardene was headed by Sirimavo Bandaranaike, who led the country between 1970 and 1977. Her governance had been in the hands of a coalition set by the participation of leftist parties such as the Communist Party, and Lanka Sama Samaja party of Sri Lanka. The economic policy during the Bandaranaike regime focused on state-led development and self-sufficiency, primarily influenced by leftist politicians within the coalition government. The administration introduced measures to decrease reliance on imports, foster local industries, and nationalize essential sectors. However, these policies led to economic challenges, including high inflation and public dissatisfaction, and finally to an electoral defeat.
In opening the economy, Jayewardene sought to attract foreign investment, increase exports, and modernse sectors to align with Western economic principles of liberalisation, deregulation, and privatization, integrating Sri Lanka into the global economy. During the same period, under the leadership of Indira Gandhi, India pursued a more diverse and multi-layered policy concerning Sri Lanka in response to Jayewardene’s open economic policy. Thus, Sri Lanka replaced its earlier socialism-oriented policies with one oriented toward modernisation and opening its economy to the global market. Such a policy led to geopolitical tensions. India was apprehensive about the consequences of Sri Lanka’s economic liberalisation, especially Jayewardene’s adherence to Western economic principles and his cozy relations with the United States. JR was nicknamed “Yanki Dickie”. India was not particularly pleased with this change. The Indian government under Indira Gandhi saw the growing Western influence in its neighbour as an ominous portent. Jayewardene’s foreign policy, like American policy, earned him the sobriquet “Yankie Dickie.” The pro-Western stance of Jayewardene was an eyesore for India, and it carried geopolitical implications. The open economic policy was in contrast with India’s. Colombo thus viewed it as an invitation to all who would be considered a potential competitor for its regional strategic interests. Therefore, Sri Lanka’s new economic orientation constituted a departure from the traditional non-aligned stance, which had earlier been the hallmark of Colombo’s foreign policy.
India’s suspicions
India’s suspicions led it to attempt to influence Sri Lanka through various methods, including backing Tamil separatist groups in the northern districts. This support for Tamil separatists was a strategic decision by India aimed at countering the perceived threat posed by Sri Lanka’s economic liberalization. India provided training and support to these groups to create instability in the northern province of Sri Lanka, which had concentrated Tamil populations. This included training camps for guerrilla warfare and other combat techniques in India. The trained militants were sent back to Sri Lanka for combat actions to have a separate Tamil state, thus extending violence and unrest in the region, which destabilized Sri Lanka for nearly 30 years.
This support formed part of India’s broader geopolitical strategy of maintaining its influence in South Asia and deterring any perceived threats to its strategic interests. In supporting Tamil separatist groups, India sought to exercise influence over the Sri Lankan government to ensure that Sri Lanka would not act as a conduit for extra-regional influences that could undermine India’s regional hegemony. However, this support came with a significant cost to Sri Lanka in terms of internal stability and economic development. The violence and unrest in this northern province drew away resources and attention from economic reforms and other development projects. They created an environment of uncertainty and instability that discouraged foreign investment and hindered growth.
In other words, India viewed the new open economic policy under the leadership of JR Jayewardene as a perceived threat to its influence in the region. It continued its support for the Tamil separatist groups in Sri Lanka as part of a broad geopolitical strategy to counter it. However, this came at the expense of significant internal costs for stability and economic development in Sri Lanka, which underlines the complex interaction of geopolitics and monetary policy in the region. India’s role in Sri Lanka’s civil conflict, had its own cost as well, primarily through the deployment of the Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF) to fight against the Tamil Tigers (LTTE), led to considerable tensions. The LTTE, feeling betrayed by India’s actions, grew increasingly hostile towards the country. This animosity reached a tragic peak with the assassination of Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi on May 21, 1991, carried out by a suicide bomber linked to the LTTE named Kalaivani Rajaratnam, alias Thenmozhi Rajaratnam, who was a member of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). Gandhi’s assassination was a direct result of India’s intervention in Sri Lanka, underscoring the complex and often perilous consequences of geopolitical involvement in regional disputes.
Sri Lanka and Singapore
The case of Sri Lanka is often compared with Singapore’s in economic development discussions because of their similarities in strategic location, population size, and historical context. Both island nations have the potential to emerge as economic powerhouses. It was in 1977 that the economy took a concrete turn towards market-oriented economic development under the open economic policy introduced by President J.R. Jayewardene. This considerable leap was intended to bring more foreign investment and higher exports by modernizing different sectors of the economy. If the subsequent governments had carried on with the open economic policy of JR, Sri Lanka might have achieved economic success comparable to Singapore’s.
