Features

The first P & O Voyage to the East

Published

4 years ago

2022/10/2

Thilina Walpola

(Leaving Southampton on September 24, 1842)

By Hugh Karunanayake

(We are indebted to Sir William Twynam (a passenger on this historic voyage) who was known as the Rajah of the North having worked as Government Agent. of Jaffna for 50 years, for his memoir which is the basis for the story of the voyage. The memoir was published in 1916 at the request of Miss Barbara Layard, one of his co- passengers on that historic voyage which took place in 1842. Sir William Twynam born in Ceylon was the son of Thomas Holloway Twynam Master Attendant of the Galle Harbour. He settled down in Jaffna after his retirement from the Ceylon Civil Service after a period of 50 years. More on Sir William Twynam could be found below)

BACKGROUND TO THE FIRST VOYAGE

Until the opening of the Suez Canal in 1865, the P & O Company (established in 1837)plied two large steamships “the Great Liverpool” and “Oriental” between Southampton and Alexandria. Passengers and mails were transported thereafter from Alexandria to Cairo in canal boats on the Mahmoudieh Canal. From Cairo to Suez passengers were carried in cars or vans over a stretch of desert. Thus the route was called the “overland route” .

Since there was no service between the Suez and Bombay, the Government of India used the Indian Navy to transport passengers between Suez and Bombay, liaising with two P&O vessels “Great Liverpool” and Oriental which plied between Southampton and the Suez. The mail to Ceylon were conveyed monthly to and from Bombay by the steamer “Seaforth” operated by the Ceylon Government. The arrangement continued till the inauguration of the service to the East by the P & O Company. Two vessels the “Hindostan” and “Bentinck” each of 1,800 tons and 500 hp wooden paddle ships were built by the firm Wilson of Liverpool. Bentinck was sent out in 1842.

Ms Barbara Layard at whose request Sir William wrote this memoir, was a fellow passenger in the “Hindostan. She was one of the 26 children of C.E. Layard of the Ceylon Civil Service, and a long time resident of Nuwara Eliya.

SS Hindostan (1842)

was the first ever steam auxiliary ship to run between the Suez Canal and Calcutta; During the early colonial period, when the East India Company became well-established after having taken over the whole of Bengal and adjacent lands, regular navigational shipping services between India and England became a dire necessity. This was to bring in workforce, cargo and mail from England.

The East India Company entered into a contract with the P & O Co. for carrying mail. The “Hindostan” had three masts for sails, and paddles run by 520 horsepower engines, and was carrying 2,017 tons; 249 feet in length, it was made in a Liverpool dockyard under the direction of Charles Wye Williams, marine engineer, It began its long voyage on September 24, 1842 from Southampton to Calcutta. It took 91 days to sail to Calcutta harbor; it was a 4,787- mile journey from Calcutta to Suez in 25 days three hours, made despite SW monsoon winds and rains. It proved to be a boon for the mercantile traders. In July 1849 Queen Victoria requested to visit Hindostan at anchor in Southampton water close to Osborne House on the Isle of Wight. Indeed, a great honour for the shipping Co., the P&O. The “Hindostan” plied via Suez and Calcutta with stopovers at Colombo and Madras. Its very first passage round the Cape of Good Hope to Calcutta was faster than the overland mail to Bombay via Mediterranean and the Suez. There was provision for 102 First Class passengers, including their servants. It was a bimonthly service between Suez and Calcutta.

An interesting feature was giving due importance to the comforts of the passengers on a long journey; the ”passenger cabins” were in the middle of the ship where the effect of pitching and rolling will be much less.

THE FIRST VOYAGE

Sir William Twynam describes the departure of the Hindostan from Southampton on the first voyage by the P & O Co. as follows: ” Amid much cheering, display of bunting, firing of salutes, and manning of yards and rigging and the hearty good wishes of sympathizers and friends (a fitting send off to the pioneer of a great enterprise) the good steamship “Hindostan” of the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company, under the command of Captain Robert Moresby, late of the Indian Navy, steamed out of Southampton and down the Solent, on the afternoon of September 24, 1842, on her way to Calcutta to start the great steam mail service to the East.

At the time of the launch of the ‘Hindostan’ steam powered navigation was in its infancy, and there were no coal depots at the ports between Southampton and Calcutta. Ports of call had to be arranged, and colliers sent in advance to await the arrival of the steamer. Six ports of call had been arranged for the “Hindostan”, viz Gibratar, St Vincent, Ascension, The Cape, Mauritius and Galle in Ceylon.

