A potential India–China border breakthrough could mark a turning point in Asia, easing decades of hostility while undermining Washington’s grip on New Delhi.
This week, India and China have taken a great leap of faith in their mutual efforts to incrementally advance the normalization process in their bilateral relationship. This may assume the nature of a rapprochement when Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi meets Chinese President Xi Jinping on the sidelines of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation [SCO] summit in the port city of Tianjin in northeast China on 31 August–1 September.
The Sino-Indian rapprochement will be a historic event in world politics. It holds the potential to be a key template in the emerging world order in the 21st Century. From the Indian perspective, what is unfolding promises to be the finest legacy of Modi in a tumultuous political career as his 75th birthday approaches next month.
Wang Yi’s Landmark Visit to New Delhi No doubt, the two-day visit to New Delhi this week by Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi, who is also a member of the Political Bureau of the Communist Party of China (CPC) Central Committee and director of the Office of the Central Commission for Foreign Affairs, will go down as a watershed event. It is a game-changer because Wang, arguably one of the world’s most seasoned diplomats, has turned boundary talks into a mission to harness recent positive momentum and inject a new dynamic into the normalization process.
Wang forcefully argued that China and India are obligated to demonstrate a sense of global responsibility, act as major powers, set an example for developing countries in pursuit of strength through unity, and contribute to promoting world multi-polarization and democratization of international relations.” Xinhua news agency characterised Wang’s remarks as the consensus” opinion between him and India’s External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar.
Wang and Jaishankar noted that a critical mass is accruing in the relationship. The Chinese foreign minister said Beijing–New Delhi relations are showing a positive trend toward returning to cooperation.” Jaishankar concurred that bilateral relations are continuously improving and developing” and exchanges and cooperation between the two sides in all fields are moving toward normalization.”
Interestingly, Jaishankar called for India and China to jointly maintain the stability of the world economy” and stressed that stable, cooperative, and forward-looking bilateral ties serve the interests of both countries.” The Indian external affairs minister proposed that New Delhi is willing to deepen political mutual trust with China, strengthen mutually beneficial cooperation in economic and trade fields, enhance people-to-people exchanges, and jointly maintain peace and tranquility in border areas.” He later said in a social media post, Confident that our discussions today [18 August] would contribute to building a stable, cooperative and forward-looking relationship between India and China.”
Wang’s visit yielded some breakthroughs, too. Principally, the two countries agreed to resume direct flights; facilitate trade and investment flow; cooperate on trans-border rivers; reopen border trade via the Himalayan passes; facilitate visas to tourists, businesses, media, and other visitors in both directions; and expand the visits of Indian pilgrims to the holy places of Kailash-Manasarovar. China is reportedly lifting the ban on rare earth and fertilizer exports to India, as well as heavy equipment for making tunnels in mountainous areas.
Border settlement: Modi’s defining challenge The most sensational development is that the two countries are exploring an early harvest” in delimitation of boundaries and have agreed on new mechanisms on border management, which will also work towards de-escalation. This is a highly sensitive issue, as Indian public opinion is shaped by self-serving narratives that emerged after the 1962 war and by the idea of establishing a border that never historically existed.
This is where Modi’s leadership becomes crucial. Modi is probably one of the only leaders today who has the credibility, decisiveness, and vision to navigate a border settlement with China. He has prioritized the normalization of relations with China and is conscious that a truly stable relationship is critically dependent on predictability and stability, which makes it imperative that a border settlement is reached. Modi, during a meeting with Wang on 19 August, emphasized the importance of maintaining peace and tranquility on the border, and also reiterated India’s commitment to a fair, reasonable, and mutually acceptable” resolution of the boundary issue.
Traditionally, India attributed primacy to its post-Cold War relationship with the US as a hedge against China, which, unsurprisingly, spawned absurd notions that Washington regarded New Delhi as a counterweight” to Beijing. Suffice to say, the administration of US President Donald Trump’s erratic foreign policies and, specifically, its unfriendly moves recently to curb India’s strategic autonomy came as a wake-up call.
On the other hand, India’s actions have also been partly driven by domestic economic pressures. The point is, India seeks to lift some restrictions imposed on China in recent years, welcome Chinese investment, and increase people-to-people exchanges to boost its economic confidence. Equally, facing US pressure such as high tariffs, India aims to diversify economic and trade ties with countries, including China, which may help to reduce some of the external pressure from the US.
Shared interests in a multipolar world Wang has signaled that Beijing is as eager as New Delhi to improve the relationship against the backdrop of an increasingly reckless and belligerent Trump administration. Both sides sense that they have common interests. Inevitably, a China–India working relationship anchored on a strategic understanding will do wonders for BRICS. This prospect is already worrying Trump, who has threatened BRICS more than once for allegedly working to dethrone the dollar as the world’s currency.
It is still early to tell, but if the positive trends in Sino-Indian relations gain traction and become a driving force in international politics, it can galvanise the dormant Russia–India–China [RIC] process, which Moscow has been promoting since the idea was first mooted in the late 1990s by the great Russian visionary-statesman late Yevgeny Primakov. Indeed, the correlation of forces internationally has shifted over the past three decades more or less in the directions that Primakov had envisioned with great foresight.
