Features

The genius of we lost Karunaratna Abeysekara, forever 40 years ago

Published

3 years ago

2023/04/30

By Dr Upul Wijayawardhana

Forty years ago, on 20th April 1983, we lost for ever the genius of the Sinhala wordsmith extraordinaire, whose life was cut short suddenly and prematurely at age of only 52 years. It is said that those with creativity, like him, reach their maximum potential in their fifties but, sadly, it was not to be although the legacy he left behind makes us feel as if he lived a century!

Considering his prodigious productivity in a span lasting less than four decades, it is hard even to imagine what he would have achieved had he lived at least a decade more, as he requested. Interestingly, in a moving poem printed in Kalpana in October 1982 six months before his death giving the impression that he had a premonition, titled ‘Ayachanayak’ (Request), he makes an appeal to the ‘Life-giver’ for an extension of 10 years, so that he may see his son grow up and can contribute to Sinhala literature in many ways, writing for the unity of the nation. It is not without humour either, as he states that all he wants is the extension and does not care even if it makes him look aged!

He is a wordsmith extraordinaire indeed, as he excelled in both the written and the spoken word; a rare achievement. He showed his talents in the written word by being among the great poets of the ‘Colombo Era,’ a sought-after scriptwriter for Sinhala cinema and, most importantly, a lyricist of lasting influence; perhaps, the greatest we ever had. He demonstrated his prowess of the spoken word as a newsreader, a presenter of programmes and concerts but he is best remembered for his unforgettable commentaries, the way he moved the entire nation to tears at SWRD’s funeral becoming part of broadcasting legend.

He was born in Ratmale, a little village south of Matara on June 3, 1930, the eldest of 10 children of Podiappuhami and Premawathi Abeysekara. The family moved to Colombo where his father started a small business but they moved back temporarily to their village during World War II which gave Karu the opportunity to study Sinhala, Pali, and Sanskrit under Venerable Ananda of Galkanda Vihara, which laid the foundation for the mastery with words.

On return to Colombo, he entered Nalanda College where his teacher was the poet U A S Perera, better known as “Siriayya” who conducted “Lama Pitiya” in Radio Ceylon, which was a life-changing event. This drew him to broadcasting, taking part in “Lama Pitiya” from the age of 12. He continued to study oriental languages under Venerable Dehigaspe Pannasara of Vidyodaya Pirivena whilst continuing his studies in English at Nalanda.

Karunaratna Abeysekara became a pioneer in many fields having faced the most crucial decision of his life in 1950, when he had to choose between admission to Peradeniya University, for a degree, or join Radio Ceylon as a relief announcer, earning seven rupees a day. He opted for the latter as he felt that was the only way he could support his younger siblings, his father’s business being not lucrative. This move not only allowed him to support his siblings admirably but also build a very successful broadcasting career.

He was a brilliant newsreader but outshone all others as a commentator. In the era before television, we were at the mercy of commentators to visualise any important event. Whereas others described what was happening, he painted the picture in our minds with his unmatched eloquence. I still remember listening to his commentary when Queen Elizabeth visited us in 1954 and painting the picture of the procession in my mind.

What has often been overlooked is the fact that it was Karunaratna Abeysekara who pioneered cricket commentary in Sinhala, the very first being a report on the Anada-Nalanda Big-match he gave on Saraswathi Mandapaya. He quickly switched to live commentary and is credited with coining many Sinhala cricket terms which are in current usage. No doubt the enthusiasm for and the popularity of cricket, the ‘coloniser’s game,’ in the villages is in no mean measure due to the commentaries in Sinhala which he pioneered in his inimitable style which enabled the listeners to visualize the game long before the advent of television.

Invariably, due to the inspiration from Siriayya, he was drawn to children’s programmes and Saraswathi Mandapaya, he hosted on Sunday evenings, became the star of children’s programmes and to me and my generation he became our beloved Karuayya. I had the fortune of participating regularly and helping Karuayya from 1957 to 1964, being introduced to him by his brother Daya and my good friend Buddhadasa Bodhinayaka. We would help by sorting out letters, writing features and reading scripts live etc. which gave us the grounding in broadcasting.