PASSENGERS FOR CEYLON

The “Hindostan” on its first voyage brought out a full complement of passengers for the Cape, Ceylon, Madras, and Calcutta, chiefly military officers and civilians returning from furlough – cadets and writers of the East India Company’s service for Madras and Calcutta. In the words of Sir William Twynam “Passengers for Ceylon included Mr Charles Layard of the Ceylon Civil Service, father of Sir Charles Peter Layard, retired Chief Justice, Miss Tammy Layard who died in Colombo. Miss Layard who married Mr David Sabonadiere of Delta Estate. Miss Babara Layard. Another young Miss Layard whose name is forgotten.

Other passengers included Nurse Miss Llewellyn who came out to marry Mr Ritchie of the firm of Wilson, Ritchie, and Co. Mrs Hudson wife of Mr Frank Hudson, a well known character in Ceylon, and soon after head of the firm of Hudson, Chandler and Co. She became Mrs Holsworthy, wife of Captain Holsworthy of the Rifles Regiment: he exchanged into West India and was drowned in Port Royal owing to the capsizing of a boat carrying a pleasure party. She, I was informed, married again, but I do not know to whom. Mr Shaw and Mrs Shaw, I do not know on what account they came to Ceylon. She was more or less an invalid during the voyage, apparently from sea-sickness.

They were joined at the Cape by a brother of Mrs Shaw. Mr William Shand came out to go in for coffee planting. Lieut Werge came out to join the Ceylon Rifles. Captain Scott of the mercantile marine who had just given up command of the Indian “Robert Small” to go in for coffee planting. A gentleman and lady whose name I do not recollect, with a relative somewhat off his head. Another gentleman who came for sugar planting near Galle from the West Indies.On board from Southampton to Calcutta were Cadets Emerson, nephew of Sir James Emerson Tennent. Thompson Fowle and his brother a writer who married in India Miss Caroline Garstin sister of Rev Norman Garstin sometime chaplain of Galle and sister Mrs Lindsay of Rajawella.

THE VOYAGE FROM SOUTHAMPTON TO GALLE

With the exception of a few squalls of rain in the channel and Bay of Biscay, the weather was fine on the run from the Solent to Gibraltar, the Bay of Biscay was on its best behaviour and gave no trouble.

On the morning of the September 28 the coast of Portugal was sighted. On Thursday September 29 we sighted Gibraltar and anchored at 6 pm near the company’s coal hulk. On the 30th coaling was carried on, and most of the passengers went on shore and amused themselves sight seeing, shopping, and going up the rock to see the fortifications and excavations. Fine weather was experienced during the run to the Cape Verde Islands. Passed the Canaries on the forenoon of October 5, had a beautiful view of the Peak of Tencriffe, sighted San Antonio of the Cape Verde Islands on the morning of Saturday the 8th and St Vincents in the evening. The steamer was taken into the harbour between 7 and 8 pm.The firing of signal guns and the discharge of rockets and blue lights giving notice of the arrival of the steamer off the port.

There was not much to be seen in the town, the population of which consisted of Portuguese, Negroes, and Portuguese and Negro half castes. The passengers amused themselves with occasional runs on shore, fishing (fish being plentiful round the ship) attempts at shooting by few in the neighbourhood, these were not however successful. Coaling having been completed by the afternoon of the 13th the steamer left the Cape Verde Islands for Ascension at 6 p.m. Ascension was a great place for turtle which were plentiful. In those days the advent of a steamer like the “Hindostan” full of passengers, many of whom were ladies, was a great event.

On the morning of November 8th the vessel crept into St Helena Bay about 120 miles north of the cape. A Dutch farmer and his family, of about a dozen, a Dane and two or three others seemed to be the only inhabitants at St Helena Bay. The “Hindostan” cleared out of St Helena Bay and anchored next morning November 15th at Table Bay. During the stay at Table Bay the ship was open to visitors who were charged a small sum, the amount collected to be paid over to a charity. It was astonishing to see the number of people who visited to see the “wonderful steamer”: !

On the afternoon of the November 18, ‘the table cloth’ was spread on that extraordinary rock the Table Mountain. The white cloud signifies the ushering in of a gale. On Monday November 21 two days after leaving Table Bay the steamer began to pass through the centre of a cyclone or hurricane. Whilst at dinner the ship tumbled around causing some alarm although after about two hours the Hindostan steamed out of it.

At the Cape there were new passengers joining the ship. Among them the Pattles bound for Calcutta. The family has had long an enduring connections with Ceylon. Mr Pattle of the Bengal Civil Service, Mrs Pattle, two Misses Pattle, Mr Pattle(Junior) comprised the family. One of two Miss Pattles could well be the famous photographer Julia Margaret Cameron who married Charles Hay Cameron of the historic Colebrooke/Cameron reforms which recommended the foundation for an administrative and legal framework within which Ceylon could be administered.