The roadblocks ahead On the flip side, though, there is a strong pro-American lobby in India with influence over the media, think tanks, academia, and even the Indian establishment and elite community that root for the ties with the US as a defining partnership of the 21st century. All sorts of vested interests are in play. Besides, there are phobias regarding China’s intentions, which will take time to wither away. Commensurate with its rise as a global power, China has a growing presence in the regions surrounding India, which is understandable; however, India tends to view it through the security prism – which only adds to threat perceptions. Then there is the complicated Dalai Lama succession issue, where the signs are that New Delhi treads softly to avoid offending Chinese sensitivities.
Typically, an ex-foreign secretary regretted just this week, amidst all the humiliations heaped on India by Trump, that the US has lost” India. For a country with a century and more of humiliation in its history as a colony, a slavish mentality may seem strange, but the comprador class is a veritable Indian reality. Make no mistake, the Trump administration’s frustration with India is geopolitical. None other than the famous White House counsellor for trade and manufacturing and Trump’s close aide, Peter Navarro, blurted out in a Financial Times (FT) op-ed this week that the US should not transfer cutting-edge” military technology to an India which is cozying up to both Russia and China.”
However, a paradigm shift may ensue if Trump indeed proceeds to sanction India, which cannot be ruled out, forcing a profound Indian rethink on its doctrine of strategic autonomy, which had been predicated on the notion that all countries were equal but America was more equal than others.
Sri Lanka’s current economic collapse cannot be understood in isolation. It is tied to the 2015 regime change, orchestrated with heavy involvement of the United States and India, which removed the Mahinda Rajapaksa government (though not without its share of faults). The Yahapalana” coalition that came to power in January 2015 was a patchwork alliance of:
TheUNP (Ranil Wickremesinghe)
A breakaway SLFP faction led byMaithripala Sirisena (backed by Chandrika Kumaratunga)
TheTNA (Tamil National Alliance)
JVP
Backing from sections of theNGO lobby, civil society activists, Western-funded groups, and pro-Indian intellectuals
This coalition was united not by a shared vision, but by a single mission: to weaken and dismantle the Rajapaksa administration and align Sri Lanka with Western and Indian geopolitical interests by this time India had become a QUAD partner.
Some of the pro-West and pro-India policy shifts during 2015–2019 included:
Co-sponsoring theUNHRC Resolution 30/1 against own country & its armed forces (2015) – unprecedented in history.
Entering into strategic agreements like theETCA framework with India and moving toward US-backed pacts such as MCC, ACSA, SOFA. ACSA signed in 2017.
Weakening state enterprises and pushingprivatization/foreignization agendas.
Re-orienting economic borrowing away from concessional loans(low interest, long term) toward short-term International Sovereign Bonds (ISBs) — overwhelmingly purchased by US-based venture funds and hedge funds.
Between 2015–2019, Sri Lanka issued over USD 12 billion in ISBs, at interest rates often 6–8%, repayable in lump sums. These borrowings, unlike earlier concessional loans from Japan, China, or multilaterals, became a debt time bomb that directly caused the reserve crisis of 2020–2022.
The same external forces that engineered 2015 re-emerged in 2022 during the Aragalaya.” Mass protests, fueled by both genuine hardship and NGO/social media campaigns, forced President Gotabaya Rajapaksa out of office.
Who returned to power? Ranil Wickremesinghe — unelected, with only one seat in Parliament, but acceptable to Washington, New Delhi, and global financial actors.
Today, many who do not know this history are being made to believe Ranil is the savior” of the economy. The reality is that the economic foundations of collapse were laid during the 2015–2019 Yahapalana years, under his leadership, with full external backing.
Q1: Who actually declared Sri Lanka’s default?
A: It was not Parliament or the President.
The declaration came from the Central Bank Governor Nandalal Weerasinghe and Finance Minister Ali Sabry in April 2022.
Q2: Why did they declare default? A: They claimed Sri Lanka had no foreign reserves to pay creditors.
Q3.What resulted from declaring default
Critics argue it was a hasty, externally-influenced decision that shut the door on alternative options like bilateral support, bridge financing, or negotiated restructuring.
Declaring default meant Sri Lanka could no longer borrow normally, open LCs… this decision indirectly forced Sri Lanka into the arms of the IMF under strict conditions.
Q4. How did Sri Lanka suddenly suffer shortages in fuel, gas and essentials?
Once default was declared, Sri Lanka lost access to normal credit lines.
Suppliers demanded cash upfront.
Sri Lanka had very low foreign reserves (dollars) to pay for fuel shipments, cooking gas, medicines, and other essentials couldn’t be paid for.
This caused the long queues, blackouts, and shortages people faced in 2022.
Q5: Why didn’t Sri Lanka have enough foreign reserves?
A: Because Sri Lanka had borrowed heavily in short-term commercial loans (ISBs) instead of relying mainly on concessional loans.
These loans had to be repaid in big lump sums. At the same time, the country’s exports were too low compared to what we spent on imports (fuel, food, medicine, vehicles, luxury goods).
Tourism and remittances — two big dollar earners — also dropped sharply after 2019 COVID.
By 2021–22, the government had to spend almost all the reserves just to service old debt, leaving nothing for essentials.
Q6: Who was responsible for taking short-term commercial loans (ISBs), and why were these taken? How much, when, and on what terms?
A:
Until 2014, Sri Lanka’s foreign debt was mostly long-term concessional loans from Japan, ADB, and World Bank — low interest, long repayment (20–30 years).
In 2015–2019, under Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe’s Yahapalana Government, the debt strategy changed.
Instead of long-term concessional loans, they shifted to International Sovereign Bonds (ISBs) — short-term, commercial borrowings at 6%–8% interest.
