Midweek Review
Would Chidambaram reveal his stance on the Sri Lanka destabilisation project?
Congress senior faults Indira over ‘Operation Blue Star’
General Arunkumar Shridhar Vaidya, who served as the 12th Chief of Staff of the Indian Army, from 1983 to 1986, was assassinated in August, 1986, by Sikh terrorists, for his role in ‘Operation Blue Star’ in 1984. Vaidya was 60-years-old.
He was shot dead on August 10, 1986, on Rajendrasinhji Marg, in Pune. His killers, namely Harjinder Singh, aka Jinda, and Sukhdev Singh, came parallel to Vaidya’s car, on motor scooters, and fired several shots at him. They were apprehended, following an accident, and sentenced to death on Oct. 21, 1989, and hanged at Yerwada jail on October 9, 1992.
On the orders of the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, troops of ‘Operation Blue Star’ flushed out terrorists from Amritsar. That operation, carried out between June 1 and June 10, 1984, was meant to remove Khalistan terrorist Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale and his band of armed followers from the Harminder Sahib complex, in Amritsar.
Former Union Home and Finance Minister P Chidambaram recently found fault with Premier Gandhi for ordering ‘Operation Blue Star.’ Declaring that the operation had been a mistake, the senior Congress leader pointed out that Premier Indira Gandhi had to pay with her life for that decision. Indira Gandhi was killed by her Sikh bodyguards at her New Delhi residence on Oct 31, 1984. Her assassination triggered unprecedented violence.
Rajya Sabha member Chidambaram went a step further when he emphasised that the Army, the Police, the intelligence and civil service had been collectively responsible for that decision.
Although the NDTV report, headlined “Indira Gandhi paid with her life for Op Blue Star mistake: P Chidambaram” posted on Oct 12, hadn’t made any reference to the high profile assassination of General Vaidya, obviously the Congress senior also found fault with Vaidya. The slain General is widely believed to be one of the architects of the operation. Chidambaram asserted that the Premier couldn’t be held solely responsible for that decision.
Chidambaram made the explosive comments while moderating a discussion on ‘They Will Shoot You, Madam’, a book by journalist Harinder Baweja, at the Khushwant Singh Literature Festival in Himachal Pradesh’s Kasauli on Oct. 11. What made Chidambaram say so after so many years? What really prompted him?
Union Minister Kiren Rijiu declared, in a social media post: “Chidambaram Ji admits the Congress blunders too late!”
BJP national spokesperson R.P. Singh attacked the Congress party. Singh said; “History must record the truth. ‘Operation Blue Star’ was not a national necessity; it was a political misadventure, he charged. “As a nationalist, I strongly believe that ‘Operation Blue Star’ was completely avoidable, as rightly mentioned by former Home Minister P. Chidambaram.”
Chidambaram’s comments can be compared with what one-time Indian High Commissioner J.N. Dixit, who later served as its Foreign Secretary and National Security Advisor’s own assessment of Indira Gandhi. With the Geneva-based United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) pushing Sri Lanka to introduce an Independent Prosecutor’s Office (IPO), on a priority basis, at the expense of the Attorney General’s Department, perhaps re-examination of India’s accountability may be necessary.
No less a person than J.N. Dixit, in his memoirs ‘Makers of India’s Foreign Policy: Raja Ram Mohun Roy to Yashwant Sinha’, launched, in 2004, admitted the destabilisation project undertaken under Indira Gandhi’s leadership. Dixit didn’t mince his words when he blamed Indira Gandhi for the Indian intervention. Dixit found fault with Indira Gandhi for two foreign policy-related decisions – direct involvement in the terrorist project in Sri Lanka and remaining silent over the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in Dec. 1979.
A collective decision
Obviously, Indira Gandhi couldn’t have taken the utterly irresponsible decision to launch the Sri Lanka terrorist project on her own. As Chidambaram pointed out that the Army, the Police, and the intelligence and civil service had been collectively responsible for deciding on ‘Operation Blue Star,’ Sri Lanka’s destabilisation project must have been another collective decision of the Congress government. It would be pertinent to mention that Congress mounted ‘Operation Blue Star’ after having destabilised India’s hapless neighbour Sri Lanka and terrorized the country with threat of invasion, Colombo had no option but to accept the deployment of the Indian Army.
Sri Lanka exploded in July, 1983, after Indian-trained terrorists killed 13 soldiers in Jaffna. That would never have happened if not for the direct involvement of India, a fact that the UNHRC chose to conveniently forget while demanding accountability on the part of Sri Lanka.
Would Chidambaram accept that like Indira Gandhi her son Rajiv, too, had to pay with his life for taking a wrong decision with regard to Sri Lanka. Premier Gandhi extended his mother’s terror project and created an environment in Sri Lanka that facilitated the deployment of his Army.
Having first entered the Lok Sabha (Lower House) from Tamil Nadu, at the 1984 parliamentary election, Chidambaram must have been among those who promoted stepped-up Indian intervention here.
