Features

The absent-minded Opposition

Published

3 years ago

2023/05/7

By Uditha Devapriya

At a time when everyone is taking a stand on everything, abstentions only show that you don’t want to take a stand on anything. The SJB, the country’s main Opposition, chose to abstain from the vote on the IMF deal. Dayan Jayatilleka’s take on the decision, which SJB MPs justify on the grounds that the deal was not presented properly to parliament, is by far the best: by abstaining, the SJB copped out, and by copping out, it essentially deprived itself of the best opportunity since May 9, 2022, to consolidate its position in parliament. That it did not do so, that it chose to duck, only showed how divided it is.

Certain SJB MPs claim to be opposed to the process through which the IMF deal has been finalised. But, as Jayatilleka clearly points out, there was, and is, a direct link between IMF conditionalities and the authoritarian nature of the government. The latter seems hell-bent on imposing austerity at any price, and the electorate are, if somewhat mutedly, reacting against that tendency. Had the SJB taken a stand, they could have conveyed a message to voters: they could have indicated that they were of one mind regarding the IMF deal, that they could only support it if it had been linked to a verifiable promise of holding elections later this year or early next. By abstaining, they merely betrayed their inability to interpret these developments properly, to come to a consensus on them.

Other parties took a much clearer stand. The JVP, the Freedom People’s Congress, and the Uttara Lanka Sabhagaya all voted against it. Only the SLPP and the UNP voted in favour. Most minority parties, perhaps signalling their lack of commitment to anything which does not directly impinge on minority issues, kept away. It is possible that some ruling party MPs are trying to insulate themselves from the backlash that will accompany the implementation of IMF reforms. The SLPP, in that sense, appeared slightly divided, with Sarath Weerasekera and Namal Rajapaksa abstaining. Against such a backdrop, it is significant to recall that, in the 1990s, when the then government passed one reform deal after another, several ruling party MPs chose to abstain as well. Among them was Mahinda Rajapaksa.

Of course, with all due respect to Rajapaksa père and fils, there is a difference between a ruling party MP abstaining and an Opposition party abstaining from a crucial vote. In the 1990s Mahinda Rajapaksa was a side-lined and marginalised centre-left populist who had been condemned to the backbenches. Like Dudley Senanayake at the end of the Kotelawala government, he chose to dissent silently, rather than going all out against his party. Unlike MPs who crossed over to the UNP, he did not question his party: merely its right-wing tilt. To quote Deng, in other words, he bided his time. It is doubtful whether his son is following the same path today. But the reasoning seems clear. Namal Rajapaksa is a prince in waiting, and he cannot garner the support his presidential uncle lost his family by voting with the SLPP on deals that can, even in the short-term, general mass hostility.

The SJB does not have this excuse. It cannot afford the luxury of abstention.In Dante’s Hell, the souls debarred from entering heaven or hell are of those people who, at a time of moral crisis, chose not to take sides, and instead feigned neutralism.

Does the SJB want to take this path? There is a moral dimension to these issues. The IMF deal has been finalised. The government cannot backtrack on it. The question, then, is not whether we should go ahead with the deal – the Rajapaksa government already answered that question when it chose to resort to the IMF a year or so ago – but whether the present regime has taken every possible, necessary step to safeguard the vulnerable from the shocks which are bound to follow the enforcement of IMF conditions.

Indeed, it is perfectly possible, even within the ideological limits of the SJB, which has always been of two or three minds regarding the IMF, to approve of the IMF deal per se while voting against the deal vetted and finalised by the government.

Moreover, while the ruling party typically votes for such deals to emphasise its control, its dominance, its hegemony, fringe parties vote against them to emphasise their opposition to that hegemony. This is Politics 101, and in the context of IMF deals that have the potential of mass oppositional resistance and mobilisation, it is incredible that the SJB, which in the past has organised demonstrations against austerity, failed to take a clear stand on it.