Karuayya

arrived about half an hour before the programme goes live on-air and penned a couple of songs, which were set to music by Master D D Denny to be sung by the children who became the leading musicians later. Saraswathi Mandapaya was the incubator for a generation of not only budding singers but also lyricists and script writers, far too many to mention by name. Just one example: Nanda Malini’s famous song “Budusadu, Budusadu, Sandun gasak wennam” written by Asoka Colombage with music by D D Danny, she sang first in Saraswathi Mandapaya.

He is rightly credited as the creator of the genre of Sinhala children’s songs and his compositions like Sarungale, Lenage pitameda iri tuna ende kauda mage amme, Dan nivadukale hinda ne iskole, Mamai Raja kale vihilu keru Andare, Surathal ape denila vana mal kele pipeela are perineal favourites. Some of his children’s songs have become so popular, adult singers have recoded them subsequently.

On retiring from the National Service, he joined the Commercial Service of Radio Ceylon where he revolutionised advertising by coining catchy slogans and introducing memorable jingles which are played even today. He was ethical to the core, ensuring that products he advertised stood to scrutiny, often visiting the manufacturers to make sure. This, unfortunately, is a practice unknown today, with celebrities selling their souls for cash, endorsing any product.

He was in great demand to present concerts and, in fact, many attended to see Karuayya as much as for the concert itself. When he commenced the proceedings, immaculately dressed with hair combed with Brylcream and a wide smile below the thin moustache, crowds roared with applause as he raised his hands and said “Ayubowan” His introductions were crisp and concise, describing a lot in a few words.

Of course, he is best remembered as a lyricist though he did not get universal acclaim. Some critics took objection to his style whilst others attempted to belittle him by saying he writes lyrics for Hindi tunes, disregarding the fact that often lyricists write words to a tune created by a musician and that doing this is more difficult than writing free lyrics. He had the remarkable ability to pen a song in a few minutes and the complimentary remarks, referring to this, made by Dharmadasa Walpola and Milton Perera in interviews, that he often wrote songs for them by the side of his car, on a piece of paper kept on the bonnet, were used by critics to belittle him. He disregarded them by saying: “I write my songs not for critical acclaim but for the sole purpose of the enjoyment of listeners, without them having to turn the pages of a dictionary!” Paradoxically now, 40 years after his death, critics are falling over each other to praise his lyrical style; simple though beautiful and musical words, arranged rhythmically to subtly convey, meanings often very deep, which brought about a sea change in Sinhala music for the masses!

He coined many new words and phrases but his genius was in the ability to transform even harsh words to be musical as illustrated by the Jothipala song “Sal Sapu Na Kumudu Saman Nilmahanel mal athare, Kidaram male pava suwanda digahere”. Leaving aside the simple but philosophical message conveyed later in the lyrics of this haunting song, the genius is in the introduction so beautifully to the lyric of Kidaram mala, the flower of the Stink Lily! The songs he penned still dominating the airwaves, despite the vast changes in the broadcast media since his death, stands testimony to his philosophy. The young, who have no idea whose compositions they are, join the old in singing his songs, made immortal by the vast number of talented Sinhala singers, most of whom he nurtured.

In my humble opinion, Karunaratna Abeysekara is the best lyricists Sri Lanka has ever had as his versatility is beyond compare. Even doubters would agree that his versatility remains unchallenged as he had the capability to suit the lyric to the singer’s style and even to suit the actor, for film songs. His lyrics could be anything from children to classical, funny to provocative but he was at his best when it came to romance, probably because of his own turbulent love affair with Raniakka before marriage. Erani Herath, like many millions in the country, had fallen in love with his voice initially which later blossomed into a romance, objected to by her elders who kept her a virtual prisoner. Her mother prevented her from listening to the radio first and then kept newspapers away from her, when she realized that he was communicating through poems in newspapers! One day, Tilakasiri Fernado has been waiting in studio 10 of Radio Ceylon for Karuayya as he was one song short for his programme the same evening. When the plight was explained, Karuayya vented the pent-up feelings by writing immediately ‘Enna mada nale, gos pawasanna duka mage; Yannata heki obata pamani sirageyata ege’ which has become a classic, wherein he requests the wind to convey his sadness and love to her as it is only the wind that can reach her prison uniterrupted!