The Congress party certainly owed Sri Lanka an apology for what it did in the ’80s to destabilise this country by backing various separatist groups here. We, however, also concede that the then Sri Lankan government’s overtly pro-Western stands, like President JRJ (dubbed the Yankee Dickie) offering Trincomalee to the USA, helped to fan paranoia in New Delhi. Would it be possible for the IPO to proceed, turning a blind eye to the accountability on the part of India. Chidambaram is now on record as having asserted that Indira Gandhi should have handled the security challenge, posed by Sikh terrorists, differently. Does he believe India shouldn’t have directly got involved in a terrorist campaign in Sri Lanka that caused the deaths of nearly 1,500 Indian military officers, and men, and also resulted in the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi, just over a year after India withdrew its Army from here, conveniently dubbed the Indian Peace Keeping Force.
The Congressman’s frank comments on ‘Operation Blue Star’ must influence a fresh study on the Congress decision to destabilise Sri Lanka. Regardless of Western powers pursuing a politically motivated campaign against Sri Lanka, demanding justice for those who perished, wounded and disappeared during the war, they are silent on the Indian role.
Judicial examination of the Sri Lanka war cannot be undertaken, leaving out India. The UNHRC and the National People’s Power (NPP) government must explain whether they intended to establish a set up to cover the initiation of the New Delhi’s terror project here in the early ’80s, the deployment of the Indian Army (1987-1990), the PLOTE (People’s Liberation Organisation of Tamil Eelam) raid on the Maldives, in 1988, and the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi, in May 1991.
Sri Lanka should seek an explanation from the UNHRC regarding the IPO’s mandate without further delay. Let me remind you that a report on the situation in Sri Lanka, released at the commencement of the recently-concluded Geneva sessions, revealed the existence of, what they called, a secure repository that so far consisted of over 105,000 items. Of them, 75,800 items had been collected consequent to the 2015 investigation, approximately 2,000 from initiatives before 2015 and about 34,000 collected by the external evidence gathering mechanism over the past four years.
The report also made reference to, what it called, violations affecting children. Perhaps another clarification is necessary as there is no indication reference to children, meant mass scale forced recruitment of children by the LTTE during the conflict. A UN investigation, headed by one-time Indonesian Attorney General Marzuki Darusman, admitted that the LTTE tried to forcibly recruit children, even in 2009, after the combined armed forces completely cut them off.
Did any of the items in the so-called secure repository included items that implicated India? In the absence of a cohesive action plan, Sri Lankan military has increasingly come under pressure from the UNHRC that sought to appease the Western powers, Tamil Diaspora and the LTTE rump.
Those who routinely found fault with Mahinda Rajapaksa for not implementing his own LLRC (Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission) report must realise that the West wanted to punish Sri Lanka for eradicating the LTTE which they considered invincible until it was militarily wiped out in the battlefield by our security forces at Kilinochchi, in January 2009, against their wishful thinking.
Despicable dual strategy

In the run up to the Indian Army deployment in Northern and Eastern Sri Lanka, Indira Gandhi, and then Rajiv Gandhi, followed a despicable dual strategy. On one hand, New Delhi sponsored scores of terrorist groups here and on the other hand arranged talks intended to find consensus among the groups and the government.
When did India exactly decide to train Sri Lankan terrorists? Indira Gandhi served as Prime Minister from 1966 to 1977 and again from 1980 until her assassination on Oct. 31, 1994. If Indira Gandhi’s government decided to arm Sri Lankan Tamil groups at the onset of the 1980 administration, their intervention in Sri Lanka, until the signing of the Indo-Lanka Peace Accord, in July, 1987, caused a significant number of deaths and destruction.
Now that Chidambaram has faulted Indira Gandhi for ‘Operation Blue Star,’ he shouldn’t hesitate to reveal what he felt about Indian misadventure in Sri Lanka that resulted in Rajiv Gandhi’s assassination. The issue at hand is whether New Delhi could have played a role in Sri Lanka without arming Tamil groups that forced Sri Lanka to transform its ceremonial Army to a lethal fighting force.
According to Dixit, Indira Gandhi feared that serious trouble may erupt in Tamil Nadu if India didn’t throw its weight behind Sri Lanka’s terrorist groups. Can the world accept destabilisation of a country, in this case Sri Lanka, to appease Tamil Nadu? We cannot forget that India went to the extent of assassinating former members of the then dominant Tamil United Liberation Front (TULF). The killing of M Alalasundaram (Kopay) and V. Dharmalingam (Manipay) in early Sept, 1985, by TELO (Tamil Eelam Liberation Organization) at the behest of Indian Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) as alleged by lawmaker Dharmalingham Siddharthan (V. Dharmalingham’s son), underscored the gravity of the situation.
The UN turned a blind eye to what was going on in Sri Lanka. The global body suddenly took a real interest only when Sri Lanka evicted the LTTE from Kilinochchi, cleared the Kandy-Jaffna A 9 stretch between Kilinochchi and Elephant Pass and set the stage for the clearing of the Vanni east sector. Obviously, the UN bodies primarily acted on signals given by the West.
After having failed to reach a consensus with the LTTE, in spite of decades of negotiations, sometimes facilitated by external players, such as India and Norway, President Mahinda Rajapaksa, in 2006, decided to eradicate the LTTE. The President obviously had no other alternative after the LTTE launched abortive suicide attacks on Army commander Lt. Gen. Sarath Fonseka and Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa in April and October 2006, respectively.