One of the reasons for Singapore’s economic success has been its consistent liberalisation and openness to foreign investment. Had Sri Lanka not deviated from Jayewardene’s policies, it could have joined the rapid industrialisation and infrastructural modernization. The continuous inflow of foreign capital would have promoted technological advancements, improved public services, and enhanced the quality of life for many Sri Lankans.
Sri Lanka is well-placed in the Indian Ocean to perform the role of an international hub for trade. If it had continuously pursued open economy policies, the country could have emerged as a significant trading hub like Singapore. This would have brought substantial port facilities with free trade zones and efficient logistical networks that house companies from most parts of the world to boost their exporting capabilities and bring rapid economic growth.
In this regard, political stability is paramount for sustained economic development. Consistent and stable governance, in the form of well-defined policies and efficient institutions, would create an enabling environment wherein the business sector could flourish. This would encourage long-term investment and innovation, leading to a better distribution of economic benefits within the populace. What is required is investment in education and enhancement of skills for a competitive workforce. With more substantial investment in education and vocational training, Sri Lanka could have developed a highly skilled labour force to support high-tech industries and services, thus developing its human capital to ease the transition into a productivity-driven and knowledge-based economy. The situation was very well studied by India, whose plans were to disrupt the process that would lead to financial leadership of Sri Lanka in the region.
Yet, the reality is considerably more complex. Political change combined with civil war and economic dynamics shaped the financial fortunes of Sri Lanka. The successive regimes failed to pursue Jayewardene’s open economic policy to its logical conclusion. Lack of political will, instability, and the protracted civil war siphoned resources and interest from economic development. The interplay of factors such as major trade union action initiated by leftist politicians and the then JVP has destroyed the country’s economic journey. The international outlook and local economic policies of the new Sri Lankan government indicate that they have reconstituted the policies where Jayewardene (JRJ) left.
This indicates a continuation and revitalization of the economic strategies and international relations initiated during JRJ’s tenure, with the goal of further integrating Sri Lanka into the global economy while addressing contemporary challenges and opportunities. It represents a significant shift from the former JVP stance on Indian expansion that Wijeweera advocated.
India and open economy
India adopted the open economic policy in 1991, popularly known as the New Economic Policy, during the Prime Ministership of P. V. Narasimha Rao and the Finance Ministership of Dr. Manmohan Singh. Narasimha Rao was the first person from South India and the second person from a non-Hindi-speaking background to be the prime minister. His open economic policy reforms rescued the country from going towards bankruptcy during the economic crisis of 1991. This policy opened the Indian economy to the world, boosting the importation of raw materials, deregulating markets, and attracting foreign investment. Unlike in Sri Lanka, this policy was pursued and developed by successive governments, which led to India’s robust economy. The 1991 reforms addressed the immediate balance of payments crisis by opting for market-oriented, globally integrated reform. This constituted a sharp turnaround from the protectionist policy stance of yesteryears and provided an opportunity for all-round future development.
J.R. Jayewardene’s Open Economic Policy engendered tremendous criticism from politicians and scholars inclined toward the Left. They said his policies facilitated the privatization and sale of state-owned enterprises to hinder the country’s economic sovereignty and its people’s well-being. They say such a liberalization policy favours foreign investors and local elites while the masses struggle because of economic stringencies and the withdrawal of public services.
One of the most frequently cited remarks in discussions about President Jayewardene’s bold and sometimes controversial economic liberalization in Sri Lanka is his declaration: ‘Let the robber barons come!’ This statement represents the decision to open Sri Lanka’s economy to foreign investors and private enterprises, even at the risk of exploitation by large foreign business interests, particularly from the USA. The reforms initiated by Jayewardene marked a significant shift from the previous socialist orientation of the economy, specifically aimed at attracting foreign capital to drive rapid economic growth. The Accelerated Mahaweli program serves as a prime example of this initiative.
Geopolitical landscape
In today’s geopolitical landscape, where India is rising as a global power, Jayewardene’s quote becomes particularly relevant considering India’s assertive stance towards Sri Lanka. The parallels between Jayewardene’s era and the current situation under President Anura Kumara Dissanayake highlight the influence of powerful nations, especially India, on Sri Lanka’s economic and political strategies. The NPP government’s development initiatives, such as the oil refinery project supported by Chinese investment, which aims to sell or export surplus oil, could challenge India’s economic dominance, given that India refines and exports Russian crude oil. In this context, the NPP government must remain vigilant about potential threats from India, reminiscent of those faced during Jayewardene’s administration. India will likely hold Dissanayake accountable for strengthening ties with China, India’s most significant regional competitor, particularly regarding the oil refinery project. AKD’s government should cautiously approach the various overtures from India, as they often serve India’s interests rather than being motivated by genuine concern for Sri Lanka.