These loans were like taking payday loans — high interest, short term, and had to be repaid all at once — unlike concessional loans that are like a mortgage (low interest, long repayment).
How much?Between 2015–2019, nearly $12.5 billion in ISBs were borrowed.
Why?To cover budget deficits, maintain artificial stability of the rupee, and repay maturing old ISBs instead of negotiating restructuring.
Terms:These loans were lump sum repayment (no gradual installments), unlike concessional loans which are paid slowly.
Impact:By 2020–22, huge repayments came due all at once. With low reserves and no backup plan, Sri Lanka was pushed into default.
Who was responsible when Sri Lanka turned to ISBs (2015–2019)?
Key decision-makers:
Prime Minister / Minister of Policy Planning:Ranil Wickremesinghe (UNP) — architect of economic policy shift.
Finance Ministers:
Ravi Karunanayake(2015–2017)
Mangala Samaraweera(2017–2019)
Central Bank Governors:
Arjuna Mahendran(2015–2016) — infamous for the 2015 Bond Scam.
Indrajit Coomaraswamy(2016–2019) — continued ISB dependence.
Economic Advisors / Think Tanks backing policy:
Advocates of liberalization” & ISBs included officials tied toPathfinder Foundation, Advocata Institute, Verité Research (many with foreign donor influence).
So, the trap was created during 2015–2019:
short-term borrowing, high interest, lump sum repayments, no reserves built.
Q7. Who is being blamed for the economic crisis?
A: The common narrative pushed locally and internationally is that Gotabaya Rajapaksa is solely responsible. But this is not accurate.
The roots of the crisis go back to 2015–2019 under the Yahapalana (Sirisena–Ranil) Government, which shifted Sri Lanka from low-interest, long-term concessional loans to high-interest, short-term ISBs (mostly from US venture funds). This created the debt trap.
By the time Gotabaya took office in Nov 2019, 70% of ISB repayments were already locked in (had to be paid)
The COVID-19 pandemic (2020–2021) wiped out tourism and remittances, cutting $8–10 billion in annual foreign exchange. JVP carried out campaign scaring people from sending remittances back home.
The 2022 global commodity shock (oil, gas, food) after the Ukraine war made imports unaffordable.
Yes, Gotabaya made policy mistakes (fertilizer ban, not taking loans or reaching out to traditional friendly nations, prioritizing reserves). But he did not create the structural debt crisis — he inherited it.
So, blaming Gotabaya alone hides the bigger story: the 2015–2019 decisions and externally influenced regime changes that laid the foundation.
Q8. When Gotabaya Rajapaksa failed, why was Ranil Wickremesinghe the only one who came forward?
A: Because the crisis was engineered in such a way that Gotabaya would take the fall and Ranil could return as the saviour.”
Ranil had no public mandatein 2020 (he lost his seat, his party UNP collapsed), yet he was the only option” offered when GR resigned.
He allowed Gotabaya to carry the blamefor the ISB repayments that were actually created under his own (2015–2019) Yahapalana tenure.
Once public anger was directed only at GR through the aragalaya, Ranil could step in as President without election.
This gave him the perfect chance to continue what he could not finishduring 2015–2019:
Strengthening Western and Indian influence in Sri Lanka.
Carrying forward IMF-led austerity reforms.
Restructuring state assets (privatization) to foreign interests.
Re-aligning foreign policy away from China.
In short, Ranil’s rise was not sacrifice, but calculated timing, helped by those who supported the aragalaya which arose because there were no dollars to buy essential commodities — letting Gotabaya fall so he could come in as the solution” to a crisis his camp helped to create. Unfortunately, even the so-called educated are unable to understand this ground reality.
Q9. Does this mean that Ranil Wickremesinghe paved the way for a change of government knowing it would collapse within a short time, being aware of the foreign reserves and financial situation — which the new government was unaware of?
A: Yes.
The Yahapalana government (2015–2019) under Ranil knew exactly the debt maturity trap they had createdby taking short-term International Sovereign Bonds (ISBs) from US-based venture funds.
These bonds were stacked to mature in clusters after 2019, meaning whoever came to power would inherit an impossible repayment schedule.
By late 2019, foreign reserves were already dangerously low. Ranil, as PM and Finance-influencer, was fully aware of this, but the public and even Gotabaya’s camp were not presented with the true picture.
The new government under GR inherited this time bomb. The pandemic and the 2022 Ukraine war worsened the pressure — but the root causewas already laid by Yahapalana.
Once the collapse came, the blame was successfully pinned only on GR, creating the vacuum for Ranil to return, unelected, and continue alignment with Western-Indian agendas.
In short, the collapse was not an accident — it was a calculated setup. Ranil’s camp planted the debt trap, kept quiet, let GR walk into it, and then returned when the explosion forced regime change.
Q10. Why is it so difficult for even the educated to understand this very basic ground reality?
A: Several factors contribute to widespread misunderstanding:
Complexity of Finance vs. Simplified Narratives
ISBs, foreign reserves, debt maturities, and IMF programs are technical. Most media reports simplify them into GR failed” or Ranil saved us,” hiding the underlying debt trap.
Controlled Information and Media Spin
Many outlets pushed a narrative that blamed Gotabaya Rajapaksa for the crisis, while portraying Ranil as the saviour,” obscuring the 2015–2019 origins.