Against that backdrop of Field Marshal Fonseka repeatedly alleging President Mahinda Rajapaksa, in consultation with some external powers, declared a two-day ceasefire between Jan. 31 and Feb. 1, 2009, to allow LTTE leader Velupillai Prabhakaran to escape, it would be pertinent to ask whether the war-winning General is playing post-war politics with the issues at hand, obviously to make a political success out of it. He, without a doubt, is the type of an exceptional General that a country gets in about several thousand years, But we feel Fonseka is no comeback kid when it comes to politics, but would only be a disaster. Remember he wants to be “the benevolent dictator that the country needs”, according to his own words.
Even after Sri Lanka became a key subject at the annual UNHRC sessions, none of the governments, including the incumbent NPP administration, dared to mention the destructive Indian role. Those demanding payment of compensation by Sri Lanka never bothered to ask the same from India. The truth is that if India didn’t train terrorists here (Tamil terrorist groups received exceptionally good training, the LTTE killed hundreds of Indians in combat and wounded over 2,000), the Nanthikadal wouldn’t have happened.
Sri Lanka wiped out Prabhakaran’s group on the banks of the Nanthikadal lagoon on May 19, 2009, while approximately 12,000 LTTE combatants surrendered/captured on the Vanni east front.
Chidambaram’s last appeal
On behalf of the government of India and the Congress party, Chidambaram, in his capacity as Home Minister, in the first week of February 2009, made a last ditch attempt to halt the offensive against the LTTE.
The Indian media quoted Chidambaram as having said, after a Cabinet meeting, both the Sri Lankan government and the LTTE should heed their appeal to stop fighting. The timing of Chidambaram’s statement is decisive.
The Home Minister was further quoted as having said: “The central government is deeply concerned over the situation in Sri Lanka. Chidambaram said India was “able to prevail on the Sri Lankan government to pause military operations for 48 hours”. The Minister revealed that there was no response from the LTTE.
“The operations have resumed. Even today, there is no response from the LTTE.”
“Both sides should heed our appeal. The LTTE must lay down their arms. Similarly, Sri Lanka must suspend the hostilities. Only when both hands come together can you clap.”
“All of us are deeply anguished when lives are lost. We will do and will do what is in our capacity to do (to restore peace).”
Asked if LTTE cadres could slip into Tamil Nadu along with Tamil refugees, he replied: “We have sensitized the state government. The LTTE is a banned organisation in India.”
Obviously, Field Marshal Fonseka was referring to the ceasefire declared at India’s behest, though he tried to stick it as an act of betrayal by the then Rajapaksa government. The LTTE may have ignored the Indian intervention at such a late stage and pinned hopes on the US evacuating its top leadership and their families, using the American might. The LTTE lasted less than four months after India’s last ditch attempt to arrange a ceasefire.
Wartime Navy Commander Vice Admiral Wasantha Karannagoda, in his memoirs, disclosed the planned US intervention.
As a man from Tamil Nadu, Chidambaram has been involved in the Eelam issue right throughout the period, both pre and post 2009. It was Chidambaram who told DMK Chief M. Karunanidhi, in July 2012, not to pass a resolution to demand Tamil Eelam at a meeting of Tamil Eelam supporters Organization (TESO) on August 12. Chidambaram is one of those who grossly played politics with the Sri Lanka issue, knowing the responsibility of his party that claimed thousands of lives. Congress never accepted responsibility for what it did to Sri Lanka.
When BJP abstained from voting on the Resolution on Sri Lanka in the UNHRC in March 2021, on behalf of Congress party Chidambaram sought to take advantage of the situation ahead of the state assembly election. The Congress senior urged the Tamil Nadu electorate to punish the AIADMK-BJP alliance at the state assembly elections. This is a gross betrayal of the Tamil people and their unanimous sentiment and desire, Chidambaram said on Twitter. Chidambaram further said that if External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar “was forced to instruct India’s representative to abstain from voting on the Sri Lanka Resolution in the UN Human Rights Council, he should resign in protest against the betrayal of Tamil interests.”
That resolution gave the UN body a mandate to establish an external evidence gathering mechanism. Now the UNHRC is on record as having disclosed that there was a repository of over 105,000 items. Let the UN release a breakdown of items and categorise them according to the different phases of the Eelam war, including the time the Indian Army waged war against the LTTE.
Against the backdrop of BJP’s furious reaction to Chidambaram faulting Indira Gandhi, perhaps the Indian ruling party should reveal what its stand on the Sri Lanka destabilisation project that earned the country status as a state sponsor of terrorism!
Midweek Review
BASL fears next set of civil society representatives might be rubber stamps of NPP
CC in dilemma over filling impending vacancies
Sajith Premadasa
Amidst a simmering row over the controversial move to have Deshabandu Tennakoon as the IGP at the time of crucial presidential election, Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa alleged: “The Speaker sent a letter to the President, recommending the appointment of Deshabandu Tennakoon as IGP. He distorted the Constitutional Council ruling by interpreting the two abstaining votes of civil society members as votes against Deshabandu and used his casting vote to recommend Deshabandu as the Constitutional Council decision. It is on the basis of the Speaker’s letter that the President made the appointment. The Speaker has blatantly violated the Constitution
.”
Speculation is rife about a possible attempt by the ruling National People’s Power (NPP) to take control of the 10-member Constitutional Council (CC). The only way to take command of the CC is to appoint those willing to pursue the NPP agenda as civil society representatives.