Midweek Review
Pahalgam massacre, Indian denial of Trump claims and Sri Lanka’s triumph over LTTE

There hadn’t been a previous instance of India having to contradict a sitting US President, literally, to his face. But, the swift Indian rejection of President Donald Trump’s offer to mediate in the renewed Indo-Pakistan conflict over flashpoint Jammu and Kashmir underscored India’s longstanding national policy that Kashmir wouldn’t involve any third party, under any circumstances.
US President Donald Trump’s claim that he warned both India and Pakistan that there would be significant increase in trade if they agreed on an immediate ceasefire was rejected by India. Pakistan appreciated the US President’s initiative.
Responding to Indian Premier Narendra Modi’s strongly worded statement on May 12, Pakistan, while declaring its backing for a “peaceful resolution of the Jammu and Kashmir dispute, in accordance with the UN Security Council resolutions and the aspirations of the Kashmiri people, reiterated their support for President Trump’s efforts aimed at the resolution of this dispute, which remains a source of instability in South Asia.”
For whatever reasons, Modi wanted to be in the high company of white Western powers and jumped headlong into being a member of the US-led quad to rub it into China without realising that the West only wanted to use India against Beijing and there was no quid pro quo in the event of an unforeseeable need for help by New Delhi. Had he not been so cussed to Chinese, Beijing would have been a friend- in-need whatever their differences of the past.
India, however, was explicit in its response to President Trump’s cheap shot that he brokered a ceasefire between India and Pakistan. In the wake of the humiliating Indian rejection, the US was compelled to call for direct communication between India and Pakistan.
In spite of the Indian blunt denial, President Trump, like so many of his other wild claims in recent weeks, on how he has got lucrative trade deal offers from many countries advantageous to Washington, reiterated his preposterous claim with regard to the ceasefire, nuclear escalation and trade when he addressed the US military, based in Qatar. India, in no uncertain terms, has denied President Trump’s repeated claims of nuclear escalation.
Close on the heels of the now-rejected claims regarding the ceasefire, nuclear escalation and increased trade, President Donald Trump again surprised India with another unsubstantiated declaration when he asserted, at a business forum in Qatar, that India had offered the United States a trade deal with “literally zero tariffs”.
Responding to President Trump’s claim, Indian External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar declared that the ongoing negotiations were complex and far from final. Having to contradict a sitting US President is no easy task.
If India found the US propagating a narrative of its own problematic to counter, one can understand Sri Lanka’s plight in countering Western propaganda projects targeting it. But, India, unlike Colombo, swiftly and decisively set the record straight thereby prevented the US from disseminating a false narrative.
The Indian High Commission in Colombo recently reacted strongly to the Tribune report, headlined “India removes its top military spy after RAW leaks”, reproduced in the May 05 edition of The Island. Having faulted The Island for carrying the said factually incorrect news item on page 02 without a fact check, the Indian HC reminded us of the devastating 2019 Easter Sunday carnage here caused by terrorism. As expected the Indian HC statement made no reference to terrorism caused by India in Sri Lanka in the early ’80s. Terrorism sponsored by India bled Sri Lanka till May 2009.
India, too, paid a heavy price. The Indian-led destabilisation project almost overwhelmed Sri Lanka. India simultaneously conducted a proxy war while spearheading high profile diplomatic efforts meant to advance its own interests. The Indian intervention here in the ’80s should be examined keeping in mind their extremely close relationship with the then Soviet Union.
Universities of global terrorism
Prime Minister Modi’s May 12th address to the nation explained India’s stand on Pakistan vis-à-vis what he called terrorism. The Pahalgam massacre carried out on April 22, 2025, brought the country together and the armed forces were authorised to wipe out terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan.
Prime Minister Modi declared: “Terrorist bases, like Bahawalpur and Muridke, are universities of global terrorism. The big terrorist attacks of the world, be it 9/11, be it London Tube bombings, or the big terrorist attacks which have happened in India in the last many decades their roots are somehow connected to these terrorist hideouts. The terrorists had wiped out the Sindoor of our sisters and India responded by destroying their terrorist headquarters. More than 100 dreaded terrorists have been killed in these attacks by India. Many terrorist leaders were roaming freely in Pakistan for the last two and a half to three decades who used to conspire against India. India killed them in one stroke.”
Of course there was no reference to Sri Lanka. The English rendering of the Indian leader’s original speech, made in Hindi, conveniently left out Sri Lanka though there cannot be a better example than Sri Lanka to highlight the successful eradication of terrorism here through military means.