External Influence & Political Engineering
US-India-backed political maneuvering and the global financial connections of ISBs were not highlighted publicly. Ordinary citizens or even the educated were often unaware of who orchestrated the debt structure.
Focus on Immediate Crises
People saw queues, shortages, and inflation. They reacted emotionally to visible suffering rather than analyzing the policy decisions made years earlierthat caused the crisis.
Misinformation & False Hero Narratives
Social media and international coverage frequently cast Ranil as the problem-solver, while ignoring that his policies in 2015–2019 created the time-bomb.
Even educated citizens can be misled if the historical context, technical debt structure, and foreign influence are not clearly explained. Without connecting 2015–2019 policies to 2022 collapse, the public is left with a distorted saviour vs. failure” story, rather than the real picture.
Q11. Did Ranil reduce the debt burden after taking office?
A: No. The debt burden continued to grow under his leadership, largely because he relied on IMF-backed loans, new bilateral loans, and domestic borrowing to meet repayment schedules, rather than restructuring the economy for long-term sustainability.
Q12. Did Ranil reverse the ISB debt trap created in 2015–2019?
A: No. The ISBs taken earlier were still maturing, and Ranil’s government continued servicing them under IMF conditionalities. The structural debt problem remains — repayments from 2027 onward are still huge, leaving little room for development.
Q13. Did citizens see immediate relief under Ranil?
A: Not substantially. While he stabilized some short-term imports, citizens continued to face higher taxes, reduced subsidies, inflation, and privatization of state assets, which were part of IMF-mandated austerity measures.
Q14. Did Ranil create new foreign reserves or sustainable income streams?
A: No. The focus was on managing existing obligations, not building long-term reserves or reviving exports and tourism to pre-crisis levels. Economic growth remains weak.
Q15. Did Ranil take steps to protect strategic national assets?
A: No.
During his tenure, several privatizations and foreign partnerships continued in key sectors such as ports, energy, and airports, reducing national control over strategic resources. A notable example is the leasing of Hambantota Port to a Chinese company for 99 years, in exchange for around $1.1 billion, effectively handing over operational control of a major national asset for nearly a century.
Q16. Did Ranil restore public confidence or independence in policy-making?
A: Partially, but largely within IMF or Western-backed frameworks. Monetary and fiscal policy remained constrained, limiting sovereign control over economic decisions.
Q17. What are the long-term impacts of these sacrifices on Sri Lanka?
A: The combined economic, strategic, and political decisions under Ranil have several lasting consequences:
Loss of National Control over Strategic Assets
Leases and other privatizations reduce the country’s control over critical infrastructure.
Future governments have limited ability to reclaim or use these assets independently.
Debt Dependency and Economic Vulnerability
Reliance onIMF programs, US venture fund ISBs, and bilateral loans keeps Sri Lanka under external oversight.
Fiscal policy is constrained — higher taxes, reduced public services, and limited ability to invest in national development.
Erosion of Sovereignty
Geopolitical commitments (MCC, ACSA, ETCA) bind Sri Lanka to Western and Indian strategic interests.
Reduced freedom to negotiate independently with other global partners, including China, Russia, or Middle Eastern countries.
Limited Long-Term Economic Growth
Funds are focused on debt servicing, stabilization, and meeting foreign commitments rather than building new infrastructure or generating domestic revenue.
Citizens face stagnation in wages, job opportunities, and public service quality.
Public Discontent and Social Strain
Prolonged austerity, higher living costs, and cuts in welfare may increase social unrest.
Future governments will struggle to reverse unpopular policies implemented under external pressure.
Generational Impact
National wealth is diverted to foreign debt repayments instead of education, health, or technology investments.
Future generations inherit the burden of foreign-controlled debt and compromised sovereignty.
Q18. Is the savior” narrative accurate for future generations?
A: No.
While immediate collapse may have been managed, long-term vulnerabilities persist due to high debt, dependency on foreign financing, and continued austerity, leaving future generations exposed.
Present generation may feel only a pinch but future generations will be the one’s suffering for the mistakes of the present leaders of which Ranil Wickremasinghe holds the biggest blame & no one else. Simple Truth: Ranil gave us borrowed oxygen, not a cure. The crisis is still alive, only hidden for now.
Q19. Did Ranil protect Sri Lanka’s self-sufficiency and national interests?
A: No.
Policies under his tenure continued import dependence, did not strengthen agriculture or local industries, and allowed key assets to be privatized or leased. Strategic decisions often prioritized foreign interests over citizen welfare.
Q20. Did Ranil create lasting economic stability and transparency?
A: No.
Debt servicing, IMF conditionalities, and high-interest loans continued. Citizens saw higher taxes, reduced subsidies, and limited growth, while transparency in deals and privatizations remained low. The savior” label obscures that long-term vulnerabilities persist.
As a result of the $12.5 billion in ISBs issued during 2015–2019, Sri Lanka’s total foreign debt of around $37 billion now requires annual repayments of approximately $3–3.5 billion (principal plus interest) starting 2027. Following Ranil’s 2023 move to make the Central Bank independent, the CBSL now answers directly to the IMF rather than the Sri Lankan government. Although citizens fund its operations through taxes and deposits, the CBSL is legally bound to follow IMF directives and has no obligation to act with empathy toward the public. With a freely floating rupee, any depreciation increases the amount of local currency required to convert into dollars to meet these repayments, placing further strain on the national budget and citizens.