In turn, Karuayya extended a helping hand to others in romantic difficulties too. When there were problems with Sanath Nadasiri’s romance with Malkanthi Pieris, he wrote the beautiful song “Ma hada asapuwa, kusumin sarasuwa, e Malbara dethai” Malbara hinting at Malkanthi! When Milton Perera had difficulty in expressing his love to Kalyani and appealed to Karuayya, he obliged with “Kalyaniye oba nasu kathawak kiyannam” with Milton declaring his love over the airwaves and thousands of lovers using it since to overcome their difficulties of romantic expression!

When Dileepa was born, after a gap of ten years, Karuayya was overjoyed and had been lying down on a mat between the two beds occupied by his wife and mother, when he got the sudden urge to pen a song. He got up and wrote “Dileepa podi puthu, saneepayata nidi, Mawage ukul yahane” which was printed in Silumina. Seeing this Clarence Wijewardene has approached Karuayya and had said he will pay anything for the song! In an interview Karuayya mentioned that this and “Enna mada nale” are his favourite songs. Shortly before his death, Karuayya had been listening to a radio programme where they had discussed “Enna mada nale” and Raniakka mentioned in an interview that Karuayya was very pleased and had commented “It is a haunting song.” It is a small mercy that he could listen to his favourite as the last.

No one knows how many songs Karunaratna Abeysekara wrote in his short but fruitful lifetime as he wrote songs for many including my wife, Primrose and even he did not keep a count. The figure of 2000 often quoted is a gross underestimate and may refer only to film songs as he wrote lyrics for over 300 films. Though he was paid for film songs, he never charged a cent from the multitude of artistes he wrote songs for. Almost every artiste of that era had the career launch or their breakout with a song penned by Karunaratna Abeysekara. He must have written thousands for radio musical programmes, Saraswathi Mandapaya and for recordings by artists which remain uncounted. Before the introduction of television, more than half the songs in SLBC library had been written by him.

Though the first song he composed for a film was “Kataragame Devige bime, Ruhunu janapade” screening of Sirisena Wimalaweera’s film Asoka was delayed, Varada Kageda being released ahead, two songs of which remain popular to this day: “Dalula prema gase” and “Piyalee kedila wetuna nebul Saman male” both sung by Mohideen Baig. It is said that seven other lyricists failed to satisfy Nimal Mendis for his composition for the film Kalu Diya Dahara but Karuayya succeeded with “Master Sir“

Some critics consider his best lyrics for a film are in Kurulu Bedda, with music by R Muthusamy and sterling performances by Punya Heendeniya and D R Nanayakkara, which include “Aruna Udaye” the first film song of Milton Perera, “Oya belma, oya kelma, nilupul nethe” by Lata and Dharmadasa Walpola. However, my personal choice is Daskama, the only film Edwin Samaradiwakara provided music for. “Ipida mere” sung by Amaradewa is a synopsis of Buddhism and has become a classic but there are many other beautiful songs too, masterfully crafted, and beautifully sung: “Honda Kala ada” by Mohideen Baig, “Goyam paseela kumbure” by Indrani Wijebandara, “Devlova devsepa” by Indrani Wijebandara and Mallika Kahavita, as well as GSB Rani Perera’s “Mada diye pipunata” and “Turu wadulu tule, sandalu thale, kekulu sele surathale; Mukulu obe, vikulu dange, lelena dalu palakale“, a song which demonstrates how simple words could be melodically threaded.

