Features

The Chinese ‘Debt Trap’ is a myth

Published

4 years ago

2021/02/9

Sahan Weerasooriya

The narrative wrongfully portrays both Beijing and the developing countries it deals with

by DEBORAH BRAUTIGAM and
MEG RITHMIRE
The atlantic

China, we are told, inveigles poorer countries into taking out loan after loan to build expensive infrastructure that they can’t afford and that will yield few benefits, all with the end goal of Beijing eventually taking control of these assets from its struggling borrowers. As states around the world pile on debt to combat the coronavirus pandemic and bolster flagging economies, fears of such possible seizures have only amplified.

Seen this way, China’s internationalization—as laid out in programmes such as the Belt and Road Initiative—is not simply a pursuit of geopolitical influence but also, in some tellings, a weapon. Once a country is weighed down by Chinese loans, like a hapless gambler who borrows from the Mafia, it is Beijing’s puppet and in danger of losing a limb.

The prime example of this is the Sri Lankan port of Hambantota. As the story goes, Beijing pushed Sri Lanka into borrowing money from Chinese banks to pay for the project, which had no prospect of commercial success. Onerous terms and feeble revenues eventually pushed Sri Lanka into default, at which point Beijing demanded the port as collateral, forcing the Sri Lankan government to surrender control to a Chinese firm.

The Trump administration pointed to Hambantota to warn of China’s strategic use of debt: In 2018, former Vice President Mike Pence called it “debt-trap diplomacy”—a phrase he used through the last days of the administration—and evidence of China’s military ambitions. Last year, erstwhile Attorney General William Barr raised the case to argue that Beijing is “loading poor countries up with debt, refusing to renegotiate terms, and then taking control of the infrastructure itself.”

As Michael Ondaatje, one of Sri Lanka’s greatest chroniclers, once said, “In Sri Lanka a well-told lie is worth a thousand facts.” And the debt-trap narrative is just that: a lie, and a powerful one.

Our research shows that Chinese banks are willing to restructure the terms of existing loans and have never actually seized an asset from any country, much less the port of Hambantota. A Chinese company’s acquisition of a majority stake in the port was a cautionary tale, but it’s not the one we’ve often heard. With a new administration in Washington, the truth about the widely, perhaps willfully, misunderstood case of Hambantota Port is long overdue.

The city of Hambantota lies at the southern tip of Sri Lanka, a few nautical miles from the busy Indian Ocean shipping lane that accounts for nearly all of the ocean-borne trade between Asia and Europe, and more than 80 percent of ocean-borne global trade. When a Chinese firm snagged the contract to build the city’s port, it was stepping into an ongoing Western competition, though one the United States had largely abandoned.

It was the Canadian International Development Agency—not China—that financed Canada’s leading engineering and construction firm, SNC-Lavalin, to carry out a feasibility study for the port. We obtained more than 1,000 pages of documents detailing this effort through a Freedom of Information Act request. The study, concluded in 2003, confirmed that building the port at Hambantota was feasible, and supporting documents show that the Canadians’ greatest fear was losing the project to European competitors. SNC-Lavalin recommended that it be undertaken through a joint-venture agreement between the Sri Lanka Ports Authority (SLPA) and a “private consortium” on a build-own-operate-transfer basis, a type of project in which a single company receives a contract to undertake all the steps required to get such a port up and running, and then gets to operate it when it is.

The Canadian project failed to move forward, mostly because of the vicissitudes of Sri Lankan politics. But the plan to build a port in Hambantota gained traction during the rule of the Rajapaksas—Mahinda Rajapaksa, who served as President from 2005 through 2015, and his brother Gotabaya, the current President and former Minister of Defence—who grew up in Hambantota. They promised to bring big ships to the region, a call that gained urgency after the devastating 2004 tsunami pulverized Sri Lanka’s coast and the local economy.

We reviewed a second feasibility report, produced in 2006 by the Danish engineering firm Ramboll, that made similar recommendations to the plans put forward by SNC-Lavalin, arguing that an initial phase of the project should allow for the transport of non-containerized cargo—oil, cars, grain—to start bringing in revenue, before expanding the port to be able to handle the traffic and storage of traditional containers. By then, the port in the capital city of Colombo, a 100 miles away and consistently one of the world’s busiest, had just expanded and was already pushing capacity. The Colombo port, however, was smack in the middle of the city, while Hambantota had a hinterland, meaning it offered greater potential for expansion and development.