But this is incredible only if you ignore, or set aside, the SJB’s co-option by right-wing elements, that is the economic mainstream, represented by not just political parties, but also economic think-tanks and civil society circles. Their influence has been sufficiently dominant, one feels, to distract a mainstream Oppositional outfit from engaging in its task of opposing or boycotting government deals. This is, to say the least, highly worrying.

Worrying, because it shows how jaundiced the economic establishment and civil society elite are with respect to IMF reforms. Civil society, or at least a big chunk of it, are opposed to the government. Yet they are not necessarily opposed to the IMF reforms, at least not in the same way that the political Left, including the JVP-NPP and the ULS, are. This, in my view, represents a colossal failure. It betrays an inability to reconcile the government’s austerity overdrive with the tenor of IMF conditionalities, or the link between the unpopular nature of those conditions and the authoritarian character of the government.

This is something even writers and commentators known for their “liberal” views often gloss over. Here, for instance, is Tisaranee Gunasekara:

“During the three months of Aragalaya, the Opposition had ample time to study what the Rajapaksas got wrong and come up with a common minimum programme of corrective regeneration. The Opposition failed in that task. The only one with any workable plan happened to be Ranil Wickremesinghe. While the SJB was promising to end fuel queues via the generosity of the Middle East, the Wickremesinghe administration worked on the QR system. While the JVP was promising to end the dollar shortage via donations from comrades domiciled abroad, the Wickremesinghe administration promoted tourism and wooed foreign remittances. Ranil Wickremesinghe still remains the president because he ended the soothsayer-economics of the Rajapaksas.”

Gunasekara’s basic assumption, that what saved Ranil Wickremesinghe was his decision to turn away from the Rajapaksas’ economic policies, or “Cabraalnomics”, is only half-correct. What Wickremesinghe enabled – which is perfectly plausible, and is in keeping with what has unfolded in other countries facing similar crises – was a shift to the right. The Rajapaksas had already enabled this shift in mid-2022. The Wickremesinghe administration merely fast-tracked it.

One cannot fault either administration for facilitating such a shift: such responses from the State, though objectionable, can only be expected. One can, however, fault writers for misreading it as a benign move, on the part of the present regime, to correct the policy errors of its predecessor. There is nothing benign in one government descending to the right and its successor completing that descent. Besides, the so-called “soothsayer-economics” of the Rajapaksas are no different to the neoliberal concoctions of the present.

Like certain SJB MPs, the likes of Gunasekara do not seem to be aware that the debate over IMF reforms and the debate over the government’s handling of protesters are perceived as one and the same. She seems to be of two minds regarding the government in general and Ranil Wickremesinghe in particular. The latter, of course, is busy consolidating his position. He should not be censured or condemned for that: it is what presidents do.

But in the face of such Machiavellian moves, it is inexcusable for Opposition parties to feign neutralism. Let me bring up an analogy: the claim, made by some SJB MPs, that by abstaining from the vote the party actually opposed the IMF deal, is no different to the Rajapaksa government’s silly and incredible assertion that Sri Lanka coveted support from most countries at the UNHRC, even those that abstained, in 2021. Back then the SJB rightly called out on the government’s reasoning. I think it’s only fair to call out on the Opposition’s reasoning, now.

The writer is an international relations analyst, researcher, and columnist who can be reached at udakdev1@gmail.com.

All News Advertisement

Features

Misinterpreting President Dissanayake on National Reconciliation

Published

2 hours ago

2026/02/10

Sahan Weerasooriya

President Dissanayake

President Anura Kumara Dissanayake has been investing his political capital in going to the public to explain some of the most politically sensitive and controversial issues. At a time when easier political choices are available, the president is choosing the harder path of confronting ethnic suspicion and communal fears. There are three issues in particular on which the president’s words have generated strong reactions. These are first with regard to Buddhist pilgrims going to the north of the country with nationalist motivations. Second is the controversy relating to the expansion of the Tissa Raja Maha Viharaya, a recently constructed Buddhist temple in Kankesanturai which has become a flashpoint between local Tamil residents and Sinhala nationalist groups. Third is the decision not to give the war victory a central place in the Independence Day celebrations.