According to John Penry Lewis in “List of inscriptions on Tombstones and Monuments in Ceylon” Colombo 1913″Mrs Cameron(ie Julia Margaret) was “one of the beautiful Misses Pattles who took the City of Palace by storm 60 or 70 years ago”.The eldest, Virginia, married General Colin McKenzie; the second,Henry Thoby Prinsep; the third was Mrs Cameron; the fourth married Dr John Jackson, Professor of Medicine at Calcutta; the fifth,Henry Vincent Bayley, a Puisne Judge of the Calcutta High Court; the sixth, Earl Somers; and the sebenth John Warrender Dalrymple, B.C.S. They were the daughters of “old Blazer Pattle the Nestor of the East India Company’s Covenanted Service. The Caemron;s eldest son Ewen lived and died on Rahatungoda Estate. The Third son, Harding Hay was in the Ceylon Civil Service 1870-1904, retiring as Treasurer of the colony, and died September 16, 1911.”

Mauritius was reached at about 8.30 am on December 2. At noon on December 4, the “Hindostan” steamed out of Port Louis on her way to Galle. The “Hindostan” must have left Galle for Calcutta on December 16 or 17, where she arrived on Christmas Eve December 24, 1842 having left Southampton September 24 1842. The collier dispatched from Calcutta to meet her at Galle, the “Mary Bannatyne” had not turned up, but fortunately a supply of coal to take her to Calcutta had already been secured.

SOME SIGNIFICANT HAPPENINGS DURING THE VOYAGE

Unlike modern cruise ships and ocean liners, the shipping vessels of the nineteenth century faced many a maritime hazard during long journeys. The “Hindostan” was no exception, and had its share of events and tragedies that are not heard in modern deep sea voyaging. Fortunately Sir William Twynam has recalled some of the prominent incidents that the vessel endured and we are able to present them here.

Attempted stowaway – On the evening of October 9, the six gun brig “Heroine” commanded by Lieut Stuart with Mr Mark Spain as Master came in. Some of the crew were told to help on board the “Hindostan”, and left the steamer in a boat in charge of Mr Mark Spain. There was some trouble and abuse from a petty officer who tried to stowaway in the “Hindostan” but was caught and forced into the boat just as the steamer left.

Man overboard! On the afternoon of 28 October one of the oldest and best seamen in the ship, Tulloch by name was washed overboard and lost. He, with another seaman Miller were securing the port bower anchor amidst a long rolling swell which made the ship plunge heavily. One wave went over both men and nearly took them off, another followed and took Tulloch off. He was clear of the paddle wheel and was seen struggling in the water as he passed under the stern, being unable to swim. He then disappeared.

Another serious accident

The collier “Cleopatra” helped in coaling the ship after it reached Mauritius. On the evening of December 3, before leaving for Galle an unfortunate accident occurred. One of the guns with an unfired charge in it was set off accidently, carrying away the tompion from the mouth of the gun and breaking it to pieces. A nurse standing near was struck on the leg smashing it and rendering amputation necessary. The ship’s doctor was on shore, but fortunately the surgeon of the “Cleopatra” was on board. He sent at once for his instruments and with the able assistance of Mr Mountjoy, a cadet, who had studied surgery earlier, amputated the leg above the knee, a tent having been run up for the procedure. She survived the operation and was provided for in Calcutta by the P & O Company.

SIR WILLIAM TWYNAM -RAJAH OF THE NORTH

Our thanks and unreserved appreciation go to Sir William Twynam to whose sense of history we are indebted for the insights into this historic voyage recounted by him over 50 years after the voyage was completed. Born into a nautical background in Ceylon, his father was Master Attendant in the Southern Port of Galle, then the main harbour in Ceylon of that era. He belonged to a family which traced its descent from the first Saxon invaders of

Britain, and who settled in Hampshire about the year 1560. He made his first acquaintance with the Northern Prince in 1848 when he was appointed Assistant Government Agent of Jaffna. It has been said that ” to his ability as an administrator he joined rare sympathy with the needs an aspirations of the people. His sympathy was felt not only by the educated classes, but by the poorest and most ignorant section of the people. JR Toussaint in his book “Annnals of the Ceylon Civil Service(1935) quoting JP Lewis who had observed Sir William’s handwriting and described it as ‘execrable’ .He stated that Sir William wrote in three different styles of handwriting—one that could be read only by himself and his office assistant; another that could be read by himself alone, and a third which neither himself or his office assistant could read !! A man who loved Jaffna and its people immensely, he retired on January 1, 1896 after being knighted. His roots were so firmly fixed in Jaffna that he chose to make it his home and took the same interest in the people of Jaffna and their welfare as he had done before. He had amassed a large collection of curios, and antiquities of the North which he presented to St John’s College which set up a Twynam memorial Museum for enjoyment by the people. Sir William lived out his retirement in Alfred Villa, Beach Road, Jaffna where he died in March 1922 in his 95th year. His remains lie interred in a grave at the Jaffna YMCA of which he was the founding President.