He excelled in writing about inanimate objects; perhaps, the only lyricist to do so. “Awile semada” is about a candle, “Basicale” is about the bicycle, “Sarungale” is about a kite and “Naga lovin gena apu Bulathatha” is about sheaf of Betel, a song that runs through all the associated rituals, reminding us about our old traditions. Often, he made use of life-events to pen a song. Whilst having dinner in a Chinese restaurant, the waiter has dropped a tray earning a public reprimand from the manager which prompted, the moment he got home, to write “Wedakarala ewara nometha deviyane – Mokotada ma duppathwe ipadune“

He wrote songs for artistes with widely varying styles with equal success, few eternal favourites being: “Kedelle ativu kirille wage demapiiyan sevane” for Mignone and Jetliners which has become the favourite at weddings, “Piyumehi peni bothi wanabambaru” for C T Fernando, “Mal yahanawaki loke, nave chandraloke” for M S Fernando, “Sulange pavee ee wetha yawee ma pathu pathum” and “Oruwaka pawena re ganaandure” for Milton Mallawarachchi, “Diya podak wemin thol wiyaluna pipaseta” for HR Jothipala, “Neela jalase rangana hansa kumari” for Sisira Senarathna, “Namal komali” for Indrani Wijebandara though she grabbed the limelight with the song “Hithannako aiye, denwath heddennnako aiye” from the film Suraya, also written by Karunaratna Abeysekara.

He was so proliferous, sometimes, had written different lyrics for the same tune. Having forgotten that he had written “Me bhavayedi mulu diya daye” for Narada Dissasekara, he had written “Tajmahalak thanawanna ne mata” for H R Jothipala, both becoming very popular and, interestingly, both artistes choosing each as their favourite song!

His younger brother, Gunaratna too was a reputed lyricist and one day Jothipala had come to their place to get a song on Anangaya (Cupid) written and as Karuayya was away, Gunaratna wrote him “Anangaya man” which became a hit. When Milton Perera approached Karuayya about this, he had written “Supemlove kusum sara malsara” highlighting the failures of Anangaya which resulted in a rebuttal from Gunaratna. When there were a few exchanges of songs, many began wondering whether there is a rivalry between Jothipala & Milton or Karunaratna & Gunaratna, the speculation being put to rest by the brothers co-writing “Api santhosen inne, Duka sokhaya ne danne, Aiyya malli wage” which was duetted by Jothipala and Milton!

During Vesak, from every Dansela to Pandal “Obe ragi mana kelambedo” sung by Mohideen Baig is heard, this being among many songs with Buddhist themes Karunaratna Abeysekara composed but it is often forgotten that he wrote on Jesus Christ too: “Bethlehem pure, Dilindu gawahale“. Mohideen Baig’s strong voice often amplified the message in songs like “Sinahawen ho kathawen be maninnata minisa” and “Ma oba wenuweni Bharatha menige pa sevane wedune” describes Baig’s life story.

Lata mentioned in an interview that wherever in the world, when she sang “Perdiga muthuetayai me, Loke sirideru Siri Lanka” the audience stood to attention, no surprise as it ends with: “Negisitiya heka eksathwi, Bedigiyoth rata yaye sunwee“. However, Karunaratna Abeysekara’s most opportune message from the grave comes from Mohideen Baig’s song “Giri hel mudune Manel nopipe, Hiru nonagi awaragirehe” which ends with:

“Dinu jathiya vatina Sinhale, Abhimanaya wu deya Sinhale

E niga sirithe galee, Ha noga endinu delee

Parasiritheni oba Hela meni, eida soketa heluwe”

All News Advertisement

Related Topics:genius Karunaratna Abeysekara Master sir

Up Next

Why Oppose the Colombo Port City?

Don't Miss

Lester and Ceylon Theatres : The Peak of a career

Click to comment

Features

The NPP Government is more than a JVP offspring:

Published

3 days 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 days 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 days 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