Midweek Review
The day Mangala issued a warning to P’karan

By Shamindra Ferdinando
The late Minister Mangala Samaraweera, on Sept. 8, 2006, warned the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) of dire consequences,unless the group returned to the negotiating table. The LTTE quit the negotiating table, in April 2003, during Ranil Wickremesinghe’s tenure as the Premier. The warning was issued in his capacity as the Foreign Minister, at a meeting with the Colombo-based diplomatic community.
Reiterating the then President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s readiness to consider proposals for a comprehensive and verifiable cession of hostilities, Samaraweera warned the LTTE that military aggression, on their part, would entail, what he called, military costs to them.
The Minister said so when he addressed a section of the diplomatic community in the wake of the successful Army assault on the LTTE first-line of defence across the Kilali-Muhamalai frontline a few days before the military recaptured Sampur in the East on August 4 (Forces seize Tigers’ Jaffna frontline with strapline …any military aggression on their part would entail military costs to them-Foreign Minister, The Island, Sept 11, 2006)
Matara district lawmaker, Mangala Pinsiri Samaraweera, who first entered parliament at the 1989 general election, received the vital foreign affairs portfolio in the wake of the then Premier Mahinda Rajapaksa’s triumph at the 2005 presidential election.
Samaraweera, 65, succumbed to Covid-19, at Lanka Hospital, last week.
Rajapaksa won narrowly against UNP leader Ranil Wickremesinghe, who lost by fewer than 200,000 votes. The polls boycott ordered by the LTTE caused Wickremesinghe’s defeat; he lost the Northern Province Tamil vote, which is traditionally cast in favour of the UNP. Interestingly, the announcement of the undemocratic act of telling the Tamil people not to vote was done by the Tamil National Alliance.
Following the presidential election, the LTTE resumed its offensive action in the Jaffna peninsula, in the first week of Dec. 2005. The LTTE launched a spate of claymore mine attacks in the North in spite of the Oslo-arranged Ceasefire Agreement (CFA) still in place with Peace Co-Chairs, namely the US, Japan, EU and Norway, engaged in the process, in a supervisory role. It looked as if the self-appointed co-chairs were there more to wink at the LTTE as it staged hundreds of CFA violations.
Following the failed attempt to assassinate the then Army Chief Lt. Gen. Sarath Fonseka, in late April 2006, Mavil-aru battle, in June-July 2006, the LTTE launched large scale offensives, in both the northern and eastern theatres, simultaneously, in the second week of August 2006. The LTTE made some rapid territorial gains, though the armed forces gradually stabilised the situation, on both fronts. Having survived a suicide attack, in late April 2006, and flown to Singapore, where he received specialised treatment, Fonseka was obviously back, wanting to atone for what the LTTE did to him. Back at his heavily fortified headquarters in Colombo where he vowed to finish off the LTTE once and for all.
The LTTE strategy suffered another serious setback when then Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa, too, survived an LTTE suicide attack in the first week of Dec 2006.
Foreign Minister Samaraweera issued the warning to the LTTE, ahead of the LTTE assassination attempt on Gotabaya Rajapaksa. Samaraweera received his first ministerial portfolio in 1994, thanks to President Kumaratunga, who accommodated him in her Cabinet as Posts and Telecommunications Minister. Kumaratunga also rewarded Samaraweera with Urban Development, Construction and Public Utilities.
A cocky LTTE leadership felt confident that its formations could overwhelm the Army in the Jaffna peninsula, having disrupted the Trincomalee- Kankesanthurai Main Supply Route (MSR). Their plans eventually went awry. However, at the time Samaraweera issued the warning, in early Sept 2006, the LTTE was in a commanding position, with the West openly and repeatedly singing hosannas on its behalf claiming that the security forces were incapable of defeating it. A section of the diplomatic community, as well as various experts, believed the LTTE had the wherewithal to bring offensive actions, in the northern theatre, to a successful conclusion. But, by May 2009, just two years and 10 months after the LTTE resumed hostilities, its fighting cadre was left annihilated.
Mangala receives Foreign portfolio
President Rajapaksa rewarded Samaraweera with the Foreign Affairs portfolio, though the latter hadn’t been his first choice. Rajapaksa-Samaraweera duo emerged as a team during the second JVP-inspired insurgency (1987-1990) when they functioned as key spokespersons for the Mothers’ Front. The group represented the interests of those who had been at the receiving end of the military campaign, backed by UNP death squads. The late Anura Bandaranaike, too, expected the President to reappoint him as the Foreign Minister after his failure to secure the premiership with the JVP’s backing. Bandaranaike was sworn in as the Foreign Minister immediately after the assassination of Lakshman Kadirgamar on the night of August 12, 2005, at his private Bullers Lane residence.
It would be pertinent to mention that the JVP contested the 2004 parliamentary election on the UPFA ticket, following the short-lived so-called parivasa administration.
The JVP achieved the unthinkable by securing 39 seats, including three National List slots. In the immediate aftermath of the 2004 polls victory, the JVP, in a letter dated April 5, 2004, addressed to the then President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga, demanded that Lakshman Kadirgamar be made the Premier.
JVP General Secretary Tilvin Silva emphasised that their second choice was Anura Bandaranaike and the third Maithripala Sirisena, the then General Secretary of the SLFP.