All News Advertisement

Features

The NPP Government is more than a JVP offspring:

Published

3 hours ago

2026/04/12

Thilina Walpola

Rohana Wijeweera

It is also different from all past governments as it faces new and different challenges

No one knows whether the already broken ceasefire between the US and Iran, with Israel as a reluctant adjunct, will last the full 10 days, or what will come thereafter. The world’s economic woes are not over and the markets are yo-yoing in response to Trump’s twitches and Iran’s gate keeping at the Strait of Hormuz. The gloomy expert foretelling is that full economic normalcy will not return until the year is over even if the war were to end with the ceasefire. That means continuing challenges for Sri Lanka and more of the tough learning in the art of governing for the NPP.

The NPP government has been doing what most governments in Asia have been doing to cope with the current global crisis, which is also an Asian crisis insofar as oil supplies and other supply chains are concerned. What the government can and must do additionally is to be totally candid with the people and keep them informed of everything that it is doing – from monitoring import prices to the timely arranging of supplies, all the details of tender, the tracking of arrivals, and keeping the distribution flow through the market without bottlenecks. That way the government can eliminate upstream tender rackets and downstream hoarding swindles. People do not expect miracles from their government, only honest, sincere and serious effort in difficult circumstances. Backed up by clear communication and constant public engagement.

But nothing is going to stop the flow of criticisms against the NPP government. That is a fact of Sri Lankan politics. Even though the opposition forces are weak and have little traction and even less credibility, there has not been any drought in the criticisms levelled against the still fledgling government. These criticisms can be categorized as ideological, institutional and oppositional criticisms, with each category having its own constituency and/or commentators. The three categories invariably overlap and there are instances of criticisms that excite only the pundits but have no political resonance.

April 5 anniversary nostalgia

There is also a new line of criticism that might be inspired by the April 5 anniversary nostalgia for the 1971 JVP insurrection. This new line traces the NPP government to the distant roots of the JVP – its April 1965 founding “in a working-class home in Akmeemana, Galle” by a 22-year old Rohana Wijeweera and seven others; the short lived 1971 insurrection that was easily defeated; and the much longer and more devastating second (1987 to 1989) insurrection that led to the elimination of the JVP’s frontline leaders including Wijeweera, and brought about a change in the JVP’s political direction with commitment to parliamentary democracy. So far, so good, as history goes.

But where the nostalgic narrative starts to bend is in attempting a straight line connection from the 1965 Akmeemana origins of the JVP to the national electoral victories of the NPP in 2024. And the bend gets broken in trying to bridge the gap between the “founding anti-imperialist economics” of the JVP and the practical imperatives of the NPP government in “governing a debt-laden small open economy.” Yet this line of criticism differs from the other lines of criticism that I have alluded to, but more so for its moral purpose than for its analytical clarity. The search for clarity could begin with question – why is the NPP government more than a JVP offspring? The answer is not so simple, but it is also not too complicated.

For starters, the JVP was a political response to the national and global conditions of the 1960s and 1970s, piggybacking socialism on the bandwagon of ethno-nationalism in a bi-polar world that was ideologically split between status quo capitalism and the alternative of socialism. The NPP government, on the other hand, is not only a response to, but is also a product of the conditions of the 2010s and 2020s. The twain cannot be more different. Nothing is the same between then and now, locally and globally.

A pragmatic way to look at the differences between the origins of the JVP and the circumstances of the NPP government is to look at the very range of criticisms that are levelled against the NPP government. What I categorize as ideological criticisms include criticisms of the government’s pro-IMF and allegedly neo-liberal economic policies, as well as the government’s foreign policy stances – on Israel, on the current US-Israel war against Iran, the geopolitics of the Indian Ocean, and the apparent closeness to the Modi government in India. These criticisms emanate from the non-JVP left and Sinhala Buddhist nationalists.

Strands of nationalism

To digress briefly, there are several strands in the overall bundle of Sri Lankan nationalism. There is the liberal inclusive strand, the left-progressive strand, the exclusive Sinhala Buddhist Nationalist (SBN) strand, and the defensive strands of minority nationalisms. Given Sri Lanka’s historical political formations and alliances, much overlapping goes on between the different strands. The overlapping gets selective on an issue by issue basis, which in itself is not unwelcome insofar as it promotes plurality in place of exclusivity.