While some may credit Ranil Wickremesinghe for stepping in when Sri Lanka lacked leadership, this perception is misleading. He did not inherit an unknown crisis—he returned to carry forward a debt trap and economic collapse that he helped create during 2015–2019. His post-2022 leadership” managed short-term appearances and cash flow but did not resolve structural debt, restore sovereignty, or build sustainable economic foundations. In short, he provided only temporary relief, creating an artificial sense of public loyalty, while locking Sri Lanka further into IMF dependency.
National Development Bank PLC hosted its Analyst Earnings Call recently to discuss the Bank’s financial results for the six months ended 30 June 2025. This was subsequent to the release of the Bank’s financial results to the Colombo Stock Exchange on the 14th of August 2025, where the Bank recorded an institutional all-time high PAT exceeding LKR 4.2 billion.
The Earnings Call was hosted from the Bank’s Head Office in Colombo 02 via a virtual mode with the participation of the Director/Chief Executive Officer, Mr. Kelum Edirisinghe, together with members of the senior management team. The CEO presented a detailed account of salient aspects such as the key macroeconomic trends and the Bank’s performance across income, profitability, balance sheet growth, solvency and investor returns.
Discussions further focused on core themes such as asset growth, CASA mobilisation, cost optimisation, and strengthening of portfolio quality. The CEO also elaborated on NDB’s continued investments in digital transformation, SME empowerment, sustainable banking practices, and support for key national priorities, including export sector growth.
The presentation was followed by a Q&A session where analysts were able to direct their questions to the CEO or any of the panellists present. The Q&A session provided participants with valuable insights among other things, on the Bank’s growth trajectory, interest rate environment, and sectoral lending strategies.
The event was well attended by representatives of local and foreign investment firms, research analysts, stockbrokers, and fund managers. It was organised by NDB’s Investor Relations Unit, reflecting the Bank’s commitment to maintaining strong engagement with the investment community. NDB has consistently conducted quarterly and annual investor calls since 2014, demonstrating its focus on transparency and accountability.
Despite challenges in the external environment, NDB continues to demonstrate resilience and agility, delivering sustainable value to all stakeholders.
Sri Lankan anthropologist Professor Gananath Obeyesekere’s book The Doomed King: A Requiem for Sri Vikrama Rajasinha delves into the life of Sri Vikrama Rajasinha, the last king of Sri Lanka, and critically analyzes his legacy.
The historical portrayal of Sri Vikrama Rajasinha often paints him as a tyrant, a perception that has lingered in the minds of many people. Feelings of anger and aversion towards Sri Vikrama Rajasinha continue to exist, and they are deeply rooted in the shared historical experiences in the collective unconscious of many Sri Lankans.
However, Professor Gananath seeks to challenge these long-held beliefs. While the narrative has often characterized him as a cruel dictator responsible for numerous atrocities, including acts of violence against innocents, these accounts may not tell the full story. According to Professor Gananath, the image we have of him is a distorted one, shaped by the psychological operations and propaganda that were used by the British invaders. By examining a variety of historical evidence, Gananath aims to uncover the real Sri Vikrama Rajasinha and shed light on his true character.
Sri Vikrama Rajasinha, also known as Prince Kannasamy, was born in 1780. There are intriguing tales surrounding his origins, suggesting that he was the son of a widowed Nayakkar Rajamaheshika’s sister and Pilimatalavuva, a chieftain from the Kandyan kingdom.
Pilimatalavuva Maha Adikaram wielded a significant influence and played a crucial role in securing and bringing Prince Kannasamy to the throne. By 1798, at just sixteen years of age, he found himself ruling over the Kandyan kingdom, with Pilimatalavuva by his side, guiding his decisions. However, Pilimatalavuva had ulterior motives. Pilimatalavuva aimed to first place Kannasamy in power, only to later oust him, ultimately paving the way for the establishment of a Sinhala royal dynasty.
Sri Vikrama Rajasinha’s reign lasted only 17 years. When the British captured him, he was a striking young man of 35, standing approximately six feet tall. Descriptions from English physician Henry Marshall highlight his large, dark eyes, an inviting countenance, and a well-groomed beard that lent him a commanding presence. His robust build added to his notable appearance.
Professor Gananath indicates several of his significant accomplishments. King Sri Vikrama Rajasinha is credited with the creation of the artificial Kandy Lake, alongside the renowned Cloud Wall (Walakulu Bamma). He also made significant modifications to the Royal Palace complex, which stands at the center of the city. His remarkable impact on the development and architectural allure of Kandy has largely been overlooked by history. At the heart of this vibrant “cosmic city,” he ingeniously designed the temple complex and lake, forming a captivating centerpiece.
British captain Robert Percival reflects on King Sri Vikrama Rajasinha as a lover of music, endowed with gentle qualities. To understand him better, we should consider the reigns of the kings before him.
King Seethawaka Rajasinghe (1532 – 1593) was a fierce warrior who brought fear into the hearts of Portuguese invaders. However, in the latter stages, he showed signs of psychological distress, possibly stemming from combat fatigue (PTSD?). His paranoia led him to execute many of his generals and nobles out of sheer suspicion.
Then there was King Rajasinghe II (1608 – 1687). English prisoner Robert Knox offers a glimpse into the king’s unpredictable and harsh laws. A notable incident recounts how, while swimming in a river, the king feigned drowning to test the loyalty of two young men. When they courageously swam to his rescue, their reward was a tragic fate—execution for having touched the royal body. This serves as a stark reminder of the unpredictable cruelty that defined his reign. There is no historical documentation to indicate that King Sri Vikrama Rajasinha acted in such a thoughtless manner.