Against the backdrop of the NPP’s failure to obtain CC’s approval to finalise the appointment of the Auditor General, the government seems hell-bent on taking control of it. Civil society representatives, namely Dr. Prathap Ramanujam, Dr. (Mrs.) Dilkushi Anula Wijesundere and Dr. (Mrs.) Weligama Vidana Arachchige Dinesha Samararatne, whose tenure is coming to an end in January, blocked President Anura Kumara Dissanayake’s nominee receiving the AG’s position. They took a courageous stand in the greater interest of the nation.
Chulantha Wickramaratne, who served as AG for a period of six years, retired in April 2025. Following his retirement, President Anura Kumara Dissanayake first nominated H.T.P. Chandana, an audit officer at the Ceylon Petroleum Corporation. The CC rejected the nomination. Subsequently, President Dissanayake appointed the next senior-most official at the National Audit Office (NAO) Dharmapala Gammanpila, as Acting Auditor General for six months. Then, the President nominated Senior Deputy Auditor General L.S.I. Jayarathne to serve in an acting capacity, but her nomination, too, was also rejected.
Many an eyebrow was raised when the President nominated O.R. Rajasinghe, the Internal Audit Director of the Sri Lanka Army, for the top post. As a result, the vital position remains vacant since 07 December. Obviously the overzealous President does not take ‘No’ for an answer when filling key independent positions with his minions
The Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) in a letter dated 22 December, addressed to President Dissanayake, who is the leader of the NPP and the JVP, Prime Minister Dr. Harini Amarasuriya, Speaker Dr. Jagath Wickremaratne and Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa emphasised their collective responsibility in ensuring transparency in the appointment of civil society representatives.
Cabinet spokesperson and Health and Media Minister, Dr. Nalinda Jayatissa, is on record as having emphasised the urgent need to finalise the appointment. Minister Jayatissa alleged, at the post-Cabinet media briefing, that the President’s nominations had been rejected without giving explanation by certain members, including three representatives of civil society.
Parliament, on 18 January, 2023, approved the former Ministry Secretary Dr. Ramanujam, former Chairperson of the Sri Lanka Medical Association Dr. Wijesundere, and Dr. Samararatne of the University of Colombo as civil society representatives to the CC.
They were the first post-Aragalaya civil society members of the CC. The current CC was introduced by the 21 Amendment to the Constitution which was endorsed on 31st of October, 2022, during a time of grave uncertainty. UNP leader Ranil Wickremesinghe, who had been elected by the SLPP to complete the remainder of ousted President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s five-year term, sought to manipulate the CC. Wickremesinghe received the SLPP’s backing though they fell out later.
During Wickremesinghe’s tenure as the President, civil society representatives earned the wrath of the then Rajapaksa-Wickremesinghe government by refusing to back Deshabandu Tennakoon’s appointment as the IGP. The then Speaker Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena was accused of manipulating CC’s ruling in respect of Deshabandu Tennakoon to suit Wickremesinghe’s agenda.
Amidst a simmering row over the controversial move to have Deshabandu Tennakoon as the IGP, at the time of crucial presidential election, Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa alleged: “The Speaker sent a letter to the President, recommending the appointment of Deshabandu Tennakoon as IGP. He distorted the Constitutional Council ruling by interpreting the two abstaining votes of civil society members as votes against Deshabandu and used his casting vote to recommend Deshabandu as the Constitutional Council decision. It is on the basis of the Speaker’s letter that the President made the appointment. The Speaker has blatantly violated the Constitution.”
The NPP realises the urgent need to neutralise the CC. The composition of the CC does not give the Opposition an opportunity to challenge the government if the next three civil society representatives succumb to political pressure. The Speaker is the Chairman of the CC. The present composition of the Constitutional Council is as follows: Speaker (Dr) Jagath Wickramaratne, ex-officio, PM (Dr) Harini Amarasuriya, ex-officio, Leader of the Opposition Sajith Premadasa, ex-officio, Bimal Rathnayake, Aboobucker Athambawa, Ajith P. Perera, Sivagnanam Shritharan, Dr Prathap Ramanujam, Dr Dilkushi Anula Wijesundere and Dr Dinesha Samararatne.
In terms of Article 41E of the Constitution, the CC meets at least twice every month, and may meet as often as may be necessary.
The failure on the part of the NPP to take over Office of the AG must have compelled them to explore ways and means of somehow bringing CC under its influence. The end of the current civil society members’ term, has given the government a chance to fill the vacancies with henchmen.
BASL’s letters that dealt with the appointment of civil society representatives to the CC and the failure to appoint AG, both dated 22 December, paint a bleak picture of the NPP that throughout the presidential and parliamentary polls last year assured the country of a system change. The NPP’s strategy in respect of filling the AG’s vacancy and possible bid to manipulate the CC through the appointment of civil society representatives reminds us of the despicable manipulations undertaken by previous governments.
An appeal to goverment
BASL seems convinced that the NPP would make an attempt to appoint its own to the CC. BASL has urged the government to consult civil society and professional bodies, including them, regarding the forthcoming vacancies in the CC. It would be interesting to examine the NPP’s strategy as civil society, too, would face daunting challenges in choosing representatives.