Modi joined the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in 1987, the year India forced Sri Lanka to accept the deployment of the Indian Army here. One of the key objectives was to supervise the swift disarming of separatist Tamil groups that were fully sponsored by them. The Indian destabilisation project was meant to compel Sri Lanka to forgo its right to deal with terrorists militarily. A case in point is the Indian demand to call off ‘Operation Liberation’ aimed at clearing Vadamarachchi. India deployed its Air Forces across the Palk Straits in late June 1987 to rescue Prabhakaran and finalise an agreement that suited their overall objectives. Five years later Prabhakaran ordered the assassination of Congress leader Rajiv Gandhi who deployed the Indian Air Force to save Prabhakaran from certain death at the hands of the Sri Lanka Army. Had that happened, the India-created terrorist project could have collapsed. Thousands of lives, including that of Gandhi, and over 1,300 Indian soldiers, could have been saved and a sea-borne attack on the Maldives wouldn’t have materialised.
Premier Modi, too, contradicted President Trump’s claims of direct US role in the halt to Indian offensive action. Modi declared that the suspension of their retaliatory action was the result of the Pakistan Army reaching out to the Director General of Military Operations (DGMO), India.
Premier Modi’s declaration that their greatest strength is India’s unity against all forms of terrorism. “This is certainly not the era of war but this is also not the era of terrorism. Zero tolerance against terrorism is the guarantee for a better world.”
Obviously that hadn’t been India’s position during the Congress reign in the 1980s. India owed Sri Lanka an apology, at least now. Modi’s India should set the record straight, particularly against the backdrop of Western powers pursuing an anti-Sri Lanka campaign.
The anti-Sri Lanka project has taken a new turn with the unveiling of the Tamil genocide monument in Brampton, Ontario, Canada. The monument is widely reported to have been dedicated to the memory of Tamils killed in the war. The unveiling of the monument coincided with the preparations for commemorative events to mark, what the interested parties called, the Mullivaikkal massacre – 40,000 according to the highly exaggerated hatchet job of the UN Secretary General’s Panel of Experts (PoE) that inquired into military operations conducted in the Vanni theatre.
A section of the media quoted Mayor of Brampton Patrick Brown as having told the monument unveiling ceremony: “Genocide deniers, you are not welcome in Brampton, you are not welcome in Canada. Go back to Colombo.” Brown surely knows how to inspire Tamils living in his area. The Canadian media reported that about 12,000 Canadians of Sri Lankan origin live in the Brampton area.
Canada has some nerve to rake up such unsubstantiated claims against Sri Lanka despite so much innocent blood of natives there on its own hands from its colonial past. Even if we just go back to as recently as the mid-1990s when a growing outcry there forced them to close down for good church-run schools after finding remains of several thousand native children in unmarked graves on grounds of those schools that were used to ‘civilise’ them.
Tamil victims
Those who propagate the lie about deliberate massacre of Tamils during the last phase of war that was brought to a successful conclusion on May 18, 2009, conveniently forget that India launched the Sri Lanka terrorism project way back in early ’80s. Over the years various interested parties, both here and abroad, gave unsubstantiated claims regarding the number of dead. But their focus was always on those killed fighting for the LTTE. Let us remind the likes of Patrick Brown who spotlighted the fact that thousands of Tamils were killed by Tamils fighting for supremacy in the Northern and Eastern regions during the conflict.
(1) Members of various Tamil terrorist groups killed in intra-group fighting.
(2) Those killed in fighting between/among Tamil groups sponsored by India
(3) Members of Tamil groups killed in fighting Sri Lankan military and police
(4) Tamil youth killed during weapons training in India and transfer to and from Tamil Nadu via sea
(5) Terrorists killed by rival groups during their stay in India. The killing of 13 Sri Lankans, including EPRLF leader K. Padmanabha in Madras (now Chennai) in June 1990, about three months after the Indian military pulled out from Sri Lanka, exposed New Delhi’s failure to neutralise the LTTE. Their next major target was the assassination of Congress leader Rajiv Gandhi in the following year.
(6) LTTE terrorists killed by the Indian military in the Northern and Eastern regions
(7) LTTE terrorists killed during confrontations with the Indian Navy/Coast Guard
(8) Members of PLOTE (People’s Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam) killed by Indian forces deployed to avert Sri Lankan terrorist attack on the Maldives
(9) Tamil National Army (TNA), a group that had been hastily established by India ahead of the Indian military pullout from Sri Lanka in early 1990 to protect the EPRLF puppet administration, suffered significant loss of life as a result of LTTE operations facilitated by Sri Lanka. That was the period, May 1989 to June 1990, when slain President Ranasinghe Premadasa played ball with Velupillai Prabhakaran
(10) LTTE cadres killed on the orders of Velupillai Prabhakaran. Gopalswamy Mahendraraja alias Mahattaya, whom the writer met at Koliyakulam, near Omanthai, in early January 1990, was the senior most LTTEer executed on the orders of Prabhakaran. Having accused Mahattaya of betraying the LTTE’s cause to India, Prabhakaran demanded his surrender and carried out his execution.