However, Maithripala Sirisena strongly advised Kumaratunga against the move, widely believed to have had the backing of staunch Kumaratunga loyalist Samaraweera. Son of the late Minister Mahanama Samaraweera and Khema Samaraweera, outspoken Mangala, a fashion designer by profession, was known for his controversial statements. Samaraweera daringly backed LGBT rights when such things were never even openly discussed here and was at the forefront of such campaigns.
If the JVP strategy succeeded, Mahinda Rajapaksa would have been deprived of the premiership in 2004 and the opportunity to contest the presidential poll in the following year. President Kumaratunga quite wrongly asserted that she could continue till 2006 as the presidential poll scheduled for 2000 under her watch was held in 1999. However, the Supreme Court torpedoed her move. With the collapse of Kumaratunga’s strategy, Samaraweera backed Rajapaksa’s candidature due to failure on her part to secure the backing of party seniors. Samaraweera played a significant role in the overall presidential polls campaign, though both Kumaratunga and Anura Bandaranaike skipped the campaign and more or less worked against Mahinda Rajapaksa, covertly.
Samaraweera had been among several SLFP seniors invited by President Rajapaksa on the evening of Nov 19, 2005 to inform them of the allocation of Cabinet portfolios. The late Jeyaraj Fernandopulle, Maithripala Sirisena, Nimal Siripala de Silva, Mangala Samaraweera, Rohitha Bogollagama, Basil Rajapaksa (not a member of Parliament at the time) and Lalith Weeratunga had been present. Dullas Alahapperuma, too, had been present, though he didn’t sit at that meeting.
“President Rajapaksa didn’t consult anyone as regards allocation of portfolios. He simply informed those who were seated around an oval shaped table what they were going to get. UNPer Rohitha Bogollagama, who switched his allegiance to the SLFP during Kumaratunga’s tenure was offered the Foreign Affairs portfolio. Bogollagama, who held the Foreign Investment portfolio at that time, inquired whether he could retain the same in addition to the foreign affairs. However, the allocation of portfolios quite clearly irritated some party seniors. Shortly, thereafter, only Rohitha Bogollagama sat with President Rajapaksa for dinner whereas others left,” a source familiar with the Temple Trees discussion told the writer.
“Subsequently, the Rajapaksas reached a consensus with Samaraweera by offering him the Foreign portfolio, originally offered to Bogollagama, who accepted the reality.
Some believed Samaraweera expected the premiership and was quite disappointed when he was told he couldn’t retain the Urban Development portfolio. Samaraweera couldn’t maintain peace with the Rajapaksas and was unceremoniously stripped of the Foreign portfolio, in January 2007, in the wake of him pursuing an agenda opposed to that of the then Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa.
President brought in Bogollagama as the Foreign Minister. One-time UNPer handled the Ministry during the most challenging period with the West exerting tremendous pressure to undermine the war effort.
Ousted from SLFP, Mangala joins UNP
In spite of losing the foreign portfolio, Samaraweera antagonised the Rajapaksas by pursuing an agenda which the latter considered was severely inimical to the overall war effort. President Rajapaksa also felt that Samaraweera’s strategy undermined the ruling party, particular at a time the military was engaged in a desperate battle with the LTTE. Finally, President Rajapaksa sacked Samaraweera, along with Anura Bandaranaike and Sripathy Sooriyaarachchi, in the second week of Feb 2007.
However, within days after declaring war on the Rajapaksas, Bandaranaike backtracked and quietly reached an agreement with the ruling clan. President removed the trio after they skipped the vote on the state of emergency. Bandaranaike re-joined what he called ‘Carnival of Clowns’ much to the dismay of Samaraweera, who didn’t receive the support pledged by his colleagues.
A dejected Samaraweera formed the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (Mahajana) Wing. Samaraweera couldn’t secure the much expected backing required to sustain his campaign and finally disbanded his unregistered party, in August 2010, to accept the UNP membership. However, by then Samaraweewa had re-entered Parliament, from the Matara district, on the UNP ticket. Samaraweera had no option but to accept Ranil Wickremesinghe’s leadership and worked diligently for the UNP’s victory, five years later.
Samaraweera played quite a significant role as an Opposition UNP member (2010-2015) and member of the yahapalana administration (2015-2019) before he switched his allegiance to Samagi Jana Balavegaya (SJB) leader Sajith Premadasa.
However, Samaraweera deserted Premadasa in next to no time ahead of the last parliamentary election in August 2020. In an obvious bid meant to undermine the SJB, Samaraweera declared he wouldn’t be in the fray though he handed over nominations as the leader of the Matara District SJB.
Role in 2010 prez poll
In his capacity as the Foreign Minister, Samaraweera clashed with Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s strategy. One of the major issues of disagreement between the two was Samaraweera’s push for the re-opening of the Kandy-Jaffna road, at Muhamalai, to pave the way for the resumption of overland traffic to and from the Jaffna peninsula. Gotabaya Rajapaksa dismissed the suggestion. Rajapaksa asserted that Muhamalai wouldn’t be re-opened through negotiations with the LTTE. Instead, the re-opening would be done by clearing the LTTE fortifications across the Kilali-Muhamalai-Nagarkovil line.
The then Defence Secretary Rajapaksa told the writer of his decision not to re-open the Muhamalai entry/exit point in agreement with the LTTE, under no circumstances. They also disagreed on the deployment of SLAF choppers to move LTTE leaders around (this was done in terms of the Oslo understanding) and the handling of international NGOs. The Foreign Ministry asserted the military would antagonise Western powers whereas the Defence Secretary emphasised that nothing could be allowed to undermine the war effort.