(Read: The undoing of China’s economic miracle)

To look at a map of the Indian Ocean region at the time was to see opportunity and expanding middle classes everywhere. Families in India and across Africa were demanding more consumer goods from China. Countries such as Vietnam were growing rapidly and would need more natural resources. To justify its existence, the port in Hambantota would have to secure only a fraction of the cargo that went through Singapore, the world’s busiest transshipment port.

Armed with the Ramboll report, Sri Lanka’s government approached the United States and India; both countries said no. But a Chinese construction firm, China Harbour Group, had learned about Colombo’s hopes, and lobbied hard for the project. China Eximbank agreed to fund it, and China Harbour won the contract.

This was in 2007, six years before Xi Jinping introduced the Belt and Road Initiative. Sri Lanka was still in the last, and bloodiest, phase of its long civil war, and the world was on the verge of a financial crisis. The details are important: China Eximbank offered a $307 million, 15-year commercial loan with a four-year grace period, offering Sri Lanka a choice between a 6.3 percent fixed interest rate or one that would rise or fall depending on LIBOR, a floating rate. Colombo chose the former, conscious that global interest rates were trending higher during the negotiations and hoping to lock in what it thought would be favourable terms. Phase I of the port project was completed on schedule within three years.

For a conflict-torn country that struggled to generate tax revenue, the terms of the loan seemed reasonable. As Saliya Wickramasuriya, the former chairman of the SLPA, told us, “To get commercial loans as large as $300 million during the war was not easy.” That same year, Sri Lanka also issued its first international bond, with an interest rate of 8.25 percent. Both decisions would come back to haunt the government.

Finally, in 2009, after decades of violence, Sri Lanka’s civil war came to an end. Buoyed by the victory, the government embarked on a debt-financed push to build and improve the country’s infrastructure. Annual economic growth rates climbed to 6 percent, but Sri Lanka’s debt burden soared as well.

In Hambantota, instead of waiting for phase 1 of the port to generate revenue as the Ramboll team had recommended, Mahinda Rajapaksa pushed ahead with phase 2, transforming Hambantota into a container port. In 2012, Sri Lanka borrowed another $757 million from China Eximbank, this time at a reduced, post-financial-crisis interest rate of 2 percent. Rajapaksa took the liberty of naming the port after himself.

By 2014, Hambantota was losing money. Realizing that they needed more experienced operators, the SLPA signed an agreement with China Harbour and China Merchants Group to have them jointly develop and operate the new port for 35 years. China Merchants was already operating a new terminal in the port in Colombo, and China Harbour had invested $1.4 billion in Colombo Port City, a lucrative real-estate project involving land reclamation. But while the lawyers drew up the contracts, a political upheaval was taking shape.

Rajapaksa called a surprise election for January 2015 and in the final months of the campaign, his own Health Minister, Maithripala Sirisena, decided to challenge him. Like opposition candidates in Malaysia, the Maldives, and Zambia, the incumbent’s financial relations with China and allegations of corruption made for potent campaign fodder. To the country’s shock, and perhaps his own, Sirisena won.

Steep payments on international sovereign bonds, which comprised nearly 40 percent of the country’s external debt, put Sirisena’s government in dire fiscal straits almost immediately. When Sirisena took office, Sri Lanka owed more to Japan, the World Bank, and the Asian Development Bank than to China. Of the $4.5 billion in debt service Sri Lanka would pay in 2017, only 5 percent was because of Hambantota. The Central Bank governors under both Rajapaksa and Sirisena do not agree on much, but they both told us that Hambantota, and Chinese finance in general, was not the source of the country’s financial distress.

There was also never a default. Colombo arranged a bailout from the International Monetary Fund, and decided to raise much-needed dollars by leasing out the underperforming Hambantota Port to an experienced company—just as the Canadians had recommended. There was not an open tender, and the only two bids came from China Merchants and China Harbour; Sri Lanka chose China Merchants, making it the majority shareholder with a 99-year lease, and used the $1.12 billion cash infusion to bolster its foreign reserves, not to pay off China Eximbank.

(Read: How Xi Jinping blew it)

Before the port episode, “Sri Lanka could sink into the Indian Ocean and most of the Western world wouldn’t notice,” Subhashini Abeysinghe, Research Director at Verité Research, an independent Colombo-based think tank, told us. Suddenly, the island nation featured prominently in foreign-policy speeches in Washington. Pence voiced worry that Hambantota could become a “forward military base” for China.