Historically as well, and certainly after 1956, the SBN strand has been the dominant strand of nationalism in Sri Lanka and has had the most influential say in every government until now. Past versions of the JVP frequently straddled the dominant SBN space. Currently, however, the dominant SBN strand is in one of its more dormant phases and the NPP government could be a reason for the current dormancy. This is an obvious difference between the old JVP and the new NPP.

A second set of criticisms, or institutional criticisms, emanate from political liberals and human rights activists and these are about the NPP government’s actions or non-actions in regard to constitutional changes, the future of the elected executive presidency, the status of provincial devolution and the timing of provincial council elections, progress on human rights issues, the resolution of unfinished postwar businesses including the amnesia over mass graves. These criticisms and the issues they represent are also in varying ways the primary concerns of the island’s Tamils, Muslims and the Malaiyaka (planntationn) Tamils. As with the overlapping between the left and the non-minority nationalists, there is also overlapping between the liberal activists and minority representatives.

A third category includes what might be called oppositional criticisms and they counterpose the JVP’s past against the NPP’s present, call into question the JVP’s commitment to multi-party democracy and raise alarms about a creeping constitutional dictatorship. This category also includes criticisms of the NPP government’s lack of governmental experience and competence; alleged instances of abuse of power, mismanagement and even corruption; alleged harassment of past politicians; and the failure to find the alleged mastermind behind the 2019 Easter bombings. At a policy and implementational level, there have been criticisms of the government’s educational reforms and electricity reforms, the responses to cyclone Ditwah, and the current global oil and economic crises. The purveyors of oppositional criticisms are drawn from the general political class which includes political parties, current and past parliamentarians, as well as media pundits.

Criticisms as expectations

What is common to all three categories of criticisms is that they collectively represent what were understood to be promises by the NPP before the elections, and have become expectations of the NPP government after the elections. It is the range and nature of these criticisms and the corresponding expectations that make the NPP government a lot more than a mere JVP offspring, and significantly differentiate it from every previous government.

The deliverables that are expected of the NPP government were never a part of the vocabulary of the original JVP platform and programs. The very mode of parliamentary politics was ideologically anathema to the JVP of Akmeemana. And there was no mention of or concern for minority rights, or constitutional reforms. On foreign policy, it was all India phobia without Anglo mania – a halfway variation of Sri Lanka’s mainstream foreign policy of Anglo mania and India phobia. For a party of the rural proletariat, the JVP was virulently opposed to the plantation proletariat. The JVP’s version of anti-imperialist economics would hardly have excited the Sri Lankan electorate at any time, and certainly not at the present time.

At the same time, the NPP government is also the only government that has genealogical antecedents to a political movement or organization like the JVP. That in itself makes the NPP government unique among Sri Lanka’s other governments. The formation of the NPP is the culmination of the evolution of the JVP that began after the second insurrection with the shedding of political violence, acceptance of political plurality and commitment to electoral democracy.

But the evolution was not entirely a process of internal transformation. It was also a response to a rapidly and radically changing circumstances both within Sri Lanka and beyond. This evolution has not been a rejection of the founding socialist purposes of the JVP in 1968, but their adaptation in the endless political search, under constantly changing conditions, for a non-violent, socialist and democratic framework that would facilitate the full development of the human potential of all Sri Lankans.

The burden of expectations is unmistakable, but what is also remarkable is their comprehensiveness and the NPP’s formal commitment to all of them at the same time. No previous government shouldered such an extensive burden or showed such a willing commitment to each and every one of the expectations. In the brewing global economic crisis, the criticisms, expectations and the priorities of the government will invariably be focussed on keeping the economy alive and alleviating the day-to-day difficulties of millions of Sri Lankan families. While what the NPP government can and must do may not differ much from what other Asian governments – from Pakistan to Vietnam – are doing, it could and should do better than what any and all past Sri Lankan governments did when facing economic challenges.

by Rajan Philips

Features

A Fragile Ceasefire: Pakistan’s Glory and Israel’s Sabotage

Published

3 hours ago

2026/04/12

Thilina Walpola

Smokes over Beirut: Israel’s Ceasefire Attack on Hezbollah in Lebanon

After threatening to annihilate one of the planet’s oldest civilizations, TACO* Trump chickened out again by grasping the ceasefire lifeline that Pakistan had assiduously prepared. Trump needed the ceasefire badly to stem the mounting opposition to the war in America. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu wanted the war to continue because he needed it badly for his political survival. So, he contrived a fiction and convinced Trump that Lebanon is not included in the ceasefire. Trump as usual may not have noticed that Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Shariff had clearly indicated Lebanon’s inclusion in his announcement of the ceasefire at 7:50 PM, Tuesday, on X. Ten minutes before Donald Trump’s fake deadline.