As promised, the government re-opened the Kandy-Jaffna A9 road, only after the eradication of the LTTE in 2009.
Having ridiculed Fonseka as a person not even capable of commanding the Salvation Army, Samaraweera had no qualms in accepting the challenging task of being the Opposition candidate’s campaign strategist. In fact, Samaraweera, on behalf of Fonseka, assured the US of his good intentions. One such meeting took place on January 6, 2010, a few days before the then US Ambassador in Colombo, Patricia Butenis, in a leaked diplomatic memo, named the Rajapaksa brothers, Mahinda, Gotabaya and Basil and Sarath Fonseka, as war criminals. The massive defeat suffered by Fonseka, at the January 2010 presidential election, revealed serious shortcomings in the overall strategy. The Fonseka campaign suffered due to foolish attempts to placate the Tamil electorate by blaming the Army for battlefield executions during the last phase of the Vanni east offensive. Samaraweera played a significant role in forming the US backed alliance which included the Tamil National Alliance, onetime cat’s paw of Velupillai Prabhakaran. Samaraweera also facilitated the JVP’s participation in the high profile project, spearheaded by the UNP.
Having defeated Ranil Wickremesinghe, by 180,000 votes, at the 2005 presidential election, the President secured a second term by polling over 1.8mn more votes than the war- winning Army Commander. Obviously, Samaraweera’s strategy didn’t work, though many, including some sections of the diplomatic community, strongly believed the former Foreign Minister could turn tables on Mahinda Rajapaksa. At the end, the UNP-led camp made a ridiculous bid to blame the humiliating defeat Fonseka suffered on what bankrupt JVP called a computer jilmaart (fraud)
Mangala as yahapalana FM
Samaraweera who enjoyed excellent relations with the JVP at politically crucial periods, played strategic roles in both the SLFP and UNP-led camps. At the 2005 presidential poll, Samaraweera threw his weight behind Mahinda Rajapaksa and five years later the electorate saw him spearheading Fonseka’s presidential campaign. Samaraweera proved again in politics there were no permanent friends or enemies.
Perhaps, one of Samaraweera’s major successes was his ability to secure the support of the powerful Tamil Diaspora. Samaraweera was quite satisfied with the way he handled the Diaspora in the run-up to the 2015 presidential election. The writer, who accompanied the government delegation to London, led by President Sirisena, had an opportunity to discuss the matter with the then Foreign Minister Samaraweera during the visit a couple of months after the presidential election.
Samaraweera facilitated the TNA’s backing for Sirisena that made his triumph over Mahinda Rajapaksa a reality.
The writer sought GTF’s spokesperson Suren Surendiran’s comment on Samaraweera’s demise Surendiran said that his first ever interaction with the late lawmaker had been in 2007 in his personal capacity. However, as the GTF spokesperson, Surendiran had interacted with Samaraweera, in 2011, and again when he visited the UK, in 2012, over dinner at his place with fellow colleagues of GTF. Surendiran said: “In September 2013 we formally met along with other politicians and civil society activists from Sri Lanka, and overseas, in Singapore. We, as GTF, have met him several times in the UK, Germany, Washington, Switzerland, Australia and Singapore.”
Responding to another query, Surendiran said that Samaraweera had been instrumental in arranging the GTF’s first meeting with the then President Maithripala Sirisena, in 2015, in London. Yes, I met you (the writer) downstairs after that meeting). “Mangala was not just a fellow Sri Lankan and politician, he was a great friend. Mangala spoke to several of us from GTF, from various countries, at a virtual meeting, on 17 July 2021. My last personal interaction was on 06 August, 2021, via texts. Under normal circumstances he would have wished me on my birthday but that wasn’t to be as he was moved to ICU a couple of days before.”
Unlike many of his colleagues in the government and the Opposition, Samaraweera never hesitated to take a public stand on the post-war national reconciliation process. Samaraweera openly contradicted President Sirisena’s frequent claims that he hadn’t been aware of the finalisation of the Geneva Resolution on Oct 1, 2015.
Responding to the strong criticism of his role in the Geneva process, Samaraweera included the following section in a bigger statement he issued during the yahapalana administration: The final text of the resolution was largely negotiated over the phone, with the President and I at the same hotel in New York, and the Prime Minister in Colombo, accompanied by the Secretary to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, at the time, and the Ambassador of the US and High Commissioner of the UK. Once consensus was reached , the Secretary to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, at the time, who was in Colombo, had coordinated with Sri Lanka’s Permanent Representative to the UN in Geneva and conveyed the decision of the Government of Sri Lanka to the Human Rights Council.”
What Samaraweera didn’t say was that Sri Lanka’s Permanent Representative to the UN in Geneva, Ravinatha Aryasinghe, had rejected the draft just over a week before, during informal discussion with the Sri Lanka Core Group, headed by the US. Whatever the likes of Samaraweera said the UNP earned the wrath of the people for what was called Geneva betrayal. The treachery in Geneva proved to be as bad as the Treasury bond scams, in Feb 2015 and March 2016, leading to the humiliating defeat at the Feb 2018 Local Government polls. Although President Sirisena switched portfolios, held by Samaraweera and Finance Minister Ravi Karunanayake, in May 2017 in consultation with UNP leader Wickremesinghe, the rot continued unabated. The Wickremesinghe-Samaraweera led strategy that pushed the country towards the US-led Quad alliance with Sri Lanka entering into a Comprehensive Partnership with Japan in the first week of Oct 2015, in addition to talks on SOFA (Status of Forces Agreement) and MCC (Millennium Challenge Corporation) agreements also with the US against the backdrop of President Sirisena entering into ACSA (Access and Cross Servicing Agreement) didn’t help the then government at all.