Yet Hambantota’s location is strategic only from a business perspective: The port is cut into the coast to avoid the Indian Ocean’s heavy swells, and its narrow channel allows only one ship to enter or exit at a time, typically with the aid of a tugboat. In the event of a military conflict, naval vessels stationed there would be proverbial fish in a barrel.

The notion of “debt-trap diplomacy” casts China as a conniving creditor and countries, such as Sri Lanka, as its credulous victims. On a closer look, however, the situation is far more complex. China’s march outward, like its domestic development, is probing and experimental, a learning process marked by frequent adjustment. After the construction of the port in Hambantota, for example, Chinese firms and banks learned that strongmen fall and that they’d better have strategies for dealing with political risk. They’re now developing these strategies, getting better at discerning business opportunities and withdrawing where they know they can’t win. Still, American leaders and thinkers from both sides of the aisle give speeches about China’s “modern-day colonialism.”

Over the past 20 years, Chinese firms have learned a lot about how to play in an international construction business that remains dominated by Europe: Whereas China has 27 firms among the top 100 global contractors, up from nine in 2000, Europe has 37, down from 41. The U.S. has seven, compared to 19 two decades ago.

Chinese firms are not the only companies to benefit from Chinese-financed projects. Perhaps no country was more alarmed by Hambantota than India, the regional giant that several times rebuffed Sri Lanka’s appeals for investment, aid, and equity partnerships. Yet an Indian-led business, Meghraj, joined the U.K.-based engineering firm Atkins Limited in an international consortium to write the long-term plan for Hambantota Port and for the development of a new business zone. The French firms Bolloré and CMA-CGM have partnered with China Merchants and China Harbour in port developments in Nigeria, Cameroon, and elsewhere.

The other side of the debt-trap myth involves debtor countries. Places such as Sri Lanka—or, for that matter, Kenya, Zambia, or Malaysia—are no stranger to geopolitical games. And they’re irked by American views that they’ve been so easily swindled. As one Malaysian politician remarked to us, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss how Chinese finance featured in that country’s political drama, “Can’t the U.S. State Department tell the difference between campaign rhetoric that our opponents are slaves to China and actually being slaves to China?”

The events that led to a Chinese company’s acquisition of a majority stake in a Sri Lankan port reveal a great deal about how our world is changing. China and other countries are becoming more sophisticated in bargaining with one another. And it would be a shame if the U.S. fails to learn alongside them.

DEBORAH BRAUTIGAM is Bernard L. Schwartz Professor of International Political Economy at the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University

MEG RITHMIRE is F. Warren McFarlan Associate Professor at Harvard Business School.

All News Advertisement

Features

Women’s struggles and men’s unions

Published

1 day ago

2025/03/14

Thilina Walpola

by Dr. Anushka Kahandagamage

Last week began with the disturbing news of a brutal sexual assault on a female doctor at the Anuradhapura Hospital. From the moment of birth, women are taught to conform to societal expectations of how they should dress and behave, which shapes their sense of vulnerability. This feeling of being at risk knows no boundaries—whether it’s social status, wealth, or education, women experience it universally. It follows them everywhere, day and night. Even in the presence of men who consider themselves progressive, women still feel unsafe. Ideological beliefs or personal views don’t change this reality—women are constantly exposed to the threat of harm. Even when fully covered, from head to toe, they are not immune. In Western societies, which pride themselves on freedom and equality, women still face fear and danger. Vulnerability persists, even in their own homes or among those closest to them.

In a country like Sri Lanka, ravaged by decades of war, the pressure on women is even more intense. This is largely due to the celebration of military masculinities as the norm. In general, masculinity constantly tries to distance itself from femininity. These divisions are deepened by military models. To be seen as a ‘real man,’ one must embody military traits. This doesn’t necessarily mean being part of an official army or wearing a uniform; rather, any man who adopts characteristics like violence and physical risk-taking aligns with this military masculinity model. Nearly thirty years of war have normalised and solidified these military ideals, glorifying them more than ever. In such a society, women are subjected to and oppressed by these restrictive and harmful models of masculinity.

Men’s Unions

Referring back to the unfortunate incident involving the doctor, the Government Medical Officers’ Association (GMOA) organised a symbolic strike in protest. While it’s important to acknowledge their support for their female colleague, the issue is not solved by the strike itself or by the reactive nature of professional actions that only address problems after they have occurred. The GMOA has two presidents, four vice presidents, six assistant secretaries, a treasurer, an editor, two assistant editors, and thirty-five committee members, making a total of 51 office-bearers. Of these, only one committee member is a woman, meaning 50 of the board members are men. Meanwhile, the ratio of women to men in the medical community is roughly equal, and the number of female medical students is increasing, surpassing that of male students. In this context, the lack of female representation in the GMOA is deeply concerning.