True to form on Wednesday, Israel unleashed the heaviest assault by far on Lebanon, reportedly killing over 300 people, the highest single-day death toll in the current war. Iran responded by re-closing the Strait of Hormuz and questioning the need for talks in Islamabad over the weekend. There were other incidents as well, with an oil refinery attacked in Iran, and Iranian drones and missiles slamming oil and gas infrastructure in UAE, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Qatar.

The US tried to insist that Lebanon is not part of the ceasefire, with the argumentative US Vice President JD Vance, who was in Budapest, Hungary, campaigning for Viktor Orban, calling the whole thing a matter of “bad faith negotiation” as well as “legitimate misunderstanding” on the part of Iran, and warning Iran that “it would be dumb to jeopardise its ceasefire with Washington over Israel’s attacks in Lebanon.”

But as the attack in Lebanon drew international condemnation – from Pope Leo to UN Secretary General António Guterres, and several world leaders, and amidst fears of Lebanon becoming another Gaza with 1,500 people including 130 children killed and more than a million people displaced, Washington got Israel to stop its “lawn mowing” in southern Lebanon.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu agreed to “open direct negotiations with Lebanon as soon as possible,”. Lebanese President Joeseph Aoun has also called for “a ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon, followed by direct negotiations between them.” Israel’s involvement in Lebanon remains a wild card that threatens the ceasefire and could scuttle the talks between the US and Iran scheduled for Saturday in Islamabad.

Losers and Winners

After the ceasefire, both the Trump Administration and Iran have claimed total victories while the Israeli government wants the war to continue. The truth is that after more than a month into nonstop bombing of Iran, America and Israel have won nothing. Only Iran has won something it did not have when Trump and Netanyahu started their war. Iran now has not only a say over but control of the Strait of Hormuz. The ceasefire acknowledges this. Both Trump and Netanyahu are under fire in their respective countries and have no allies in the world except one another.

The real diplomatic winner is Pakistan. Salman Rushdie’s palimpsest-country has emerged as a key player in global politics and an influential mediator in a volatile region. Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and Chief of Defence Field Marshal Asim Munir have both been praised by President Trump and credited for achieving the current ceasefire. The Iranian regime has also been effusive in its praise of Pakistan’s efforts.

It is Pakistan that persisted with the effort after initial attempts at backdoor diplomacy by Egypt, Pakistan and Türkiye started floundering. Sharing a 900 km border and deep cultural history with Iran, and having a skirmish of its own on the eastern front with Afghanistan, Pakistan has all the reason to contain and potentially resolve the current conflict in Iran. Although a majority Sunni Muslim country, Pakistan is home to the second largest Shia Muslim population after Iran, and is the easterly terminus of the Shia Arc that stretches from Lebanon. The country also has a mutual defense pact with Saudi Arabia that includes Pakistan’s nuclear cover for the Kingdom. An open conflict between Iran and Saudi Arabia would have put Pakistan in a dangerously awkward position.

It is now known and Trump has acknowledged that China had a hand in helping Iran get to the diplomatic table. Pakistan used its connections well to get Chinese diplomatic reinforcement. Pakistani Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar flew to Beijing to brief his Chinese counterpart and secured China’s public support for the diplomatic efforts. The visit produced a Five-Point Plan that became a sequel to America’s 15-point proposal and the eventual ten-point offer by Iran.

There is no consensus between parties as to which points are where and who is agreeing to what. The chaos is par for the course the way Donald Trumps conducts global affairs. So, all kudos to Pakistan for quietly persisting with old school toing and froing and producing a semblance of an agreement on a tweet without a parchment.

It is also noteworthy that Israel has been excluded from all the diplomatic efforts so far. And it is remarkable, but should not be surprising, the way Trump has sidelined Isreal from the talks. Prime Minister Netanyahu has been enjoying overwhelming support of Israelis for starting the war of his life against Iran and getting the US to spearhead it. But now the country is getting confused and is exposed to Iranian missiles and drones far more than ever before. The Israeli opposition is finally coming alive realizing what little has Netanyahu’s wars have achieved and at what cost. Israel has alienated a majority of Americans and has no ally anywhere else.

It will be a busy Saturday in Islamabad, where the US and Iranian delegations are set to meet. Iran would seem to have insisted and secured the assurance that the US delegation will be led by Vice President Vance, while including Trump’s personal diplomats – Steve Witkoff and son-in-law Jared Kushner. Iran has not announced its team but it is expected to be led, for protocol parity, by Iran’s Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, and will likely include its suave Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi. Vice President Vance’s attendance will be the most senior US engagement with Iran since Secretary of State John Kerry negotiated the 2015 nuclear deal under President Obama.