Finally, Samaraweera abandoned the UNP and joined the newly formed SJB soon after the 2019 presidential poll only to quit the parliamentary election at the eleventh hour. Following the SLPP’s sweeping victory at the general election, Samaraweera launched a political campaign with the involvement of some civil society activists. His office, situated at T.B. Jayah Mawatha a little distance away from SLFP main office, was called ‘Freedom Hub’, where he addressed his last media briefing on July 25.
Samaraweera warned the current leadership of the dire financial crisis experienced by the country not only due to the raging Covid-19 epidemic but waste, corruption, irregularities and negligence as well. At the time Samaraweera served as the Finance Minister (May 2017 to Nov 2019) the government revenue surpassed Rs 1,900 bn. The shortsighted policy of the SLPP that did away with a range of taxes and duties, immediately after the presidential election resulted in the loss of over Rs 500 bn in government revenue, which too contributed to the current messy financial situation. Perhaps one of Samaraweera’s major achievements was the transformation of the telecommunications sector though he too couldn’t absolve himself of being part of an utterly corrupt and ruinous political party system.
Midweek Review
Canada plays politics with Sri Lanka again ahead of its national election

UK Premier Keir Starmer reiterated his Government’s commitment to addressing justice, accountability of reconciliation in Sri Lanka and issues faced by Tamils, including advocating for human rights and justice for Tamil victims.
The often repeated declaration was made at the Thai Pongal celebration at 10 Downing Street on 20th January. The Indian High Commissioner in the UK Vikram Doraiswami was among those present. Perhaps Starmer hadn’t considered India’s culpability as the regional sponsor of a terror project in Sri Lanka that claimed the lives of as many as 70,000 combatants and civilians. Among the dead were former Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi and over 1,300 Indian soldiers.
Doraiswami joined the Indian Foreign Service in 1992, the year after the LTTE assassinated Gandhi at Sriperumbudur in Tamil Nadu. Would Starmer dare to raise India’s accountability and also look into the UK role in bolstering Tamil terrorism? The UK allowed a free hand to the LTTE with the group’s International Secretariat functioning from London without any restrictions. The LTTE wouldn’t have achieved status as a major terrorist organization if UK didn’t facilitate its operations. The writer’s assessment is that the British backing for Tamil terrorism was much more than that of Canada.
By Shamindra Ferdinando
Over 17 years after the decimation of the terrorist group, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), with a conventional fighting might militarily by our security forces, Canada and the UK are still seeking to punish Sri Lanka for pulling off that most unlikely victory against their deadly pet that they nurtured covertly.
Both the British and Canadian governments alike play politics at Sri Lanka’s expense. Canadian Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre recently stated that he would lead the world in seeking prosecutions in international courts of the Rajapaksas and other “criminals” who have persecuted the Tamil people. Influential groups of Sri Lankans of Tamil origin are represented in both the UK and Canadian parliaments.
Poilievre, whose party is widely expected to win the election, was speaking at the ‘Harvest of Hope’ event in Toronto on 18 January, marking Thai Pongal and Tamil Heritage Month. Obviously, the Conservative Party leader seems to be confident that he could win over Canadians of predominantly Sri Lankan Tamil origin at the October parliamentary elections.
Poilievre sought to appease the Tamil Canadians close on the heels of Premier Justin Trudeau’s announcement that he would resign after a successor is chosen. Rightwing Poilievre, early last year, declared he would seek to prosecute Sri Lanka at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and appoint lawyers to pursue charges against Lankan “war criminals” in international criminal courts.
However, the Conservative Party wouldn’t find it easy to entice Tamil Canadians as during Trudeau’s 10-year premiership, when Canada went out of its way to attack Sri Lanka. The Liberal Party, under Trudeau’s leadership, humiliated war-winning Sri Lanka at any given opportunity.
Recently, the Canadian media quoted Trudeau as having said: “I intend to resign as party leader, as Prime Minister, after the party selects its next leader through a robust nationwide competitive process.” Whoever replaces Trudeau will continue hostile policy towards Sri Lanka. One-time central banker Mark Carney and former Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland are in the fray. The Liberal Party is scheduled to announce the winner on 09 March.
All political parties represented in the Canadian Parliament, in May 2022, unanimously and arrogantly agreed that Sri Lanka perpetrated genocide during the war against the LTTE. On the basis of that unsubstantiated decision that had been endorsed by both Liberal and Conservative Parties, the Canadian Parliament recognized 18 May as the Tamil Genocide Remembrance Day. These overwhelmingly white accusers, however, forget the fact that like all of Americas, Canada, too, was established by committing numerous acts of genocide against its first citizens. And, to this day, they continue to perpetrate such acts with impunity. Such pale faces, with so much innocent blood on their hands, have the audacity to accuse small countries, like Sri Lanka, that refused to yield to terrorists, who were subtly supported by them, the same way they back even Islamic terrorists when it suits them as we clearly saw in Syria for example.
Sri Lanka brought the war to a successful conclusion on May 18, 2009 though LTTE leader Velupillai Prabhakaran was only killed on the banks of the Nanthikadal lagoon at the dawn of the following day as his surviving band tried to breakthrough security forces lines.