Civil society representatives are nominated by the Speaker by agreement of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition.
If consensus cannot be reached swiftly, it would cause further political turmoil at a time the country is experiencing an unexpected burden of dealing with the post-Cyclone Ditwah recovery process.
The term of non-ex-officio members of the Council is three years from the date of appointment. In terms of the Constitution, the civil society representatives should be persons of eminence and integrity who have distinguished themselves in public or professional life and who are not members of any political party. Their nominations should be approved by Parliament.
In spite of the NPP having an absolute 2/3 majority in Parliament, the ruling party is under pressure. The composition of the CC is a big headache for NPP leaders struggling to cope up with rising dissent over a spate of wrongdoings and a plethora of broken promises. The furore over the inordinate delay in finalising AG’s appointment has made matters worse, particularly against the backdrop of the BASL, Transparency International Sri Lanka Chapter and Committee on Public Finance, taking a common stand.
Having been part of the clandestine regime change project in 2022; Western powers and India cannot turn a blind eye to what is going on. Some Colombo-based foreign envoys believe that there is no alternative to the NPP and the government should be given the opportunity to proceed with its action plan. The uncompromising stand taken by the NPP with regard to the appointment of permanent AG has exposed the ruling party.
In the wake of ongoing controversy over the appointment of the AG, the NPP’s integrity and its much-touted vow to tackle waste, corruption, irregularities and mismanagement seems hollow.
The government bigwigs must realise that appointment of those who campaigned for the party at the presidential and parliamentary polls caused deterioration of public confidence. The appointment of ex-top cops Sharnie Abeysekera and Ravi Seneviratne with black marks as Director, CID and Secretary to the Ministry of Public Security and Parliamentary Affairs, eroded public confidence in the NPP administration.
A vital role for CC
The SLPP, reduced to just three lawmakers in the current Parliament, resented the CC. Having secured a near 2/3 majority in the House at the 2020 Parliamentary election, the SLPP made its move against the CC, in a strategy that was meant to strengthen President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s hands at the expense of Parliament. Introduced in 2001 during Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga’s presidency, the 17th Amendment paved the way for the establishment of the CC. Those who wielded political power subjected the CC to critical changes through 18th, 19th and 20th amendments. Of them, perhaps, the 20th Amendment to the Constitution that had been passed in October 2020 is the worst. The SLPP replaced the CC with a Parliamentary Council. That project was meant to consolidate power in the Executive President, thereby allowing the appointment of key officials, like judges, the Attorney General, and heads of independent commissions.
People may have now forgotten the 20th Amendment removed civil society representatives from the so-called Parliamentary Council consisting of lawmakers who represented the interests of the government and the main Opposition. But such manipulations failed to neutralise the challenge (read Aragalaya) backed by external powers. The role played by the US and India in that project has been established and there cannot be any dispute over their intervention that forced Gotabaya Rajapaksa to flee the country.
Interestingly, Ranil Wickremesinghe, who had been picked by the SLPP to complete the remainder of Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s term, restored the CC through the passage of 21 Amendment on 31 October, 2022. Unfortunately, the NPP now wants to manipulate the CC by packing it with those willing to abide by its agenda.
It would be pertinent to mention that the 20th Amendment was aimed at neutralising dissent at any level. Those who formulated that piece of legislation went to the extent of proposing that the President could sack members appointed to the Parliamentary Council by the Prime Minister and the Opposition Leader without consulting anyone.
If not for the Aragalaya, the Parliamentary Council that didn’t serve any meaningful purpose could have paved the way for the President to fill all key positions with his nominees.
Recommendation of nominations to the President for the appointment of Chairpersons and Members of Commissions specified in the Schedule to Article 41B of the Constitution.
Commissions specified in the Schedule to Article 41B: The Election Commission, the Public Service Commission, the National Police Commission, the Audit Service Commission, the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka, the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption, the Finance Commission, the Delimitation Commission and the National Procurement Commission.
Approval/ Disapproval of recommendations by the President for the appointment to the Offices specified in the Schedule to Article 41C of the Constitution.
Offices specified in the Schedule to Article 41C: The Chief Justice and the Judges of the Supreme Court, the President and the Judges of the Court of Appeal, the Members of the Judicial Service Commission, other than the Chairman, the Attorney-General, the Governor of the Central Bank of Sri Lanka, the Auditor-General, the Inspector-General of Police, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration (Ombudsman) and the Secretary-General of Parliament.
NPP under pressure
In spite of having the executive presidency, a 2/3 majority in the legislature, and the bulk of Local Government authorities under its control, the NPP is under pressure. Their failure to muster sufficient support among the members of the Colombo Municipal Council (CMC) to pass its 2026 Budget underscored the gravity of the developing situation. The unexpected loss suffered at the CMC shook the ruling party.
But, the NPP faces a far bigger challenge in filling the AG’s vacancy as well as the new composition of the CC. If the NPP succeeds with its efforts to replace the current civil society representatives with rubber stamps, the ruling party may feel vindicated but such feelings are likely to be short-lived.
Having criticised the government over both contentious matters, the BASL may be forced to step up pressure on the government unless they can reach a consensus. It would be really interesting to know whether the government accepted the BASL’s request for consultations with the stakeholders. Unless consensus can be reached between the warring parties there is possibility of opening of a new front with the BASL and civil society being compelled to take a common stand against the government.