Professor Gananath indicates the misconceptions surrounding the last king, Sri Vikrama Rajasinha. Some British diplomats unfairly characterized him as lacking intelligence and bravery, with reports suggesting he struggled with alcoholism. However, the reality was quite different. Those British envoys who interacted with him later came to recognize that Sri Vikrama Rajasinha was not only intelligent and spiritual but also a man of substance. He was well-educated and often engaged in meditation to find peace and clarity.
Pilimatalavuva Maha Adikaram’s Role
There’s not a great deal of detail in our history books regarding Pilimatalavuva Adhikaram. It appears that he was quite the strategist, adept at navigating the political landscape. He played a significant role in elevating Sri Vikrama Rajasinha to the throne, though it seems he had his own motives at heart, potentially aiming to usurp the throne for himself at some point.
Pilimatalavuva Maha Adikaram was the third son in a lineage of Kandyan chieftains, tracing its roots back to a distinguished family that served the Sinhalese kings since ancient times. This lineage was further enriched through the integration with South Indian nobility who came to the Kandyan Kingdom during the rule of Sri Vira Parkrama Narendrasinha of Kundasale.
His full name was Pilimatalavuva Vijesundera Rajakaruna Senaviratne Abhayakoon Panditha Mudiyanse, also known as Urulevatta Agra Senadhipathi and Arave Pallegampaha Maha Adikaram III. Both his father and older brother held the title of Maha Adikaram before him.
His dealings with the British were particularly intriguing; he didn’t just collaborate with them but also orchestrated their movements, inviting British forces into the central region, possibly to exploit their weaknesses. Throughout this, he maintained a delicate balance with Sri Vikrama Rajasinha, who relied on him emotionally.
Pilimatalavuva Adhikaram masterfully portrayed himself as an ally to the British, showcasing a level of prudence that outshone Keppetipola Disawe, who relied more on bravery than strategy. In a time marked by internal strife and external threats, Pilimatalavuva Adhikaram navigated his situation with great care over an extended period. He planned to bring the English army into the heart of the country and then annihilate the troops. However, Frederick North, the Governor of British Ceylon, found Pilimatalavuva’s maneuvers questionable and responded with caution. A single miscalculation ultimately led to his undoing, sealing his tragic fate. It’s fascinating to consider him as the ancient Sri Lankan equivalent of Robert McNamara.
1803; The First Kandyan War
The British invasion of Ceylon in 1803, referred to as the First Kandyan War, marked an unsuccessful effort by Governor Frederick North to subjugate the independent Kingdom of Kandy. Colonel James Stuart commanded around 2,700 troops, which included British regiments (71st, 72nd, and 73rd), Madras Native Infantry, and artillery, alongside auxiliary forces. This contingent was part of a larger British military presence on the island, totaling between 4,000 and 5,000 personnel, including local Malay and Sepoy infantry.
The campaign resulted in a staggering loss of life, with 1,091 British soldiers perishing from January to June, leading some accounts to characterize the conflict as a massacre inflicted by the Kandyan forces. The British army, consisting of 3,387 soldiers from seven regiments, faced severe casualties due to both disease and combat, culminating in a significant defeat in the island’s interior. Their underestimation of Kandyan resistance, combined with unfamiliarity with the terrain and the challenges posed by guerrilla warfare, contributed to this disastrous outcome.
Frederick North’s Clandestine Services to the Islanders
Frederick North, 5th Earl of Guilford, was the Governor of British Ceylon from 1798 to 1805. Surprisingly, the important role he played during his tenure isn’t mentioned in our history lessons. North was the pioneer of the civil service in Ceylon and dedicated much of his efforts to improving education. He also initiated the vaccination campaign against smallpox, a disease that claimed the lives of tens of thousands of Sri Lankans each year. (As someone who served as an MOH, I wasn’t even aware of his contributions to public health in Sri Lanka.) In addition to these reforms, he established both domestic and foreign postal services and worked to abolish the “Rajakai system,” which had allowed officials to exploit ordinary villagers without consequence. Thanks to North’s educational reforms, in 1811, Mudali Abraham de Seram’s two sons became the first Sri Lankans to study abroad, attending Trinity Hall in England. Mudali Abraham de Seram is noteworthy himself; he famously read the Kandyan Agreement in Sinhala at Magul Maduwa in 1815, indicating his role as a language translator.
However, towards the end of his term, North faced significant work-related stress, which may have led to adjustment disorder, prompting his return to England. Following his departure, Thomas Maitland took over from 1805 until March 19, 1811.
The Murder of Lewke Disawa
The Lewke family held a prominent position in society during the Kandyan period, forging strong ties with the ruling dynasties of the time. Legend has it that this family traced its origins back to Brahmins who arrived on the island during the reign of King Vijayabahu I in the 11th century.
Among them, Lewke Disawa stood out not only for his impressive physique but also as a formidable wrestler and a respected military commander under King Sri Vikrama Rajasinha. The circumstances surrounding Lewke Disawa’s death remain somewhat murky.
In September 1803, as the Sinhalese army prepared to assault the English fort at Hanwella, he expressed confidence to King Sri Vikrama Rajasinha, suggesting that taking the fort would be straightforward. However, during the course of the battle, a rumor reached the king that Lewke was idling in a paddy field instead of participating in the decisive battle. Fueled by distrust, exacerbated by the schemes of those around the court, the king perceived Lewke’s actions as a lack of commitment. In a moment of misjudgment, he ordered Lewke’s execution.