What the Conservative Party Leader Poilievre could do to outdo Trudeau who had glorified Prabhakaran’s macabre project by targeting some Sri Lankan leaders responsible for eradicating the LTTE terrorism?
Over the years, those who had received Canadian citizenship, as well as others awaiting same, funded the LTTE as it killed and maimed thousands of Sri Lankans. Obviously, both Liberals and Conservatives, as well as other political parties, represented in Canadian Parliament, have conveniently forgotten thousands of Tamils killed by the LTTE. Canadian political parties are also silent on the origins of terrorism in Sri Lanka that may have claimed the lives of as many as 70,000 people. The dead included 1,300 Indian soldiers, members of rival Tamil terrorist groups, several dozens of politicians, like President Ranasinghe Premadasa as well as one-time Indian Premier Rajiv Gandhi, among many others.
Canadian political parties have bent backwards to appease Tamil Canadian voters. With their eyes on the still growing significant number of Tamil Canadian votes, they haven’t at least bothered to examine why Sri Lanka took on the separatist conventional military challenge. Canada never realized the need for a negotiated political settlement in Sri Lanka as long as the LTTE wielded conventional military power. Had the LTTE overwhelmed Sri Lankan military, Canada would have been one of the first countries to congratulate the triumph of terrorism here. That is the reality.
Fortunately, by the time Trudeau received the Liberal Party leadership in 2013, and became the Premier in late 2015, more than four years after Sri Lanka brought the LTTE to its knees, called “the deadliest terrorist group” even by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, was not in a position to resurrect its military. In other words, once considered invincible by so-called experts, had been truly defeated. Canada, like many other like-minded countries, responded with shock and dismay at the way the LTTE collapsed after having vowed to defeat the military.
Sri Lanka created history by eradicating the LTTE militarily. Sri Lanka’s triumph dispelled the myth spread by interested parties that our armed forces were incapable of defeating a major terrorist group with conventional fighting means, like the Tigers.
Tamil electorate on a new path
Eradication of the LTTE is no longer a major issue at national or lower level elections in Sri Lanka. Anura Kumara Dissanayake’s superlative performance in the Northern and Eastern regions, at the last presidential and parliamentary elections in Sept. and Nov., last year, respectively, proved that predominantly Tamil electorates couldn’t be significantly influenced by post-war issues.
Regardless of much touted accountability issues and assurances to pursue the Geneva agenda, Tamil parties failed to garner the required support of the Tamil electorate. They overwhelmingly voted for Tamil candidates fielded by the National People’s Front (NPP) at the general election and thereby inflicted unprecedented defeat on the Illankai Thamil Arasu Kadchi (ITAK).
Finally, the JVP-led NPP won all the Northern and Eastern electoral districts. The Tamil-speaking people declared beyond doubt that they wanted to move ahead and not be entrapped in the past. They obviously realized that a politically motivated high profile Western campaign against Sri Lanka is not meant to help restore their shattered lives but play politics with an issue. Those who cannot stomach Sri Lanka’s triumph over terrorism still want to haul up the war-winning country before international criminal courts. However, ITAK, and smaller Tamil political parties, have now realized that accountability issues do not attract voters. Over 17 years after the end of the war, young voters, in no uncertain terms, had indicated that they aren’t interested in pursuing a political agenda, based on accountability issues.
Earlier, the ITAK-led Tamil National Alliance (TNA) wholeheartedly represented the LTTE interests.
Perhaps, the NPP, too, has realized that its often repeated promise to release political prisoners is irrelevant. Even if the NPP wanted to release some to deceive the people, no such prisoners are held by the government. There are only a handful of Tamil convicts and few others held in terms of the PTA (Prevention of Terrorism Act). The convicts are responsible for major attacks and high profile assassinations. Actually political prisoners are nothing but a non-issue and those demanding their release from detention are only fooling themselves.
It is high time Tamil political parties give up their primary strategy revolving around accountability issues. Having received the LTTE’s backing both in and out of Parliament at the outset of Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga’s second term, the ITAK is now struggling to come to terms with unfavourable situations in the North.
Failure on the part of M.A. Sumanthiran, PC, to retain his Jaffna district seat, meant that the ground situation had changed drastically. That was nothing but a severe warning issued not only to Sumanthiran but to all Tamil politicians who have been essentially advancing an accountability agenda like a beggar’s wound. However, Canada appeared to have failed to recognize the changing situation on the ground. Perhaps, the Canadian High Commission (CHC) should re-examine post-national election developments closely. The CHC should wait till the conclusion of the Local Government polls early this year to carry out reassessment as at least a section of the Tamil electorate may switch their allegiance back to the ITAK.
But, the writer is of the view that dynamics have changed and those genuinely concerned about the wellbeing of the Tamil people shouldn’t depend on accountability issues to promote political agenda. In fact, having played ball with the LTTE throughout the war and backed Prabhakaran’s decision to indiscriminately use hapless Tamil civilian human shields on the Vanni east front, the ITAK should be investigated for its culpability for war crimes. The ITAK had no shame at all as it fully cooperated with the LTTE’s despicable strategies. Today, the ITAK wouldn’t dare to mention that it recognized the LTTE in 2001 as the sole representative of the Tamil speaking people. Of course that was done at gunpoint. The late R. Sampanthan had no choice but to cooperate with Prabhakaran’s strategy meant to build a political front subservient to them.