The developing scenario should be examined taking into consideration political parties and civil society confronting the government over the proposed Protection of the State from Terrorism Act (PSTA). Having promised to do away with the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) in the run up to the presidential election, the NPP is trying to explain that it cannot do without anti-terrorism law. The civil society is deeply unhappy over the NPP’s change of heart.
The National Peace Council (NPP) that has been generally supportive and appreciative of the NPP’s efforts probably with the blessings of its benefactors in the West, too, has now found fault with the proposed PSTA. Dr. Jehan Perera, NPP’s Executive Director commented: “A preliminary review of the draft PSTA indicates that it retains core features of the PTA that have enabled serious abuse over decades. These include provisions permitting detention for up to two years without a person being charged before a court of law. In addition, the broad definition of terrorism under the draft law allows acts of dissent and civil disobedience to be labelled as terrorism, thereby permitting disproportionate and excessive responses by the state. Such provisions replicate the logic of the PTA rather than mark a clear break from it.”
Except the BASL, other professional bodies and political parties haven’t commented on the developing situation at the CC while taking into consideration the delay in appointing an AG. The issue at hand is whether the government intends to hold up AG’s appointment till the change of the CC’s composition in its favour. Whatever the specific reasons, a country that has suffered for want of accountability and transparency, enters 2026 without such an important person to guard against all types of financial shenanigans in the state.
All previous governments sought to influence the Office of the AG. The proposed establishment of NAO prompted the powers that be to undermine the effort. The Yahapalana administration diluted the National Audit Bill and what had been endorsed as National Audit Act, Nov. 19 of 2018 was definitely not the anti-corruption grouping originally proposed. That Act was amended this year but the Office of the AG remains vacant.
The NPP has caused itself immense harm by failing to reach consensus with the CC on filling the AG’s post. Unfortunately, the ruling party seems to be uninterested in addressing the issue expeditiously but is exploring the possibility of taking over control of the CC by stuffing it with civil society members favourable to the current ruling clique.
By Shamindra Ferdinando
Midweek Review
Towards Decolonizing Social Sciences and Humanities
‘Can Asians Think?’
want to initiate this essay with several questions. That is, are we, in Sri Lanka and in our region, intellectually subservient to what is often referred to as the ‘West’? Specifically, can knowledge production in broad disciplinary areas such as social sciences and humanities be more creative, original and generated in response to local conditions and histories, particularly when it comes to practices such as formulating philosophy and theory as well as concepts and approaches? Why have we so far imported these from Western Europe and North America as has been the undisputed norm?
In exploring the responses and delving into this discussion, I will seek reference from the politics of the recently published book, Decolonial Keywords: South Asian Thoughts and Attitudes edited by Renny Thomas from the Department of Humanities and Social Sciences at the Indian Institute of Science Education and Research – Bhopal and me. The book was brought out by Delhi-based Tulika Publishers in December 2025.
Let me first unpack my anxiety over theory and philosophy, which I have talked about many times previously too. Any social science or humanities text we read here or elsewhere in South Asia invariably borrows concepts, theories and philosophical input generated mostly in Western Europe and North America. It almost appears as if our region is incapable of serious and abstract thinking. It is in this same context, but specifically with reference to India that Prathama Banerjee, Aditya Nigam and Rakesh Pandey have observed in their critical essay, ‘The Work of Theory Thinking across Traditions’ (2016), that for many “theory appears as a ready-made body of philosophical thought, produced in the West …” They argue, “the more theory-inclined among us simply pick the latest theory off-the-shelf and ‘apply’ it to our context, notwithstanding its provincial European origin, for we believe that ‘theory’ is by definition universal.”
Here, Banerjee et al make two important points. That is, there is an almost universal acceptability in the region that ‘theory’ is a kind of philosophical work that is exclusively produced in the West, followed by an almost blind and unreflective readiness among many of us to simply apply these ideas to local contexts. In doing so, they fail to take into serious consideration the initial temporal and historical contexts in which these bodies of knowledge were generated. However, theory or philosophy is not universal.
This knowledge is contextually linked to very specific social, political and historical conditions that allowed such knowledge to emanate in the first place. It therefore stands to reason that such knowledge cannot be applied haphazardly/ willy-nilly anywhere in the world without grave consequences. Of course, some ideas can be of universal validity as long as they are carefully placed in context. But to perceive theory or philosophy as all-weather universals is patently false even though this is the way they are often understood from universities to segments within society in general. This naiveté is part of the legacy of colonialism from which these disciplines as well as much of their theoretical and philosophical structures have been bequeathed to us.
It is in this context that I would like to discuss the politics our book, Decolonial Keywords: South Asian Thoughts and Attitudes entail. Here, thirty South Asian scholars from across disciplines in social sciences and humanities have come together to “discuss words and ideas from a variety of regional languages, ranging from Sinhala to Hebrew Malayalam” encapsulating “the region’s languages and its vast cultural landscape, crossing national borders.” To be more specific, these languages include Assamese, Arabic-Malayalam, Bengali, Hebrew Malayalam, Hindi, Nepali, Sanskrit, Sinhala, South Asian uses of English, Tamil-Arabic, Tamil, Urdu and concepts from indigenous languages of Nagaland and Arunachal Pradesh.