Some may argue that it is the fault of female doctors for not running for these positions, but the real reason women avoid trade union politics is that these spaces are often unwelcoming. Women’s voices are suppressed and ignored, and many women do not feel these environments are safe or inclusive. The overwhelming male presence discourages women from participating, which is why they remain underrepresented in these spaces.

As a result, the specific challenges, insecurities, and forms of marginalisation faced by female doctors are not addressed within the trade union politics of doctors. These issues are never recognised as professional concerns. The troubling incident in Anuradhapura is not an isolated case; it is part of a broader pattern of difficulties faced by female doctors, with these issues going unheard by higher authorities. Therefore, instead of reacting after an incident occurs, the GMOA—currently shaped by political agendas—should take steps to create long-term solutions to address the problems of female doctors and bring them to the attention of the government. One key step would be to create a space within the GMOA where women can contribute their ideas and share their concerns. Rather than maintaining trade unions dominated by male professionals, unions should be established that include women’s voices as well. A platform should be created where women can actively engage in politics and contribute to shaping the future of the profession.

Women’s Unions

Additionally, the female doctor has the opportunity to speak up for herself due to her professional status. But what about the women who come from humble backgrounds? Do they have a platform to raise their voices regarding their troubles? Women’s voices should never be defined by their social class, status, or profession. A woman picking tea leaves in a garden may face harassment from someone more powerful and influential, yet this common form of abuse often goes unnoticed by society.

She may choose silence to protect her job. Similarly, a woman working the night shift in a garment factory may have to endure harassment and abuse without a chance to speak out. Many women in this country lack the platform a high-ranking professional woman has to raise their voices when they experience such mistreatment. This doesn’t mean that the problems faced by high-ranking professional women should be dismissed. On the contrary, it highlights that all women are equally ensnared by the economic, political, and patriarchal systems that dominate society. We all, to varying degrees, participate in upholding these oppressive social, political, economic, and military patriarchal structures. The crucial task is to identify these oppressive models and create counter-narratives that can challenge and dismantle them.

Models and narratives that perpetuate gender inequality need to be challenged and dismantled, and women’s active participation in politics is crucial in this process. These models, which often portray women as passive or secondary, limit their agency and reinforce systemic discrimination. To break free from these constraints, it is essential to create counter-narratives that highlight women’s leadership, resilience, and power. These counter-narratives not only challenge existing stereotypes but also empower future generations to believe in their ability to shape society.

Women’s participation in politics is vital to this shift. However, political engagement goes far beyond traditional party politics. It involves advocating for one’s rights, raising a voice for the marginalised, and sharing personal and collective stories that highlight the struggles women face. This form of political engagement helps to create awareness, foster solidarity, and inspire action within broader society. For example, women’s involvement in activism and trade unions plays an equally crucial role in challenging the status quo. Activism allows women to directly confront and protest against systemic injustices, while trade unions provide a platform for collective bargaining and the fight for fair working conditions.

Features

United yet muffled against Prez T, an admirer speaks out

Published

1 day ago

2025/03/14

Thilina Walpola

Trump and Trudeau

Maybe Cassandra is small-minded venturing to the world stage to air her personal opinions. But opinions are allowed and speech and writing permitted in this island of ours now mercifully peaceful. So, she will air her views.

Opinions on the Trump-Zelensky confrontation

Cass cheers President Zelensky after his February 28 meeting with President Trump in a media crowded Oval Office. He was put down, nay, insulted by Trump and his Vice President. He admirably held his own and did not apologise even though he was shown the door.

Zelensky but were tactful. After all, good relations with one of the two largest, most powerful and economically elevated countries had to be maintained. They did not fault Zelensky, who offered no apology to the Prez of the US. After all, the insults heaped on him for his dress, his not being grateful to Trump, etc., he was shown the door. The outcome of negotiations between the US and Ukraine brokered by the Head of Saudi Arabia are still to be known.

Not so muted were the replies to Prez Trump (actually to Musk, who seems to be the puppeteer in the White House) regards his unreasonable tariffs, the latest on metal and steel products imported to the US. PM Justin Trudeau was outspoken about the unfairness of the tariffs and replied Canada was also doing likewise and added the corollary that never would Canada be a state of the US. Even the likes of Cassandra were shocked at the audacity of Musk to even suggest such a monstrously absurd idea.