Canada had no qualms in mollycoddling the ITAK in spite of that political party endorsing recruitment of child soldiers. The highpoint of the LTTE-ITAK/TNA relationship was the engineering of Ranil Wickremesinghe’s defeat at the 2005 Nov. presidential election that paved the way for Mahinda Rajapaksa’s victory, resumption of war in August 2006 by the LTTE and its decimation militarily by the armed forces.
Canada seeks Tamil Canadians support
Against the backdrop of the 2015, 01 Oct. Geneva Resolution that had been treacherously backed by the then Sri Lankan government, headed by Maithripala Sirisena, and Ranil Wickremesinghe as the President and Prime Minister, Canada took a series of measures to step up pressure on the war-winning country. In May 2022 Canada publicly announced that Sri Lanka perpetrated genocide. Trudeau dismissed Sri Lanka’s protests though Ottawa didn’t have absolutely anything to back its extremely politically motivated claims. Shame on Canada and its Premier.
It would be pertinent to mention that Premier Stephen Harper’s Conservative government, too, couldn’t stomach Sri Lanka’s triumph over terrorism. In fact, both Conservatives and Liberals competed with each other to censure Sri Lanka. They felt Canadians of Sri Lankan origin could be easily won over by censuring Sri Lanka.
In May 2014, the Canadian High Commission in Colombo asked the writer whether The Island could publish a hard-hitting statement issued by the then High Commissioner Shelley Whiting prominently ahead of Sri Lanka’s Victory Day parade. The writer, in his capacity as the News Editor of The Island, gave the HC an assurance that regardless of what Whiting had to say it would receive front-page coverage. The HC wanted to know whether any sections would be deleted. Assurance was given that it would be carried, sans any alterations. As promised The Island carried the Whiting’s statement that challenged President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s decision to celebrate the country’s triumph over terrorism.
Whiting, who had served at their Kabul mission prior to being posted to Colombo, declared that Canada wouldn’t be represented at the Victory Day parade that was to be held in Matara on May 18, 2014. In spite of proscribing the LTTE and the World Tamil Movement in 2006 and 2008, respectively, funds flowed to the LTTE. The LTTE couldn’t have sustained conventional fighting for over two decades without uninterrupted funding from the West. Canada remained a major source of funding until the very end when the Sri Lankan military decimated the LTTE militarily in a series of operations on the Vanni east front.
Having won the 2015 presidential election, Maithripala Sirisena, in consultation with Premier Ranil Wickremesinghe, cancelled the Victory Day parade. Canada must have been thrilled. Whiting’s condemnation of the military celebration was the only instance a foreign government called for the ending of the annual event held to mark a worthy victory clinched against so many odds.
In Oct. 2015, treacherous Yahapalana leadership (UNP-SLFP combine) co-sponsored a US-led accountability resolution against the Sri Lankan military. There hadn’t been a previous instance of any country moving/backing a resolution targeting its own armed forces and political leadership at the Geneva-based United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC).
In May 2022 Canada declared Sri Lanka perpetrated genocide. In early January 2023, Ottawa sanctioned former presidents Mahinda Rajapaksa, Gotabaya Rajapaksa, Staff Sergeant Sunil Ratnayake and Lieutenant Commander Chandana Prasad Hettiarachchi. Both Ratnayake and Hettiarachchi had been earlier sanctioned by the US, one of the worst human rights offenders, for committing what it called serious crimes.
Interestingly, no Western government has so far sanctioned war-winning Army Chief Field Marshal Sarath Fonseka though a number of senior officers, including General Shavendra Silva (US) and Maj. Gen. Chagie Gallage (Australia). The US threw its weight behind Fonseka at the 2010 presidential election. Having accused Fonseka’s Army of murdering thousands of Tamils, the LTTE proxy Tamil National Alliance (TNA) formed an alliance with the UNP and the JVP to defeat Mahinda Rajapaksa. Their project failed pathetically as the electorate inflicted a massive defeat on the celebrated Sinha Regiment hero. The drubbing was such Mahinda Rajapaksa polled over 1.8 mn votes more than Fonseka.
In the absence of cohesive policy on the part of Sri Lanka in countering unsubstantiated war crimes accusations, Western powers pursued an agenda inimical to Sri Lanka. The idea was to push Sri Lanka to offer a political package that addressed Tamils’ aspirations. In other words, Western powers wanted Sri Lanka to grant what the LTTE couldn’t secure through terrorism driven war.
Midweek Review
It reeks in the Palk Bay!

A shooting involving Indian fishermen and Sri Lanka Navy personnel within the island’s territorial waters, and injuries sustained in apprehending the poachers is in the news, yet again. And as is often the case in these countless and never-ending confrontations and competing claims and counter claims in state rituals, we have two versions of the event. But one thing is indisputable: Indian fishermen had entered Sri Lankan waters illegally and thereby came within the jurisdiction of the island nation’s laws and legal apparatuses including interventions by its navy.
Naval action followed by competing statements by India and Sri Lanka are mere state rituals that have not been able to address long-standing practices that pre-existed the formation of nation-states. For the longest time, when national identities, citizenship, and maritime borders did not exist in the legal sense we understand them today, what we now call Sri Lankan and Indian fishermen waded undeterred into each other’s waters and engaged in fishing to their hearts’ content. They even lingered for extended periods of time in each other’s lands during specific fishing periods. I recall engaging in a conversation at the turn of the century with one such fisherman from South India who had decided to settle in Chilaw long ago. In his case and that of many of his comrades at the time, it was a matter of marrying into the Sinhala speaking fisher families. Over time, these people blended into local communities. At the height of these activities and even after both India and Sri Lanka gained independence, the long arm of the nation-states’ laws and national interests did not intervene in such activities beyond a point. But this changed as nation-states evolved into what Ashish Nandi has called ’garrison states’, militarised borders were drawn and bodies of laws developed governing cross-border travel.