Even in the opposition, when his party held only three seats in parliament, Anura Kumara Dissanayake took his role as a public educator seriously. He used to deliver lengthy, well researched and easily digestible speeches in parliament. He continues this practice as president. It can be seen that his statements are primarily meant to elevate the thinking of the people and not to win votes the easy way. The easy way to win votes whether in Sri Lanka or elsewhere in the world is to rouse nationalist and racist sentiments and ride that wave. Sri Lanka’s post independence political history shows that narrow ethnic mobilisation has often produced short term electoral gains but long term national damage.

Sections of the opposition and segments of the general public have been critical of the president for taking these positions. They have claimed that the president is taking these positions in order to obtain more Tamil votes or to appease minority communities. The same may be said in reverse of those others who take contrary positions that they seek the Sinhala votes. These political actors who thrive on nationalist mobilisation have attempted to portray the president’s statements as an abandonment of the majority community. The president’s actions need to be understood within the larger framework of national reconciliation and long term national stability.

Reconciler’s Duty

When the president referred to Buddhist pilgrims from the south going to the north, he was not speaking about pilgrims visiting long established Buddhist heritage sites such as Nagadeepa or Kandarodai. His remarks were directed at a specific and highly contentious development, the recently built Buddhist temple in Kankesanturai and those built elsewhere in the recent past in the north and east. The temple in Kankesanturai did not emerge from the religious needs of a local Buddhist community as there is none in that area. It has been constructed on land that was formerly owned and used by Tamil civilians and which came under military occupation as a high security zone. What has made the issue of the temple particularly controversial is that it was established with the support of the security forces.

The controversy has deepened because the temple authorities have sought to expand the site from approximately one acre to nearly fourteen acres on the basis that there was a historic Buddhist temple in that area up to the colonial period. However, the Tamil residents of the area fear that expansion would further displace surrounding residents and consolidate a permanent Buddhist religious presence in the present period in an area where the local population is overwhelmingly Hindu. For many Tamils in Kankesanturai, the issue is not Buddhism as a religion but the use of religion as a vehicle for territorial assertion and demographic changes in a region that bore the brunt of the war. Likewise, there are other parts of the north and east where other temples or places of worship have been established by the military personnel in their camps during their war-time occupation and questions arise regarding the future when these camps are finally closed.

There are those who have actively organised large scale pilgrimages from the south to make the Tissa temple another important religious site. These pilgrimages are framed publicly as acts of devotion but are widely perceived locally as demonstrations of dominance. Each such visit heightens tension, provokes protest by Tamil residents, and risks confrontation. For communities that experienced mass displacement, military occupation and land loss, the symbolism of a state backed religious structure on contested land with the backing of the security forces is impossible to separate from memories of war and destruction. A president committed to reconciliation cannot remain silent in the face of such provocations, however uncomfortable it may be to challenge sections of the majority community.

High-minded leadership

The controversy regarding the president’s Independence Day speech has also generated strong debate. In that speech the president did not refer to the military victory over the LTTE and also did not use the term “war heroes” to describe soldiers. For many Sinhala nationalist groups, the absence of these references was seen as an attempt to diminish the sacrifices of the armed forces. The reality is that Independence Day means very different things to different communities. In the north and east the same day is marked by protest events and mourning and as a “Black Day”, symbolising the consolidation of a state they continue to experience as excluding them and not empathizing with the full extent of their losses.

By way of contrast, the president’s objective was to ensure that Independence Day could be observed as a day that belonged to all communities in the country. It is not correct to assume that the president takes these positions in order to appease minorities or secure electoral advantage. The president is only one year into his term and does not need to take politically risky positions for short term electoral gains. Indeed, the positions he has taken involve confronting powerful nationalist political forces that can mobilise significant opposition. He risks losing majority support for his statements. This itself indicates that the motivation is not electoral calculation.