In favour of Trump

A Sri Lankan, now a US citizen, mentioned how many ex-Sri Lankans, now Americans, are of the Republican Party and so must be approving of Trump as Prez. They are, she added, the rich ex-Sri Lankans, mostly doctors who have done very well in the US.

Of course, everyone and anyone is free in their choices. Dr Upul Wijayawardhana in his article What not to do in The Island of Wednesday March 12 writes: “I must say that I quite like Trump and admire him as a straight-talking politician. He keeps to his words however atrocious they sound! Unfortunately, most critics overlook the fact that what Trump is doing is exactly what he pledged during his election campaign …”

As Cassandra wrote earlier, all are free to make choices. Dr W is brave to declare his admiration for a politico who is being disapproved of universally. What Cass does not agree with is Dr W, while saying “the behaviour of Trump and VP Vance were hardly praiseworthy”, he censors the smaller nation Ukrainian: “but Zelensky did what exactly he should not do. After all, he was on a begging mission and beggars can’t be choosers! He behaves like professional beggars in Colombo who throw money back when you give a small amount!” Cass disagrees with Dr W. Zelensky was on a visit to sign an agreement for the US to exploit Ukraine’s mineral deposits; tied up with aid and arms to war against Russia but not on a begging mission per se. And they were both Presidents so there cannot be superiority at such a meeting.

Banker to Prime Minister

Looks very much like Canada is girding up its loins to fight an aggressive USA or rather the combination of Donald Trump and Elon Musk. Justin Trudeau has given notice he wishes to relinquish his premiership to spend more time with his family. And, his and the Liberal Party’s choice to vote as leader of the Party and thus PM designate is an ex-banker. No intelligence is needed to guess why this choice. To counter the trade and tariff wars instigated by Trump.

The Liberal Party of Canada, founded in 1867, is the longest serving and oldest active federal political party and had dominated federal politics in Canada for much of its history, holding power for almost 70 years in the last century. Pierre Trudeau’s name stands out as Party Leader and PM from 1968 to 79 and 1980 to 84. Son Justin held power from 2015. From March 14, 2025, Mark Carney will hold the fort, mostly against the economically conquering and property eyeing Trump.

Born in 1965 in Fort Smith, Northwest Territories, Carney was raised in Edmonton, Alberta. He graduated in economics from Harvard University in 1988 and earned a Master’s degree and doctorate from the University of Oxford in 1993 and ‘95. After holding various positions at Goldman Sachs, he joined the Bank of Canada as Deputy Governor in 2003. The next year he was named senior associate deputy minister for the Department of Finance Canada. He was head of the Canadian Central Bank until 2013, after which he was appointed Governor of the Bank of England, leading it through Brexit and the Covid lockdown. He left in 2020.

Listening to a couple of videos of his acceptance speech as Leader, Liberal Party, he appeared to be of statesman quality. He is married to Diana Fox, an economist he met in London. They have four daughters, the eldest an ardent environmentalist.

Farewell of Trudeau

Cass listened to a video recording of Justin Trudeau’s farewell address to the Liberal Party. It was noteworthy. His teenage daughter introduced him and said he had given his life to the Liberal Party and Canada and it was now important that he spend undivided time with his family of wife and three children

Justin Pierre James Trudeau was born in 1971 in Ottawa, the eldest son of Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau. Holds a BA degree in English from McGill University and a BEd from the University of British Columbia. He taught in secondary school until in 2008 he was elected an MP and in 2013 as leader of the Liberal Party and Prime Minister in 2015, the second youngest PM in Canadian history.

As Cass mentioned, his farewell speech was excellent, speaking alternatively in French and English with French portions translated to English. He recalled all that Canada had achieved: true democracy and people’s rights, including women’s right to choose what they wanted in their lives. He said Canada could and would meet challenges, even fight for its sovereignty as Canadians, even the indigenous, united.

In conclusion, Cass surmises the world is still in uproar, in contrast to Sri Lanka. No, that is not true. Doctors are on strike as she writes, extending their one day of stoppage of work, demanding greater protection for women medical personnel. Good demand but bad to strike.

And the Batalanda problem surfaces itself.