Notwithstanding national borders and the associated practices of statecraft and competing nationalisms, fishermen in the two neighbouring countries have continued to wade into each other’s waters consciously disregarding what is known as the International Maritime Boundary Line (IMBL) due to its invisibility. Such border violations are often deliberate and a matter of routine because fishermen often get away with this infringement. However, the kind of intrusion followed by violence now in the news is not the norm, but the exception.
In a statement issued on 28 January 2025, India’s Ministry of External Affairs noted that “an incident of firing by the Sri Lankan Navy during the apprehension of 13 Indian fishermen in the proximity of Delft Island was reported in the early hours of this morning.” It further noted, that “out of the 13 fishermen who were on board the fishing vessel, two have sustained serious injuries and are currently receiving treatment at the Jaffna Teaching Hospital.” But the statement from the Sri Lanka Navy differs in important details. It notes that Sri Lanka’s “Northern Naval Command observed a cluster of Indian fishing boats poaching in the Sri Lankan waters off Valvettithurai, Jaffna in the dark hours of 27 Jan 25.” This location is much closer to the Sri Lankan coast than what the Indian statement claims, yet it is evident from both statements that the incident took place well within Sri Lanka’s territorial waters. This discrepancy in the statements is intriguing as the two locations are approximately 62.4 km apart. Interestingly, the contested island of Kachchatheevu is 22.4 km from Delft, the location given in the Indian statement, and 84.7 km from Valvettithurai. Therefore, a careful reader may not be faulted in wondering if locating the scene closer to Kachchatheevu is deliberate, given that the island is a bone of contention between the two countries.
The Navy statement further states, “subsequently, the Northern Naval Command mounted a special operation to send away those fishing boats from the island waters, deploying naval craft. During this operation, the Navy seized an Indian fishing boat [that] continued to remain in Sri Lankan waters, while marshalling illegal fishing activities and collecting the fishing harvest. The operation also led to the apprehension of 13 Indian fishermen aboard the fishing boat.”
For Sri Lanka, this is not merely an accident that can be wished away as the somewhat clinical Indian statement does. It goes beyond protecting the maritime borders of the country, to preserving a crucial source of livelihood of many people in northern Sri Lanka and other parts of the island. It is both a bread-and-butter issue as it is a matter of national interest. Therefore, the Sri Lanka Navy has acted precisely in the manner that it should, as is expected and is within its mandate. Is it also not ironic that the bleeding hearts of southern Indian politicians who are up in arms about the so-called discrimination and abuse of their Tamil brethren in Sri Lanka by its government, seem to turn bone dry when their constituent fishermen callously plunder the resource-rich fertile waters of Sri Lanka, thereby remorselessly depriving their Tamil brothers and sisters of their livelihood.
The Sri Lankan statement further notes, “the Sri Lanka Navy boarding team was compelled to conduct noncompliance boarding as the Indian fishing boat continued to maneuver aggressively, without complying with the Navy’s lawful orders and its duty, during the process of taking the boat into custody. On this occasion, the Indian fishermen have acted aggressively, maneuvering their fishing boat in a hostile manner and behaving confrontationally with the Navy. However, while boarding the fishing boat in accordance with the authority vested in the Navy, the Indian fishermen, as an organized group, have attempted to assault naval personnel and made an attempt to snatch a firearm from a naval officer, endangering the lives of the naval personnel. In the process, an accidental fire has taken place, causing slight injuries to two Indian fishermen.” So unlike in the Indian statement which refers to ‘serious injuries’ the Sri Lankan statement refers to ‘slight injuries.’
What is seen here is not a deliberate act of shooting as the Indian statement and much of the Indian reporting on the incident insinuates, but an accident that has occurred due to the aggression and unlawful behaviour of Indian fishermen in a location in the sovereign territory of another country, they had no business of being in, in the first place. Intriguingly, none of these details are present in the Indian statement. It merely says that in addition to lodging a ‘strong’ complaint against the incident with the Acting High Commissioner in Delhi and the Sri Lankan Ministry of Foreign Affairs, “government of India has always emphasized the need to treat issues pertaining to fishermen in a humane and humanitarian manner, keeping in mind livelihood concerns. The use of force is not acceptable under any circumstances whatsoever. Existing understandings between the two Governments in this regard must be strictly observed.”
India’s Ministry of Externa Affairs lodging a complaint with our Acting Hish Commissioner in Delhi and a similar complaint being made by its High Commission to our Foreign Ministry is the height of absurdity. While our Foreign Ministry and missions may be numb to such action, we should be mindful that the main infraction — Indian poaching — happened in our waters and therefore comes under the jurisdiction of Sri Lankan laws, in the dispensation of which accidents can also happen.
In any case, this statement itself may seem well articulated in the lofty corridors of performative and orchestrated diplomacy and the Indian Ocean conference circuit. But it makes little sense beyond as an example of excessive verbosity in the real world of cross-border poaching and naval action in the darkness of the night involving aggressive culprits and the threatened livelihoods of citizens of a sovereign country. Besides, it was just over six months ago that a young Sri Lankan sailor brutally met his end because of the aggressive manoeuvering of an Indian trawler in Sri Lankan waters. Therefore, these statements are naught but mere rhetoric, of no use to the Sri Lankan fishermen who — through no fault of their own — have to bear the brunt of Indian infractions and incursions into their bread-basket.