Each chapter, focuses on a selected word and “reiterates specific attitudes, ways of seeing and methods of doing that are embedded in the historical and contemporary experiences of the region” keeping in mind “the contexts of their production and how their meanings might have changed at different historical moments.”
In this exploration, the volume attempts to understand “if these words and concepts can infuse a certain intellectual rigour into reinventing social sciences and humanities in the region and beyond.” In short, what we have attempted is to offer a point of departure to a comprehensive and culturally, linguistically and politically inclusive effort at theory-building and conceptual fine-tuning based on South Asian experiences and histories. We assume these concepts from our region might be able to speak to the world in the same way schools of thought in politically dominant regions of the world have done so far to us. This is a matter of decolonizing our disciplines. But it is still not a claim for universality. After all, our main focus is to come up with a body of conceptual categories that might be useful in reading the region.
When Sri Lankan social sciences and humanities as well as the same disciplines elsewhere in the region thoughtlessly embrace knowledges imported in conditions of unequal power relations, it can never produce forums for discourse from which we can speak to the world with authority. In this book, Thomas and I have attempted, as an initial and self-conscious effort, to flip the script on theory-building and conceptualization in social sciences and humanities in South Asia in the region’s favour.
We are however mindful that this effort has its risks, intellectually speaking. That is, we are conscious this effort must be undertaken without succumbing to crude and parochial forms of nativism that are also politically powerful in the region including in Sri Lanka and India. This book presents an array of possibilities if we are serious about decolonizing our social sciences and humanities to infuse power into the discourses we generate and take them to the world instead of celebrating our parochiality like the proverbial frog in the well. Unfortunately, more often than not, we are trained to be intellectually subservient, and mere followers, not innovators and leaders bringing to mind the polemical title of Kishore Mahbubani’s 2002 book, Can Asians Think?
Midweek Review
The ever-changing river: Chandana Ruwan Jayanetti’s evolving poetic voice
It is said that no man steps into the same river twice, for it is not the same river, and he is not the same man. These words came to mind upon reading Chandana Ruwan Jayanetti’s latest poetry collection, Poems from Galle, which inevitably invites comparison with his earlier work, particularly his first volume of poetry and prose, Reflections in Loneliness: A Collection of Poems and Prose (2015).
In this new collection, Jayanetti is demonstrably not the same poet he was a decade ago. His horizons have widened. his subject matter has diversified, and his thematic range has deepened. The earlier hallmarks of his work, including his empathetic attention to human experience, sensitivity to the natural world, and intimate, reflective tone, remain present. Yet they are now complemented by a stronger defiance, a more deliberate engagement with the political and the cosmic, and a broader mosaic of local and universal concerns. His poetic voice has evolved in scope, tonal range, and thematic ambition.
My own acquaintance with Jayanetti’s poetry dates back to our undergraduate days at Sabaragamuwa University of Sri Lanka, where we were classmates pursuing a BA in Languages (English Special). Even then, his work revealed precise observational skill coupled with profound sympathy for individuals. This early sensibility found fuller articulation in Reflections in Loneliness, a collection spanning nearly two decades of creative endeavor.
That inaugural volume traversed a wide thematic landscape: childhood memories; tender compassion toward humans and animals; tributes to the deserving; the joys and sorrows of young love; and reflections on Sri Lanka’s three-decade Northeast conflict, which concluded in 2009. Jayanetti’s verse, written with sincerity and empathy, moves fluidly from deeply personal to universally human. Moments of striking poignancy include the loss of his wife’s mother, the death of a young friend who marched unflinchingly to the warfront, and the bittersweet parting from a lover.
The prose section of Reflections in Loneliness offered a return to the rural simplicity of the 1970s and ’80s through the perspective of a schoolboy. Essays such as We Buy a Bicycle, Television Descends, The Village Goes to the Fair, Bathing Excursions and Hingurakanda evoke a bygone era with unvarnished authenticity. As literary critic Kamala Wijeratne noted, Jayanetti’s prose merited commendation for its perceptive and affectionate portrayal of rural life, written with the authority of lived experience. His meticulous attention to minute details revealed not only the flaws and frailties of human nature but also its loyalties and quiet virtues, articulated with unforced sympathy.
Consisting of 31 poems and five prose pieces, Reflections in Loneliness established Jayanetti as a writer of elegance, precision, and emotional depth. The current collection, however, confirms the Heraclitean and Buddhist insights: both the poet and his poetry have changed. The new work reflects an expansion from the personal to the cosmic, from the intimately local to the globally resonant, a testament to an artist in motion, carried forward by the ever-changing current of his creative life.
Jayanetti’s poetic corpus in the new book Poems from Galle, spanning thirty-five evocative works from They Heard the Cock Crow to A Birthday Celebration, reveals a profound and consistent artistic signature rooted in themes of humanity, nature, history, and social consciousness. Throughout these poems, Jayanetti demonstrates a distinctive voice that is simultaneously empathetic, contemplative, and alert to the complexities of his Sri Lankan heritage and the broader human condition. While maintaining a core of thematic and tonal consistency, each poem enriches this foundation by expanding into new dimensions of experience, whether personal, ecological, political, or historical.