The physical arrangements for the talks are still not public although Islamabad has been turned into a security fortress given the stakes and risks involved. The talks are expected to be ‘indirect’, with the two delegations in separate rooms and Pakistani officials shuttling between them. The status of Iran’s enriched uranium and the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz will be the major points of contention. After Netanyahu’s overreach on Wednesday, Lebanon is also on the short list

The 2015 nuclear deal (the Joint Comprehensive Action Plan) took months of negotiations and involved multiple parties besides the US and Iran, including China, France, Germany, UK, Russia and the EU. That served the cause of regional and world peace well until Trump tore up the deal to spite Obama. It would be too much to expect anything similar after a weekend encounter in Islamabad. But if the talks could lead to at least a permanent ceasefire and the return to diplomacy that would be a huge achievement.

(*As of 2025–2026, Donald Trump is nicknamed “TACO Trump” by Wall Street traders and investors as an acronym for “”. This term highlights a perceived pattern of him making strong tariff threats that cause market panic, only to later retreat or weaken them, causing a rebound.)

by Rajan Philips

Features

CIA’s hidden weapon in Iran

Published

3 hours ago

2026/04/12

Thilina Walpola

We are passing through the ten-day interregnum called a ceasefire over the War on Iran. The world may breathe briefly, but this pause is not reassurance—it is a deliberate interlude, a vacuum in which every actor positions for the next escalation. Iran is far from secure. Behind the veneer of calm, external powers and local forces are preparing, arming, and coordinating. The United States is unlikely to deploy conventional ground troops; the next moves will be executed through proxies whose behaviour will defy expectation. These insurgents are shaped, guided, and amplified by intelligence and technology, capable of moving silently, striking precisely, and vanishing before retaliation. The ceasefire is not peace—it is the prelude to disruption.

The Kurds, historically instruments of Tehran against Baghdad, are now vectors for the next insurgency inside Iran. This movement is neither organic nor local. It is externally orchestrated, with the CIA as the principal architect. History provides the blueprint: under Mohammad-Reza Shah Pahlavi, Kurdish uprisings were manipulated, never supported out of sympathy. They were instruments of leverage against Iraq, a way to weaken a rival while projecting influence beyond Iran’s borders. Colonel Isa Pejman, Iranian military intelligence officer who played a role in Kurdish affairs, recalled proposing support for a military insurgency in Iraq, only for the Shah to respond coldly: “[Mustafa] Barzani killed my Army soldiers… please forget it. The zeitgeist and regional context have been completely transformed.” The Kurds were pawns, but pawns with strategic weight. Pejman later noted: “When the Shah wrote on the back of the letter ‘Accepted’ to General Pakravan, I felt I was the true leader of the Kurdish movement.” The seeds planted then are now being activated under new, technologically empowered auspices.

Iran’s geographic vulnerabilities make this possible. The Shah understood the trap: a vast territory with porous borders, squeezed by Soviet pressure from the north and radical Arab states from the west. “We are in a really terrible situation since Moscow’s twin pincers coming down through Kabul and Baghdad surround us,” he warned Asadollah Alam. From Soviet support for the Mahabad Republic to Barzani’s dream of a unified Kurdistan, Tehran knew an autonomous Kurdish bloc could destabilize both Iraq and Iran. “Since the formation of the Soviet-backed Mahabad Republic, the Shah had been considerably worried about the Kurdish threat,” a US assessment concluded.

Today, the Kurds’ significance is operational, not symbolic. The CIA’s recent rescue of a downed F-15 airman using Ghost Murmur, a quantum magnetometry system, demonstrated the reach of technology in intelligence operations. The airman survived two days on Iranian soil before extraction. This was not a simple rescue; it was proof that highly mobile, technologically augmented operations can penetrate Iranian territory with surgical precision. The same logic applies to insurgency preparation: when individuals can be tracked through electromagnetic signatures, AI-enhanced surveillance, and drones, proxy forces can be armed, guided, and coordinated with unprecedented efficiency. The Kurds are no longer pawns—they are a living network capable of fracturing Iranian cohesion while providing deniability to foreign powers.