(11) Indian law enforcement authorities killed those who had been involved in the heinous LTTE plot to assassinate Rajiv Gandhi in May 1991. Those who had been demanding justice for Tamils killed during the conflict do not talk of members of that community who perished in India following Gandhi’s assassination.
(12) Tamils who paid the supreme sacrifice fighting for the Sri Lankan government.
(13) Deaths among the LTTE fighting cadre following the breakup of the group in 2004 that eventually paved the way for the armed forces’ success in the north.
(14) The LTTE deployed thousands of children for combat. The number of children killed due to battlefield deployment remains unknown. Those who shed copious tears for terrorists must be reminded that until the Sri Lankan military eradicated the LTTE, Velupillai Prabhakaran continued the despicable practice of forcible recruitment of children.
Elimination of Tamil political leadership
The Tamil Diaspora believe that the world can be deceived with the blatant lie that all Tamils who had been killed during the conflict were civilians. If their lies were accepted, people from the moon must have fought for the LTTE.
There is no doubt that Tamils – men, women and children who had nothing to do with the LTTE or other Tamil terrorist groups that entered the political mainstream during President Ranasinghe Premadasa’s tenure – perished in government military action. There had been serious human rights violations. There is no point in claiming ‘zero’ casualties. That claim is stupid and the government shouldn’t have resorted to such foolish propaganda projects.
Immediately after the government declared victory over the LTTE on May 18, 2009, it should have tendered an apology to the innocent Tamil speaking people killed due to military action. The government should have explained the efforts made over the years to reach a consensus with Tamil terrorist groups with the direct involvement of India. Unfortunately, the war-winning government pathetically failed in its responsibility. President Mahinda Rajapaksa gravely erred in his refusal to make representations to the UN PoE. Had that happened, Sri Lanka could have explained the circumstances leading to the war in August 2006 and avoided falling victim to hatchet jobs done by UN bodies in support of Western agendas.
Those who had been propagating Tamil genocide narrative deliberately forget how the LTTE and other Tamil groups killed elected representatives of Tamil speaking people. They should be ashamed for playing politics with slain Tamil politicians. Have you ever heard of LTTE sympathisers questioning the assassination of Tamil political leader and former opposition leader Appapillai Amirthalingam along with ex-Jaffna MP Vettivelu Yogeswaran on July 13, 1989 at a rented house in Colombo 07.
Yogeswaran’s wife, Sarojini was shot five times at her residence near Jaffna on May 17, 1998. The LTTE assassinated her because she accepted the post of Jaffna Mayor. The LTTE killed indiscriminately. Sarojini Yogeswaran was killed as the LTTE couldn’t stomach Sri Lanka’s efforts to restore normalcy in the Jaffna peninsula.
Many people tend to forget that the Jaffna peninsula and the nearby islands were brought under government control in 1995 during Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga’s tenure as the President. The TULF decision to contest the Jaffna Municipal Council election on January 29, 1998, infuriated the LTTE. The TULF’s move weakened the LTTE’s position. Political process always frightened the LTTE.
The writer covered the Jaffna district local government elections conducted on January 29, 1998. The TULF contested only the Jaffna MC and Waligamam (north) Pradeshiya Sabha out of 17 local government authorities
Those who organised high profile events in honour of the LTTE dead must make a genuine effort to identify and formulate a list of Tamils – members of rival groups and politicians killed during the conflict. And a separate list of forcibly conscripted children. If Brampton Mayor Patrick Brown is so concerned about Tamils, he can easily check why those 12,000 Sri Lankan Tamils ended up in his area. Did they flee Sri Lanka armed forces, Indian military, or the LTTE? An attempt should be made to identify those who had fought for the LTTE or other Tamil groups living therein.
‘Forgotten Sri Lanka’s exiled victims’
Those who had been accusing Sri Lanka of, what they called, enforced disappearances during and after the conclusion of the war in May 2009, refuse to acknowledge thousands of ex-terrorists (of LTTE and other groups) who live overseas. Refusal on the part of Western governments to share information with Sri Lanka has deprived the country of an opportunity to address accusations of disappearances.