Notably, Gananatha hints at a deeper narrative behind this tragic event, suggesting possible secret dealings between Lewke and the British, indicating that his actions may have been more than simple insubordination. Rather, it seems there might have been layers of intrigue and betrayal at play in the unfolding of these events. Although the historical record does not show that Lewke Dissawa had secret dealings with the British. But he was suspected of attempting to assassinate the king. It can be assumed that the king ordered his execution for these reasons.
The Brutal Murder of the Entire Ehelepola Family
The Ehelepola family met a tragic fate in 1814, as they were executed on the orders of Sri Vikrama Rajasinha, following the betrayal of his chief, Ehelepola Adikaram. The king ordered the drowning of his wife, daughters, and sister-in-law in Kandy Lake, while his infant son was killed in a rice pounder. King Sri Wickrema Rajasinghe ordered Ehelepola Kumarihamy to kill her infant by pounding its head with a pestle.This atrocity sparked widespread outrage among the populace and significantly contributed to the king’s eventual downfall.
Ganatha argues that the killings of the Ehelepola family were not as savage as historical accounts suggest, claiming that these events have been exaggerated as part of a British psychological warfare against the doomed king. He posits that John Doyley played a crucial role as a spy, spreading rumors and effectively securing the support of the local populace for the British invasion of Kandy. Furthermore, reports from Gregory Powell’s book, The Kandyan Wars: The British Army in Ceylon, 1803–1818, indicate that the practice of infanticide, killing an infant by pounding its head with a pestle, was not initiated by Sri Wickrama Rajasinghe. According to him, the Dutch had adopted this inhumane method way before Sri Wickrama Rajasinghe. During a Dutch assault on a Portuguese fort, a Portuguese woman was compelled to kill her baby, pounding the infant with a pestle before being sent back to the fort. Professor Ganatha speculates that Portuguese General Acevedo also adopted these inhumane methods.
The question arises whether the king derived a sadistic pleasure from the brutality inflicted upon the Ehelepola family, including small children. Professor Ganatha argues against the notion that Ehelepola’s family endured inhumane torture. He clarifies that while Ehelepola’s wife and children were executed in accordance with existing royal law, the process was not carried out cruelly or theatrically, as history shows. It was Jan Egberts Thoen, a Dutch soldier, who concocted this alarming tale, which John D’Oyly subsequently reported to his superiors.
The Plight of Ehelepola Nilame
Ehelepola Nilame emerged as a contentious figure during the final years of the Kandy Kingdom, with some historians accusing him of betraying Sri Lanka to the British. Born in Ehelepola village in the Matale district in 1773, he was the son of Padikara Nilame and Kossinne Kumarihamy. Ehelepola married Monarawila Kumarihamy, the sister of Keppetipola’s Disawa, who later led the Uva Rebellion in 1818.
Appointed by King Sri Vikrama Rajasinha to govern the Sabaragamuwa region, Ehelepola’s transfer was shrouded in speculation, with a popular but unfounded legend suggesting it was due to the king’s infatuation with Ehelepola’s wife. (This may not be true, and this rumor was fabricated to tarnish the king’s image.)
During his tenure, Ehelepola engaged in negotiations with the British to protect the Kanda Udarata kingdom from the Nayakkar clan, forming a friendship with John D’Oyly’s informant, Wattala Appu, in 1811. However, tensions escalated as Molligoda Nilame fed the king with information that sowed discord between Ehelepola and Sri Vikrama Rajasinha. Ultimately, Ehelepola harbored ambitions of usurping the throne with British military support, prompting General Sir Robert Brownrigg to monitor him closely.
In 1814, Ehelepola initiated a rebellion against the king, expecting British assistance that never materialized, leading to the uprising’s brutal suppression and his subsequent flight to British-controlled territory, where he sought protection.
General Robert Brownrigg relied on Ehelepola to help him subdue the Kandyan kingdom, yet Ehelepola’s aspirations of kingship ultimately ended in disappointment. Over time, he became a liability for the British authorities, facing ongoing distrust. Following the uprising of 1818, Ehelepola was exiled to Mauritius, where he passed away in 1829 while still in exile.
John D’Oyly—the British Spy
Professor Gananath Obeyesekere highlights the significant role of John D’Oyly, a skilled spy and master manipulator who adeptly learned the Sinhala language and immersed himself in the local culture. This strategic masquerade allowed him to win the trust of the native population. D’Oyly established a network of informants, including merchants and Buddhist monks, who provided crucial intelligence about the Kandyan kingdom. For instance, the Buddhist monks such as Rev. Ahugoda, Rev. Godamunna, Rev. Hurukgamuwa, and Rev. Koskandawala were John D’Oyly’s informants.
Recognized as an exceptionally talented British spy, he understood the immense value of information and employed psychological tactics to sway public opinion against the king. His efforts were instrumental in laying the groundwork for the British invasion of Kandyan territory, especially after the disastrous defeat of British forces in 1803 during the First Kandyan Expedition.