Features

Why I attend Kachchativu feast every year

Published

1 day ago

2025/03/14

Thilina Walpola

Sub Lieutenant Technical Course, India: The writer is on extreme left, and immediately next to him is Vice admiral (then Sub Lieutenant) Ibok-Ete Ekwe Ibas of the Nigerian Navy, former Chief of the Nigerian Navy (2015–2021). He is currently the Nigerian High Commissioner to Ghana.

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

(Extract from book “THOSE WERE THE DAY”)

It was in 1984, 41 years ago, that I returned to Sri Lanka, from India, after completing my Sub Lieutenant Technical course. My new appointment was at the Northern Naval Command and I was based in SLNS Elara shore establishment, in Karainagar.

Six batchmates of mine were also transferred to the North. It was in mid-1984. I now feel that transferring seven batchmates—boisterous Sub Lieutenants—was a very big mistake on the part of the Navy. We had just completed three and a half years in service. Whatever the situation, our parties went on till late at night. Thanks to the Indian food, which we ate for nine months, all of us were very thin.

It is believed that if you want to gain weight you have to drink toddy from the same palm, every day, before lunch. So, we owned one palm each at the Karainagar base. Our toddy tapper, Kandaiah, was paid 30 rupees every month (one rupee per day per one bottle). Kandaiah will mark our bottles and hand them over to the Officers Mess steward to keep them in the refrigerator. (The Navy Officers Mess is called the Ward Room in the Navy parlance). The Naval base in Karinagar, followed the “summer routine” due to the very hot weather in Jaffna. The working hours were from 07.30 hrs to 13.30 hrs. We gathered for lunch around 14.30 hrs, after all the senior officers had left. First, the bottle of fresh chilled Thal toddy, then delicious Navy lunch with sea food or mutton, followed by fruit salad or caramel pudding.

After our heavy lunch, we will rest for one hour in very warm weather and then go to the basketball or tennis courts by 16.00 hrs. Games would go on till sunset. Whether we gained weight that way is a moot question. Soon our ‘Christmas’ came to an end. We were detailed to ‘Mothership-daughter craft operation’. Seven sub-Lieutenants were in Command of seven boats, fiberglass dinghies (FGDs) fitted with 40 HP Out Board Motors. (OBMs). They move faster than fishing boats and our mission was to be attached to bigger ships (Gunboat, OPV or to trawler A521 ) and chase away any Indian bottom trawlers poaching in Sri Lankan waters and catch any smuggling or terrorist boat coming from India. Terrorists camps were situated in the Tamilnadu coast at that time. On 1 July 1984, (Sunday), my crew consisting of three junior sailors were due to proceed to sea. Senior most among my sailors was Leading Seaman Hibutugoda with eight years’ experience in the Navy. Able Seaman Buddhakorale, Marine Engineering Mechanic Bandara and I had been in service for less than four years. I was leading this young boat crew to action. During the daily briefing, I was told our boat was to join SLNS Jayasagara. (Offshore Patrol Vessel) anchored off Kachchativu on the Indo-Sri Lanka International Maritime Boundary Line (IMBL) by afternoon.

It was a fairly long sea journey for an FGB fitted with 40HP OBM. But that is how we started fighting terrorists out at sea in 1984!

We left the Karainagar base soon after breakfast at 07.00 hrs and reached Nainativu (Nagadeepa temple) pier by 09.30 hrs. I met Podi Hamudruwo, (a young priest) who was my close friend and worshipped the place, which the Buddha visited. Then we had tea at our Naval Detachment and proceeded back to sea. It was the height of the South West monsoon and usually sea South of Delft Island was very rough during this period. The funnel effect of Delft channel further made the sea even more furious. Leading Seaman . suggested that we turn back and return to base due to rough seas. I was not in agreement. Young and enthusiastic, I was determined to intercept terrorist craft or a smuggling boat in my first patrol on a FGD. So, we continued at a slower speed heading towards SLNS Jayasagara. Our only Navigational aid was a boat magnetic compass. The sea was very rough. As per my calculations, we should reach Mothership (SLNS Jayasagara) by noon.

We packed all our weapons and radio set in polythene covers and kept them safely under the bow- locker of the boat. We were riding the head sea, which tossed our boat up and down like a rubber ball. By 13.00 hrs, I knew something was wrong. Mother ship was not in sight, which was unbelievable. Our efforts to contact mother ship by our 10 Watts radio Communication set was unsuccessful. When we sighted the tall radio mast of Danuskodi (India), we realised that we had come too far away from the Mothership. (Later, we learnt the Mothership had moved to the North of Delft Island due to rough seas and the Naval base at Karainagar had failed to inform them of our departure). We were in Indian waters! We immediately turned back to our reciprocal course and headed towards Nainativu, none of these Islands were within our sight. All our calculations were done on the basis of our speed, boat compass directions and a photocopy of the Northern area sea chart.