Sometime ago, an expensive survey carried out by the International Truth and Justice Project (ITJP), affiliated to the Foundation of Human Rights in South Africa, revealed ex-LTTE cadres taking refuge in western countries. The survey was titled ‘Forgotten Sri Lanka’s exiled victims.’
The release of the report in June 2016 coincided with the commencement of the on-going 32 sessions of the Geneva-based United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC). The report inadvertently revealed the existence of clandestine networks, facilitating Sri Lankans of Tamil origin, including former members of the LTTE, reaching Europe, through illegal means.
The study disclosed that LTTE personnel, including those who had been with Shanmugalingam Sivashankar alias Pottu Amman’s dreaded intelligence service, had secured citizenship in European countries, including the UK.
The report dealt with information obtained from 75 Tamils, living in the UK, France, Switzerland and Norway. Almost all of them had fled Sri Lanka after the conclusion of the war, in May, 2009. The vast majority of interviews had been conducted in London. However, an ITJP bid to include some of those ex-LTTE cadres, based in Germany, had gone awry. The report claimed that the targeted group declined to participate in the process, in protest against the role of the international community in supporting the transitional justice process in Sri Lanka.
Surprisingly, ITJP hadn’t bothered about those who took refuge in India during the conflict and post-conflict period.
A group of human rights experts, international prosecutors, investigators and transitional justice experts, who had previously served the United Nations (UN) International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Criminal Court (ICC), produced the report under the guidance of Yasmin Sooka, one of the three persons on UNSG Ban Ki-moon’s PoE on Sri Lanka. Sooka teamed up with Marzuki Darusman and Steven R. Ratner to produce a Report of the Secretary General’s Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka. Sooka functions as the executive director of the Foundation as well as ITJP
According to the report: “She is a former member of the South African & the Sierra Leone Truth and Reconciliation Commissions and was a legal advisor to Ban Ki-moon on Sri Lanka. She was the Soros inaugural Chair at the School of Public Policy and recently sat on the Panel investigating sexual violence by French peacekeeping troops in the Central African Republic.”
The writer sought a clarification from UNSG’s deputy spokesperson, Farhan Haq, regarding Sooka’s tenure as a Legal Advisor to UNSG on Sri Lanka. The Island received the following response from Haq: “Yasmin Sooka has been on high level panels, including on Sri Lanka, but she has not been the legal adviser to the Secretary-General.”
Unfortunately, Sri Lanka never really bothered to conduct a comprehensive investigation into unsubstantiated allegations taking into consideration all available facts. Thereby Sri Lanka deprived itself an opportunity to set the record straight, even 17 years after the conclusion of the conflict.
Wartime GoC of the celebrated 58 Division Shavendra Silva, who retired on Dec. 31, 2024, after serving the military for over four decades on the eve of 16th anniversary of triumph over the LTTE, squarely blamed successive governments of failing to counter war crimes accusations. In his exclusive interview with Derana anchor Chathura Alwis the Gajaba Regiment veteran held the governments, including the war-winning Mahinda Rajapaksa administration, of failing to clear the armed forces of false allegations.
Isn’t it an indictment on the entire political party leadership of this country?
Midweek Review
Jairam Ramesh’s “THE LIGHT OF ASIA: the poem that defined THE BUDDHA” – II

(Continued from Monday 12th May 2025)
Light of Asia’s ‘stunning impact in Ceylon’ forgotten and the ‘Uncrowned King’ buried
One of the dozen of books that Nehru got from his father, when he was imprisoned in a Lucknow jail by the British in 1922, was a copy of The Light of Asia. Eighteen years later, in February 1940, Nehru himself sent his daughter (Indira), who was convalescing in a hospital in Switzerland, ‘Arnold’s two little books The Light of Asia and The Song Celestial’ to keep her company’. (The Song Celestial was Edwin Arnold’s 1885 English translation of the Sanskrit language ‘Bhagavad Gita’ or literally ‘Song of the Lord’. Arnold’s choice of ‘Celestial’ as an English equivalent to Sanskrit ‘Bhagawad’ in the title reflects his deep insight into the Hindu sacred text which, A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada called, in 1984, ‘a definitive guide to the science of self-realization’.)
No doubt, The Light of Asia was Edwin Arnold’s most inspired poetic work. He drew upon many previously existing sources and his own personal interactions with the scholars as well as the ordinary people of India whom he loved. The inscription set up at the university chapel at Oxford where his ashes were deposited after his death contained the following information: Born June 10th, 1832, Died March 24th 1904. Newdigate Prizeman. (While a student at Oxford he won this prestigious prize for his poem ‘The Feast of Belshazzar’) These lines were inscribed there, too:
‘He found his sympathy with – Eastern religious thought
Inspiration for his great –
Poetical gifts.