President Dissanayake has recognized that Sri Lanka’s long term political stability and economic recovery depend on building trust among communities that once peacefully coexisted and then lived through decades of war. Political leadership is ultimately tested by the willingness to say what is necessary rather than what is politically expedient. The president’s recent interventions demonstrate rare national leadership and constitute an attempt to shift public discourse away from ethnic triumphalism and toward a more inclusive conception of nationhood. Reconciliation cannot take root if national ceremonies reinforce the perception of victory for one community and defeat for another especially in an internal conflict.

BY Jehan Perera

Features

Recovery of LTTE weapons

Published

2 hours ago

2026/02/10

Sahan Weerasooriya

Sri Lanka Navy in action

I have read a newspaper report that the Special Task Force of Sri Lanka Police, with help of Military Intelligence, recovered three buried yet well-preserved 84mm Carl Gustaf recoilless rocket launchers used by the LTTE, in the Kudumbimalai area, Batticaloa.

These deadly weapons were used by the LTTE SEA TIGER WING to attack the Sri Lanka Navy ships and craft in 1990s. The first incident was in February 1997, off Iranativu island, in the Gulf of Mannar.

Admiral Cecil Tissera took over as Commander of the Navy on 27 January, 1997, from Admiral Mohan Samarasekara.

The fight against the LTTE was intensified from 1996 and the SLN was using her Vanguard of the Navy, Fast Attack Craft Squadron, to destroy the LTTE’s littoral fighting capabilities. Frequent confrontations against the LTTE Sea Tiger boats were reported off Mullaitivu, Point Pedro and Velvetiturai areas, where SLN units became victorious in most of these sea battles, except in a few incidents where the SLN lost Fast Attack Craft.

Carl Gustaf recoilless rocket launchers

The intelligence reports confirmed that the LTTE Sea Tigers was using new recoilless rocket launchers against aluminium-hull FACs, and they were deadly at close quarter sea battles, but the exact type of this weapon was not disclosed.

The following incident, which occurred in February 1997, helped confirm the weapon was Carl Gustaf 84 mm Recoilless gun!

DATE: 09TH FEBRUARY, 1997, morning 0600 hrs.

LOCATION: OFF IRANATHIVE.

FACs: P 460 ISRAEL BUILT, COMMANDED BY CDR MANOJ JAYESOORIYA

P 452 CDL BUILT, COMMANDED BY LCDR PM WICKRAMASINGHE (ON TEMPORARY COMMAND. PROPER OIC LCDR N HEENATIGALA)

OPERATED FROM KKS.

CONFRONTED WITH LTTE ATTACK CRAFT POWERED WITH FOUR 250 HP OUT BOARD MOTORS.

TARGET WAS DESTROYED AND ONE LTTE MEMBER WAS CAPTURED.

LEADING MARINE ENGINEERING MECHANIC OF THE FAC CAME UP TO THE BRIDGE CARRYING A PROJECTILE WHICH WAS FIRED BY THE LTTE BOAT, DURING CONFRONTATION, WHICH PENETRATED THROUGH THE FAC’s HULL, AND ENTERED THE OICs CABIN (BETWEEN THE TWO BUNKS) AND HIT THE AUXILIARY ENGINE ROOM DOOR AND HAD FALLEN DOWN WITHOUT EXPLODING. THE ENGINE ROOM DOOR WAS HEAVILY DAMAGED LOOSING THE WATER TIGHT INTEGRITY OF THE FAC.

THE PROJECTILE WAS LATER HANDED OVER TO THE NAVAL WEAPONS EXPERTS WHEN THE FACs RETURNED TO KKS. INVESTIGATIONS REVEALED THE WEAPON USED BY THE ENEMY WAS 84 mm CARL GUSTAF SHOULDER-FIRED RECOILLESS GUN AND THIS PROJECTILE WAS AN ILLUMINATER BOMB OF ONE MILLION CANDLE POWER. BUT THE ATTACKERS HAS FAILED TO REMOVE THE SAFETY PIN, THEREFORE THE BOMB WAS NOT ACTIVATED.