What is obvious in these rituals of statecraft is the woeful absence of proactive action on the part of Sri Lanka. If India can summon our Acting High Commissioner to their Ministry of External Affairs and lodge a ‘strong’ complaint over an accident stemming from an illegal Indian activity that took place in our waters, did our Foreign Ministry summon the Indian High Commissioner to protest against his compatriots illegally and perpetually entering our waters, behaving aggressively towards our navy and depriving a section of our citizens of their only livelihood? Did our Foreign Ministry ask him why they have opted to report basic facts wrong in their statement? Silence in such situations is not only extremely dangerous but also smacks of pusillanimity. This kind of institutionalized timidity on the part of Sri Lanka does not augur well for the country at the time we are celebrating our supposed ‘Independence,’ and is also counterintuitive to the notion of national interest.
This general lack of intent towards meaningful action is also evident in the Joint Statement of 16 December 2024, issued during President Anura Kumara Dissanayaka’s visit to India which states that “acknowledging the issues faced by fishermen on both sides and factoring in the livelihood concerns, the leaders agreed on the need to continue to address these in a humanitarian manner. In this regard, they also underscored the need to take measures to avoid any aggressive behaviour or violence. They welcomed the recent conclusion of the 6th Joint Working Group Meeting on Fisheries in Colombo. The leaders expressed confidence that through dialogue and constructive engagements a long-lasting and mutually acceptable solution could be achieved. Given the special relationship between India and Sri Lanka, they instructed officials to continue their engagement to address these issues.” Here, the omission of any reference to the destructive bottom-trawling fishing method is conspicuous by its stark absence. It is indeed unfathomable that the Sri Lankan team did not insist on the inclusion of this critical reference in the statement.
Rampantly used by Indian fishermen, bottom-trawling disrupts the seabed, marine ecosystem and biodiversity of the Palk Bay, while boosting India’s seafood exports and yielding high profits while destroying the Sri Lankan fishermen’s livelihoods. For this reason, Sri Lanka banned bottom-trawling in 2017. However, none of these are in the Joint Statement of 16 December 2024 or the Sri Lanka Navy statement of 28 January 2025, and have also not been taken up with the Indian High Commissioner in Colombo. This is not only a failure of Sri Lankan foreign policy in action but also a complete compromise of our country’s national interest.
In this context, the real culprits in the failure to resolve the problem definitively are the leaders of the Indian and Sri Lankan states — politicians and bureaucrats alike. Why has technology not been resorted to more thoughtfully in this situation where the required technology actually exists? For the longest time, both sides have been waxing eloquent about attaching non-tamperable and permanently switched-on transponders to fishing boats which will inform the Navies or Coast Guards of the two countries when maritime border violations take place. As a technologically advanced country, India has the higher capacity to produce the required innovative mechanisms and tools for this purpose that can be used in both countries for mutual benefit. Bilateral collaboration of this nature can actually bear fruit rather than the hollow discourses of rhetorical diplomacy and statecraft.
For India, these issues are important only insofar as they resonate with Tamil Nadu politics and therefore possible vote banks. In reality, it is never about the lives or livelihoods of poor South Indian fishermen or their confiscated properties. For Sri Lanka, it is a matter of ill-defined sovereignty and the livelihood of a significant section of the people in the north. At the same time, this unfolds in a situation where the Sri Lankan Navy is unable to patrol the country’s maritime borders effectively, a known fact which Indian fishermen exploit as a matter of routine.
If both countries are adequately serious beyond issuing mere statements after the fact, these incursions are easily stoppable. However, once the technology is put in place as a matter of law, both countries must enforce them to the letter, and patrol the borders more effectively. But, pending the fruition of such law, Indian fishermen, cannot be allowed to plunder Sri Lankan resources. It is also high time, the Sri Lankan government, with the kind of overwhelming mandate it has received from the people, make it very clear to the Indian state that endless incursions into our territorial waters and ravishing of the country’s natural resources can no longer be tolerated. And if legitimate deterrence is to be used in protecting our borders and resources as do all sovereign states including India, so be it. This is the minimum we expect from our government in its pursuit of our national interest.
Midweek Review
The Teen Mum Question

By Lynn Ockersz
Into the shadows of shame,
Is the Teen Mum slinking,
Now that the seed in her womb,
Which she didn’t aim at planting,
Is almost close to ripening,
Rendering her heavy with child,
But judge her not in haste,
And go for the First Stone,
For, she’s a hapless victim,
Of an education needing updating,
With a knowledge of do’s and don’ts,
On the question of human mating,
And going into ‘proud independence’,
May this issue be taken up for discussing.
-
News3 days ago
Musk reveals ‘crazy waste’ of USAID funds in Sri Lanka
-
News6 days ago
CID questions top official over releasing of 323 containers
-
Features7 days ago
A singular modern Lankan mentor – Part II
-
Features7 days ago
Bharath Rang Mahothsav Parallel Festival in Colombo
-
Opinion6 days ago
A singular modern Lankan mentor – Part III
-
News6 days ago
Harry and Ken pass away
-
Features6 days ago
The President’s Jaffna visit and its implications
-
News5 days ago
‘GovPay’, first step to digitalise government services