’
Arnold had a strong moral character, a sharp intellect, a deep commitment to family and work, and meticulously cultivated social graces that enabled him to navigate interactions with people of high society as well as the common masses.That is why Jairam describes him as ‘a quintessential Victorian in every way’. He was a dedicated servant of the Empire, who was compassionate towards the subject people; he believed the British imperial system to be a protector and promoter of civilisation. A polyglot of rare ability, he was conversant in at least ten foreign languages (and indeed quite knowledgeable in some of them): Greek, Latin, Arabic, Turkish, French, German, Japanese (His third wife Tama Kurokawa, born in 1869 and hence less than half his age, was from Japan), Hebrew, Persian, Sanskrit and Marathi. Arnold’s remarkable multilingual capabilities stood him in good stead in serving the Empire in the cultural sphere through his translations between languages, thereby supporting mutual understanding among imperial subjects of different linguistic and religious cultures.
In a passing reference to Edwin Arnold’s The Light of Asia, reputed Indian historian A. L. Basham, in his 1954 book ‘The Wonder that was India’, mentioned that it was based on the Lalitavistara (a Mahayana Sutra in Sanskrit that describes the life of Gautama Buddha from his descent from Tushita heaven to his first sermon in the Deer Park at Sarnath near Varanasi or Baranas Nuwara as it is known among Sinhala speaking Buddhists. A different scholarly proposal mooted in 1960 was that Arnold’s principal source for his epic poem was Professor Samuel Beal’s translation of the Abhinishkramana Sutra (1875) combined with lesser borrowings from Spence Hardy and Arnold’s firsthand experience of Buddhism and his life in India. The year 1972 saw the emergence of yet another conclusion according to which he drew upon the knowledge he had gathered before 1879 by reading books, and also through his contact with sources of Theravada Buddhism in Ceylon (Sri Lanka).
There is lexical evidence of Arnold’s probable contact with Sinhala literary sources in the book. This is my supposition based on the fact that he was a language genius. Although Arnold had not been to Sri Lanka before 1886, he definitely had learned some Sinhala (though Jairam doesn’t mention this). When I read The Light of Asia as a teenager, I was fascinated by the fact that Edwin Arnold uses a few words of Sinhala (my native tongue) as substitutes for the Pali words which the context demands, for maintaining the metrical consistency of the lines, such as ‘sakwal’ or universes (for Pali ‘cakkavala’), ‘Seriyut’ (for the Pali name ‘Sariputta’) “Mugalan’ (for the Pali name ‘Moggallana’, ‘gow’ for Pali ‘gavuta’, and ‘dasa sil’ (for Pali ‘dasa sila). Jairam probably has no knowledge of Sinhala to have detected these Sinhalised Pali terms.
But Jairam’s apparent unfamiliarity with Sinhala has not been an impediment to his understanding of ‘the stunning impact in Ceylon’ that Arnold’s epic poem generated there, a mark of which was the annual ‘Light of Asia oratory contest’ for school children that had been conducted in Colombo for a long time. Incidentally, Jairam’s mention of this event brought to my mind the late Lakshman Kadirgamar. My article is a memorial tribute paid to him on the Vesak Day that, in Sri Lanka, fell on May 12, 2025. Though he was born into a traditional Christian family and had remained a Christian for most of his life until, in his senior years, he became an interfaith person who was, nevertheless, deeply inclined towards Buddhism (as his daughter Ajita says in her biography of her father ‘The Cake that Was Baked at Home’ (2015).
Ajita Kadirgamar mentions a little-known fact about her father’s school days at Trinity College, Kandy, which is that he took pride in having won the Light of Asia contest organised by the Colombo Young Men’s Buddhist Association as a student of that Christian school. She gives some information about the contest. The particular contest was inaugurated under the leadership of the then Governor of Ceylon Herbert Stanley in 1925 and was ‘dedicated to developing oratory skills in English and inculcating Buddhist ethics and values among the younger generation of the country’. The contestants were required to recite some verses from the Edwin Arnold classic ‘Light of Asia’ and give an explanation in English in their own words. “Thus”, Ajita adds, “one sees that LK’s great interest in Buddhism began while still a schoolboy and continued throughout his lifetime to be a topic close to his heart”. This interactional contact with The Light of Asia, as in the case of Swami Vivekananda, Anagarika Dharmapala, and many other renowned personalities of the past earlier mentioned in this article, must have had its characteristic developmental impact on the formation of Lakshman Kadirgamar’s noble personality. It was not for nothing that his schoolmates at Trinity called him ‘P of P’ ‘Personification of Personality’ as Ajita mentions in her book on her father. On his brutal assassination in 2005 at the age of 73, he came to be celebrated by journalists as ‘the Uncrowned King of Sri Lanka’, as the Editor of The Island newspaper eulogised him on his death in a front page editorial as another journalist named Arjuna Hulugalle later remembered in an anecdote (that Ajita records on pp.178-9). “To many he (Lakshman Kadirgamar) was also ‘the noblest son of Sri Lanka in recent times”, Arjuna Hulugalle added. That exalted image of Kadirgamar epitomises the influence that The Light of Asia had on the thinking minds of the culturally literate intelligent Sri Lankan youth of his time.