A foundational element of Jayanetti’s poetry is the intimate relationship between humans and nature, frequently underscored by a deep ethical awareness. In poems like From a Herdman’s Life and My Neighbor, he gives voice to the quiet dignity of rural existence and animal companionship, portraying a symbiotic bond imbued with mutual care and respect. Similarly, Fallen Elephant and Inhumanity lament the cruelty inflicted upon majestic creatures, indicting human greed and violence. These poems articulate not only empathy for the natural world but also an implicit call for stewardship, threading a moral sensibility throughout the collection.
This concern extends to the socio-political sphere, as Jayanetti often situates his poems within the fraught realities of Sri Lanka’s history and struggles. Homage to Sir Henry Pedris honors a national martyr, while Confession of a Sri Lankan Cop exposes institutional corruption and personal integrity in tension. Hanuma Wannama and Gone Are They tackle political violence and social upheaval, reflecting the poet’s engagement with national trauma and collective memory. These works enrich the thematic landscape by connecting personal narrative to larger historical forces.

Jayanetti’s choice of subjects is remarkably diverse yet unified by a focus on lived experience—ranging from the intimate (To a Puppy That Departed, Benji) to the grand (Mekong, A Voyage). The poet’s attention to place, whether the Sri Lankan cityscape in City Morning and Evening from the College Terrace or the historic Ode to Galle Fort, anchors his work in locality while evoking universal themes of time, change, and belonging. Even poems centered on seemingly mundane moments, such as Staff Meeting or A Game, are elevated by the poet’s keen observational eye and capacity to find meaning in everyday rituals.
Moreover, Jayanetti often draws from historical and cultural memory, as seen in Ludowyk Remembered, Let Ho Chi Minh Guide You, and Rathna Sri Remembered, positioning his poetry as a dialogue between past and present. This choice expands his thematic range to include legacy, identity, and the power of remembrance, linking the individual to the collective consciousness.
Across the collection, Jayanetti’s tone is marked by a blend of gentle empathy and quiet strength. Poems such as A Companion Departed and To a Puppy That Departed convey tenderness and mourning with understated poignancy. His voice is intimate and accessible, inviting readers into personal reflections suffused with emotional depth.
Yet, this empathy is balanced by moments of stark realism and defiance.
In Corona and Hanuma Wannama, the tone shifts to urgent and accusatory, critiquing social injustice and political decay. A Ship Weeps mourns environmental devastation with an elegiac voice that is both sorrowful and admonitory. This tonal range reveals a poet capable of both consolation and confrontation, who embraces complexity rather than sentimentality.
While many poems explore specific moments or relationships, others invite contemplation on broader existential and cosmic themes. For instance, A Voyage and Mekong traverse spatial and temporal boundaries, evoking the interplay between human journeys and natural cycles. A Birthday Celebration reflects on legacy, learning, and the continuum of knowledge, blending personal homage with universal insight.
Even poems like A Bond and A Game gesture toward symbolic resonance, the former exploring interspecies loyalty as a metaphor for fidelity and duty, the latter invoking sport as a microcosm of life’s challenges and hopes. These works demonstrate Jayanetti’s ability to expand familiar motifs into metaphoric and philosophical territory, enriching his poetic landscape.
Jayanetti’s thirty-five poems in Poems from Galle collectively reveal a consistent and compelling artistic signature that intertwines compassionate engagement with nature and society, a profound sense of place, and an acute awareness of history and memory. His voice navigates seamlessly between moments of intimate reflection and urgent social commentary, creating a poetic landscape that resonates with both specificity and universality.
Each poem adds a distinct dimension to this mosaic. Historical and political awareness emerges strongly in poems like Let Ho Chi Minh Guide You and Homage to Sir Henry Pedris, where the sacrifices of national heroes and struggles for justice are evoked with reverence and clarity. Meanwhile, environmental consciousness is vividly articulated in works such as Abandoned Chena, Kottawa Forest, and Fallen Elephant, where the fragility of ecosystems and the human impact on nature are poignantly explored.
Jayanetti also delves deeply into themes of personal loss and companionship in poems like Benji, A Companion Departed, and In Memory of Brownie, tenderly capturing the bond between humans and animals. Poems like Confession of a Sri Lankan Cop and Hanuma Wannama offer raw social critique, revealing layers of political and moral complexity.
Through this interplay of historical, environmental, personal, and political themes, Jayanetti constructs a body of work that is distinctly Sri Lankan in its cultural and geographical grounding yet profoundly universal in its exploration of human experience. His poetry invites readers to reflect on the interconnected fates of humans, animals, and the natural world, urging a deeper awareness of our shared existence and responsibilities.
by Saman Indrajith
-
News6 days agoBritish MP calls on Foreign Secretary to expand sanction package against ‘Sri Lankan war criminals’
-
News5 days agoStreet vendors banned from Kandy City
-
Sports6 days agoChief selector’s remarks disappointing says Mickey Arthur
-
Opinion6 days agoDisasters do not destroy nations; the refusal to change does
-
Sports2 days agoGurusinha’s Boxing Day hundred celebrated in Melbourne
-
News5 days agoLankan aircrew fly daring UN Medevac in hostile conditions in Africa
-
Sports3 days agoTime to close the Dickwella chapter
-
Sports6 days agoRoyal record crushing innings win against Nalanda