The situation took a turn for the worse. After we started heading towards Sri Lankan waters, the wind and the sea coming from the stern of the boat made the handling of the vessel on a steady course extremely difficult. After a few minutes, waves broke on to boat, which started sinking. We jumped off. Marine Engineering Mechanic Bandara held on to a lifejacket. Others were swimming in various directions. The boat disappeared in deep waters within a few minutes. Wooden floorboards of the boat were floating. I grabbed one wooden floorboard and gathered others around it.

Now we were all together. Bandara was a non-swimmer and he wore a life jacket. Others were in a state of shock, even though they could swim. What they saw around them was only the sea with no land in sight.

What about me? I am a good swimmer thanks to Late Master Chief Petty Officer (PTI) PPR Silva, who was our swimming instructor during our cadet time. Further, my training at Britannia Royal Naval College (BRNC), Dartmouth, UK, where Royal Navy takes ‘survival at sea’ training very seriously. They put you in a life raft and keep you out at river Dart for a whole night during winter. Midshipmen from Asian and African countries who did the International Midshipman Course at BRNC with me cursed the Royal Navy instructors the whole night for keeping us exposed to very cold weather in river Dart. I realised the importance of that training in BRNC. However, the situation there was different. We were on a liferaft in River Dart, and not floating in water. Due to the cold weather in the UK during winter, if you fall into water, you will survive only a few minutes. You will die of hypothermia. The situation here in warm Sri Lankan/Indian waters is different. We would survive a longer period, maybe 24 hours.

I ordered all the sailors to stay together by holding on to the floor board and reassured them that help would be forthcoming even though I knew it would take hours to both CO SLNS Jayasagara, my CO SLNS Elara and Commander Northern Naval Area to realise our boat was lost at sea and to initiate Search and Rescue (SAR) mission. Then, I ensured that Bandara was comfortable with his life jacket. I instructed my sailors to just hang on to the wooden floorboard, not to expend energy by trying to swim. My instructions and reassurance had a calming effect on the sailors. We were riding waves, holding onto the floorboards. I told my sailors that a rescue team would come searching for us before sunset. Time as per my waterproof watch was 14.00 hrs.

I had one fear. After returning from India a few weeks back, I watched Steven Spielberg’s award-winning film ‘Jaws’, on man-eating great white sharks. The film is based on Peter Benchley’s 1974 novel JAWS. I thought such a shark would appear and swallow one of us whole. Further I knew for sure that there were no man-eating Sharks in our waters, but silently prayed that sunset would come fast in the hope that sharks would not see us in the dark.

Thankfully, at sun set, we saw an SLAF Aircraft on the horizon. It was patrolling along the India-Sri Lanka IMBL. We were in the Indian waters. Our morale went down to the lowest with sunset. No search would be conducted at night because aircraft and ships/boats could not sight us. We had to keep going. I told the sailors, “The aircraft must have seen us, but as you know, help would not come at night. We should somehow survive till next morning July 2, 1984)”. Something told me I was hoping for the impossible.

I prayed that it would not be the last sunset I was watching. I thought of my parents, my brothers and sisters, especially my sister closest to me, Lalani. who would die in an accident in Russia two years later. She was so close to me and I was her hero in uniform. I was determined to live and keep my sailors alive till morning.

As soon as the sun set, the new moon rose. The new moon was in the waxing crescent phase with only 7% illumination. That meant we were heading for a very dark night. I started singing, joined by my sailors. Leading Seaman Hibutugoda grabbed the ‘mike’ from me. He is a very good singer. I regretted having disregarded his advice that we turn back at Nainativu. A wonderful sailor, he mentioned it again. I respect him even today for his discipline. They were “old school” sailors who believed that”officers were always right”. The new moon started dipping down by the time Hibutugoda stopped singing. I wished if I had my hip flask was filled with rum. If I had been able to give him a tot, Hibutugoda would have gone on singing till dawn.