Ajita also records something that she heard from Ajith Samaranayake, a veteran journalist and newspaper editor (who was himself no more among the living at the time she was writing ‘The Cake that …’) about her father’s humility and generosity. Samaranayake was one of the journalists included in the entourage that accompanied Kadirgamar on his first official tour abroad as the newly appointed Foreign Affairs Minister in president Chandrika Bandaranayake’s government in 1994. They were on a visit to India. Kadirgamar was accommodated in the Hyderabad House, the Government of India’s State Guest House, along with High Commissioner for India designate Mangala Moonasinghe, and Jayantha Dhanapala (formerly of the UN, and later to become the Secretary General of the Peace Secretariat). Kadirgamar arranged for the journalists also to be accommodated and to have their meals in the same hotel. What was more, on his express request, the Indian government put an Air Force helicopter at their disposal for visiting sacred sites associated with the Buddha, including Buddhagaya (Bodh Gaya). This was a double privilege (as Ajita says) for the state visitors from Sri Lanka, for Mangala Moonasinghe was a descendant of Anagarika Dharmapala, well known in Sri Lanka and other Buddhist countries like Burma (Myanmar), Thailand, China, Japan, etc., for having made concerted efforts with the help of the likes of Sir Edwin Arnold to reclaim the sacred Buddhagaya site for the global Buddhists.
In fact, The Light of Asia author was the virtual progenitor of the very idea of reclaiming Bodh Gaya for world Buddhists. The famous Panadura Vadaya (Panadura Debate) between some members of the local Christian clergy and some Buddhist monks in 1873, in which the leading debater on the Buddhist side, a learned Buddhist monk by the name of Migettuwatte Gunananda Thero, well versed in English and Latin, in addition to Sinhala, Pali and Sanskrit, who, with his advanced knowledge of Buddhism and the Bible, and his superior oratorical skills, convincingly beat his Catholic opponents. The news of the debate was widely reported in newspapers circulated in Europe and America. This drew the attention of orientalist scholars and theosophists in the West like the American Colonel Henry Steel Olcott (a veteran of the American Civil War of 1861-65), Madame Blavatsky, and others, to the fact that Buddhist monks were challenging intrusive anti-Buddhist Christian missionary activity in Ceylon (Sri Lanka). The arrival of Olcott, Blavatsky, and others in Ceylon in 1880 and their passionate activism accelerated the pace of the burgeoning local Buddhist revivalist movement. Sixteen-year-old David Hewavitarana joined them, originally as their translator. In 1885, David changed his name to Dharmapala and took the Buddhist religious vow of ‘homelessness’ with his parents’ permission and became known as Anagarika Dharmapala (Dharmapala the Homeless). (To be concluded)
by Rohana R. Wasala
Midweek Review
Journalistic Brilliance Joins Humanity

For the late Louis Benedict who blazed a quiet trail,
In the fast paced Sri Lankan newspaper world,
Journalism was not just a job but a great calling;
An elixir which gave his life full meaning,
And when he penned his thoughts,
The results were things of exceeding beauty,
Because with clear-water clarity did he unravel,
The most complex of realities, so much so,
If there ever was a Golden Pen, it was Louis’,
But name and fame sat lightly on him,
For in humility, he took after ‘The Man from Galilee’.
By Lynn Ockersz
-
Features4 days ago
Searching for George Keyt
-
News6 days ago
Chikungunya spreading rapidly in Colombo and suburbs
-
Features4 days ago
The Strategic Imperative:Why Sri Lanka Could Transform Indo-Pacific Security Through Space
-
Life style4 days ago
Behind the sparkle
-
Business2 days ago
Dialog Enterprise strengthens data protection and cybersecurity with ISO/IEC 27017 and ISO/IEC 27018 certifications
-
Business3 days ago
Cargills Bank Q1 PAT rises to Rs. 162 million, up Rs. 116 million
-
Business5 days ago
Supreme Court launches online payments via GovPay – a milestone in judicial digitalization
-
Editorial1 day ago
Expediency vs. Public duty