Sea Tigers

Carl Gustaf 84 mm recoilless gun was named after Carl Gustaf Stads Gevärsfaktori, which, initially, produced it. Sweden later developed the 84mm shoulder-fired recoilless gun by the Royal Swedish Army Materiel Administration during the second half of 1940s as a crew served man- portable infantry support gun for close range multi-role anti-armour, anti-personnel, battle field illumination, smoke screening and marking fire.

It is confirmed in Wikipedia that Carl Gustaf Recoilless shoulder-fired guns were used by the only non-state actor in the world – the LTTE – during the final Eelam War.

It is extremely important to check the batch numbers of the recently recovered three launchers to find out where they were produced and other details like how they ended up in Batticaloa, Sri Lanka?

By Admiral Ravindra C. Wijegunaratne
WV, RWP and Bar, RSP, VSV, USP, NI (M) (Pakistan), ndc, psn, Bsc (Hons) (War Studies) (Karachi) MPhil (Madras)
Former Navy Commander and Former Chief of Defence Staff
Former Chairman, Trincomalee Petroleum Terminals Ltd
Former Managing Director Ceylon Petroleum Corporation
Former High Commissioner to Pakistan

Features

Yellow Beatz … a style similar to K-pop!

Published

2 hours ago

2026/02/10

Sahan Weerasooriya

Yes, get ready to vibe with Yellow Beatz, Sri Lanka’s awesome girl group, keen to take Sri Lankan music to the world with a style similar to K-pop!

With high-energy beats and infectious hooks, these talented ladies are here to shake up the music scene.

Think bold moves, catchy hooks, and, of course, spicy versions of old Sinhala hits, and Yellow Beatz is the package you won’t want to miss!

According to a spokesman for the group, Yellow Beatz became a reality during the Covid period … when everyone was stuck at home, in lockdown.

“First we interviewed girls, online, and selected a team that blended well, as four voices, and then started rehearsals. One of the cover songs we recorded, during those early rehearsals, unexpectedly went viral on Facebook. From that moment onward, we continued doing cover songs, and we received a huge response. Through that, we were able to bring back some beautiful Sri Lankan musical creations that were being forgotten, and introduce them to the new generation.”

The team members, I am told, have strong musical skills and with proper training their goal is to become a vocal group recognised around the world.

Believe me, their goal, they say, is not only to take Sri Lanka’s name forward, in the music scene, but to bring home a Grammy Award, as well.

“We truly believe we can achieve this with the love and support of everyone in Sri Lanka.”

The year 2026 is very special for Yellow Beatz as they have received an exceptional opportunity to represent Sri Lanka at the World Championships of Performing Arts in the USA.

Under the guidance of Chris Raththara, the Director for Sri Lanka, and with the blessings of all Sri Lankans, the girls have a great hope that they can win this milestone.

“We believe this will be a moment of great value for us as Yellow Beatz, and also for all Sri Lankans, and it will be an important inspiration for the future of our country.”

Along with all the preparation for the event in the USA, they went on to say they also need to manage their performances, original song recordings, and everything related.

The year 2026 is very special for Yellow Beatz

“We have strong confidence in ourselves and in our sincere intentions, because we are a team that studies music deeply, researches within the field, and works to take the uniqueness of Sri Lankan identity to the world.”

At present, they gather at the Voices Lab Academy, twice a week, for new creations and concert rehearsals.

This project was created by Buddhika Dayarathne who is currently working as a Pop Vocal lecturer at SLTC Campus. Voice Lab Academy is also his own private music academy and Yellow Beatz was formed through that platform.

Buddhika is keen to take Sri Lankan music to the world with a style similar to K-Pop and Yellow Beatz began as a result of that vision. With that same aim, we all work together as one team.

“Although it was a little challenging for the four of us girls to work together at first, we have united for our goal and continue to work very flexibly and with dedication. Our parents and families also give their continuous blessings and support for this project,” Rameesha, Dinushi, Newansa and Risuri said.

Last year, Yellow Beatz released their first original song, ‘Ihirila’ , and with everything happening this year, they are also preparing for their first album.