It became one of the darkest nights after the moon set at 9.00 pm. It was so dark that we could barely see each other. During my training at BRNC, I learnt that our body temperature was in water for a long time and body fluids transferred to sea water by natural osmosis; we would get dehydrated, feel drowsy and then drown. I was worried about my sailors, specially of Bandara, who started shivering. I told the sailors to keep talking and if anyone felt drowsy to inform others without falling asleep. I had the worst fear that one of them would feel drowsy and drown. To keep them alert, I showed them how to find North by reading stars and how to trace the star- conciliation of ‘Orion’.

Then, I asked them to count stars, and anyone whose count was the same as mine, would get a bottle of rum from me when we reached the base. They kept counting and recounting stars!It was the longest night in my life. The sunrise of 2nd July 1984 was the most beautiful one I have seen. I suddenly realized 1st July was Sunday and Indian trawlers would not go fishing on Sundays.

Morale, however, was up with the sunrise. I saw a few smiles. We did something unbelievable. We survived one whole night in water! We had broken all previous records by the Sri Lanka Navy on survival.

I saw Kachchativu Island on the horizon, where a small church was built by a fisherman, who was a survivor of a storm, and dedicated it to St. Anthonys. We were too weak to swim towards the island. I told my sailors that help would come soon. I am a Buddhist and firm believer in God Skanda (God Kataragama) and St. Anthony. When we get a sea appointment, we go to St. Anthony Church, Kochikade and light a candle because St. Anthony is the Saint who looks after seafarers like us. Our ships in the Colombo harbour, before proceeding to the sea on patrol first, turn towards St. Antony’s Church to invoke its blessings. Before taking over my sea appointment in the North, I lit a candle there. I prayed to St. Antony.

A book written by the late

W. T. Jayasinghe, the former External Affairs and Defence Secretary, titled, Kachchativu: And the Maritime Boundary of Sri Lanka, says: “The sea surrounding Kachchativu are

fertile fishing grounds and fishermen from Sri Lanka have from time immemorial been venturing into these waters. It is recorded that fishermen of Point Pedro went as far as Kachchativu to catch turtles during particular seasons.

The Portuguese administered Kachchativu as part of Jaffna and Sri Lanka has been exercising sovereignty and jurisdiction over Kachchativu and its adjacent waters without interruption.” (Page 18)

We were very weak by morning. Around 9.00 hrs / July 2, 1984, we saw a fishing trawler at a distance. They saw us floating and came towards us. I silently prayed again that it should not be an Indian trawler. We the SLN are not the best friends of Indian trawlers poaching in our waters.

It was a Sri Lankan trawler which came from Gurunagar. They took us on board. I looked at my waterproof watch. Time was 10.20 hrs. We had been floating for 20 hours and 20 minutes. All of us survived. The Tamil fishermen were very kind to us. They gave us water to drink, which tasted very sweet. We had not taken any water or food for almost 24 hrs. Most of us were shivering from the cold and had signs of dehydration. The fishermen gave us sugar and bread. This was the breakfast of these humble people. I ate a piece of bread with sugar with tears in my eyes.

I thanked St Antony for being kind to us. I was determined to come back to the small St Antony’s Church in Kachchativu soon to light a candle. Soon we were spotted by a SLN ship. The happy news communicated to the Naval Base, Karainagar “Ravi and his boys are safe. We are bringing them home”. A reception at the Naval base was unbelievable, led by my senior batch Lieutenant Parakrama Samaraweera (Pol Samare or Nalaka who died in Mullaitivu in 1996) and six of my batch mates. All these happened when I was a 21-year old, way back in 1984. Thank god for allowing me to live. Thanks St. Anthony

My mother was 82-years old and she broke her hip in 2017, when I was Navy Commander. She gave me most of the valuable documents she was keeping with her. One of those documents was my horoscope, written by a world-famous astrologer who was a very close friend of my late father. My horoscope was written only up to 1st July 1984, and the astrologer had said the remaining part of it would be completed some other day. My late father or mother did not know why the astrologer had postponed writing the second part. Now, I know why he did so. However, I survived on July 1, 1984.

When I was the Navy Commander, I was given the opportunity by His Lordship, Rt Rev Dr Justin Ganapragasam, Roman Catholic Bishop of Jaffna to build a new St Anthony’s Church at Kachchativu. I was more than happy to do so. Former Navy Commander, Admiral Piyal De Silva was the Northern Naval Commander at the time. I grabbed this golden opportunity with both my hands. Piyal did a wonderful job and built a beautiful church for St. Anthony in six months. I do not miss attending the yearly feast, which attracts thousands of Indian and Sri Lankan devotees. On 1st of July, I remember how lucky we were to survive in the sea.