Iran’s engagement with Iraqi Kurds was always containment, not empowerment. The Shah’s goal was never Kurdish independence. “We do not approve an independent [Iraqi] Kurdistan,” he stated explicitly. Yet their utility as instruments of regional strategy was undeniable. The CIA’s revival of these networks continues a long-standing pattern: insurgent groups integrated into the wider calculus of international power. Israel, Iran, and the Kurds formed a triangular strategic relationship that terrified Baghdad. “For Baghdad, an Iranian-Israeli-Kurdish triangular alliance was an existential threat,” contemporary reports noted. This is the template for modern manipulation: a networked insurgency, externally supported, capable of destabilizing regimes from within while giving foreign powers plausible deniability.

Iran today faces fragility. Years of sanctions, repression, and targeted strikes have weakened educational and scientific hubs; Sharif University in Tehran, one of the country’s leading scientific centres, was bombed. Leaders, scholars, and innovators have been eliminated. Military readiness is compromised. Generations-long setbacks leave Iran exposed. Against this backdrop, a Kurdish insurgency armed with drones, AI-supported surveillance, and precision munitions could do more than disrupt—it could fracture the state internally. The current ten-day ceasefire is a mirage; the next wave of revolt is already being orchestrated.

CIA involvement is deliberate. Operations are coordinated with allied intelligence agencies, leveraging Kurdish grievances, mobility, and ethnolinguistic networks. The Kurds’ spread across Iran, Iraq, Turkey, and Syria provides operational depth—allowing insurgents to strike, vanish, and regroup with impunity. Barzani understood leverage decades ago: “We could be useful to the United States… Look at our strategic location on the flank of any possible Soviet advance into the Middle East.” Today, the calculation is inverted: Kurds are no longer instruments against Baghdad; they are potential disruptors inside Tehran itself.

Technology is central. Ghost Murmur’s ability to detect a single heartbeat remotely exemplifies how intelligence can underpin insurgent networks. Drones, satellite communications, AI predictive modeling, and battlefield sensors create an infrastructure that can transform a dispersed Kurdish insurgency into a high-precision operation. Iran can no longer rely on fortifications or loyalty alone; the external environment has been recalibrated by technology.

History provides the roadmap. The Shah’s betrayal of Barzani after the 1975 Algiers Agreement demonstrated that external actors can manipulate both Iranian ambitions and Kurdish loyalties. “The Shah sold out the Kurds,” Yitzhak Rabin told Kissinger. “We could not station our troops there and keep fighting forever,” the Shah explained to Alam. The Kurds are a pivot, not a cause. Networks once acting under Tehran’s influence are now being repurposed against it.

The insurgency exploits societal fissures. Kurdish discontent in Iran, suppressed for decades, provides fertile ground. Historical betrayal fuels modern narratives: “Barzani claimed that ‘Isa Pejman sold us out to the Shah and the Shah sold us out to the US.’” Intelligence agencies weaponize these grievances, pairing them with training, technological augmentation, and covert support.

Geopolitically, the stakes are immense. The Shah’s defensive-offensive doctrine projected Iranian influence outward to neutralize threats. Today, the logic is inverted: the same networks used to contain Iraq are being readied to contain Iran. A technologically augmented Kurdish insurgency, covertly backed, could achieve in months what decades of sanctions, diplomacy, or repression have failed to accomplish.

The operation will be asymmetric, high-tech, and dispersed. UAVs, quantum-enhanced surveillance, encrypted communications, and AI-directed logistics will dominate. Conventional Iranian forces are vulnerable to this type of warfare. As Pejman reflected decades ago, “Our Army was fighting there, rather than the Kurds who were harshly defeated… How could we keep such a place?” Today, the challenge is magnified by intelligence superiority on the insurgents’ side.

This is not a temporary flare-up. The CIA and its allies are constructing a generational network of influence. Experience from Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon proves these networks endure once operationalised. The Shah recognized this: “Iran’s non-state foreign policy under the Shah’s reign left a lasting legacy for the post-Revolution era.” Today, those instruments are being remade as vectors of foreign influence inside Iran.

The future is stark. Iran faces not simply external threats, but a carefully engineered insurgency exploiting historical grievances, technological superiority, and precise intelligence. The Kurds are central. History, technology, and geopolitical calculation converge to create a transformative threat. Tehran’s miscalculations, betrayals, and suppressed grievances now form the lattice for this insurgency. The Kurds are positioned not just as an ethnic minority, but as a vector of international strategy—Tehran may be powerless to stop it.

Iran’s containment strategies have been weaponized, fused with technology, and inverted against it. The ghosts of Barzani’s Peshmerga, the shadows of Algiers, and the Shah’s strategic vision now converge with Ghost Murmur, drones, and AI. Tehran faces a paradox: the instruments it once controlled are now calibrated to undermine its authority. The next Kurdish revolt will not only fight in the mountains but in the electromagnetic shadows where intelligence operates, consequences are lethal, and visibility is scarce.

by Nilantha Ilangamuwa