This campaign, which initially saw the capture of Kandy, ultimately resulted in a retreat marked by guerrilla warfare that decimated British troops. D’Oyly believed that the conquest of the Kandyan kingdom could be achieved through intellect rather than brute force, a strategy that ultimately succeeded where the Portuguese and Dutch had failed. Following the British victory, D’Oyly was appointed as the Resident and First Commissioner of Government in the Kandyan Provinces. While Gregory Powell’s book, “The Kandyan Wars: The British Army in Ceylon, 1803–1818,” suggests that D’Oyly’s death was a suicide, many historians contest this claim, asserting that he succumbed to a remittent fever during an official tour in the Seven Korles in May 1824.
Molligoda Disawa ; the shrewd Operator
Molligoda Disawa entered the court of King Sri Vikrama Rajasinha in 1803, quickly establishing himself as a cunning strategist who gained the king’s confidence. He played a pivotal role in sowing discord between Sri Vikrama Rajasinha and Ehelepola Nilame. Often described as vindictive and conniving, Molligoda was seen by Professor Gananath as a clever figure who navigated treacherous waters with skill. In a fateful turn, he aligned himself with the British forces, choosing to forsake his king. Prior to this bold decision, he ensured the safety of his wife and children by sending them to the British side, aided by Major Hook of the British Army. Ehelepola Nilame put his wife and children’s lives at risk by aligning himself with the British. In contrast, the clever Molligoda took decisive action to protect his family from danger. Molligoda remained loyal to the British, even supporting them during the uprising of 1818. However, as time passed, he grew increasingly isolated and fell into alcoholism. Molligoda Disawa passed away in 1823.
Rev Wariyapola Sri Sumangala’s Heroic Act
The popular narrative in Sri Lankan history portrays Wariyapola Sri Sumangala as a heroic Buddhist monk who boldly removed the Union Jack and raised the Sinhalese lion flag prior to the 1815 Kandyan Convention. However, Ganatha challenges this account, suggesting that it was a fabrication. This revelation might provoke disillusionment and anger among nationalists. It is crucial to prioritize historical accuracy over the perpetuation of myths, as this incident appears to be an exaggeration that never actually took place. The convention was heavily secured, preventing any unauthorized access, and official reports do not document any such disturbances. In his book, The Kandyan Wars: The British Army in Ceylon, 1803-1818, Gregory Powell provides a detailed account of the Kandyan Convention without mentioning this event, further supporting the notion that the story is a fictional tale that has spread through oral tradition.
1818 Uva–Wellassa Rebellion
The Uva-Wellassa Rebellion of 1818 was sparked by the British violation of the Kandyan Convention, a disregard that ignored the region’s traditions, disrespected the rights of Kandyan chiefs, and imposed harsh rule on the Kandyan people. Growing frustration with British governance led to a significant uprising, led by notable figures such as Monarawila Keppetipola Nilame, Madugalle Basnayake Nilame, and Ellepolla Nilame, all of whom were eager to reclaim the Kandyan Kingdom.
Despite the rebels’ determination, the uprising was ultimately crushed by the British, who possessed far greater military strength. A lack of cohesive leadership among the insurgents further weakened their resistance. The British employed severe tactics, including a scorched-earth policy that devastated resources and created an atmosphere of terror among the local populace.
Major MacDonald of the British Army engaged in retaliatory actions by setting fire to homes, destroying crops, and slaughtering livestock. Collaborators faced execution, while others were forced into exile. Even family members were not spared, being taken as prisoners. (Decades later, in 1864-1865, US Army General William T. Sherman adopted a scorched-earth strategy during his March to the Sea, aiming to dismantle the Confederacy’s will and resources for continuing the war).
Some Kandyan chieftains, like Molligoda Maha Adikaram and Ratwatte Adikaram, sided with the British, while loyalty from other chiefs in areas like Tun Korele and Hathara Korele helped the colonial powers suppress further rebellions. Historical accounts indicate that the British resorted to brutal measures to extinguish the revolt, implementing collective punishments, destroying property, and executing key rebel leaders. Ultimately, the rebellion failed due to internal discord and inadequate planning within the ranks of the insurgents.
The Doomed King
Sri Wickrama Rajasinghe, the final monarch of the Kandy Nayak Dynasty of Telugu descent, reigned from 1739 until 1815. During his rule, some contemporary writers labeled him a Tamil king, a politically motivated tactic aimed at undermining his popularity among the populace. Despite these challenges, he was known for his contributions to architecture and his support of Buddhism, notably completing the Dalada Maligawa complex with the addition of the Pattirippuva. Following the British conquest, he was exiled to Vellore Fort in India, where he remained until his death in 1832.
There is a plausible theory suggesting that the British covertly administered small doses of arsenic to Sri Wickrama Rajasinghe to expedite his demise. This practice was not isolated, as reports indicate that Sinhala rebels in exile also received arsenic, leading to symptoms such as stomach issues, including nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea with dyspnea and swollen feet before their deaths. Notably, Sri Wickrama Rajasinghe experienced similar symptoms in his final days. This method of poisoning was also employed against Napoleon, who succumbed to comparable health problems, with arsenic later detected in his hair. During his exile, the king fathered a son, Rajadhi Rajasinha, who died of unknown causes in exile in Vellore Fort, India, in 1843. The death of Rajadhi Rajasinha has intensified suspicions regarding the circumstances surrounding these events.
The ministry of external affairs recently dismissed the allegation of the Bangladesh government, where Dhaka alleged that New Delhi was inherently supporting the ousted Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina’s political party. Terming it misplaced, the ministry clarified that India does not allow political activities against other countries from its soil. However, the central government admitted that New Delhi was not aware of any anti-Bangladesh activities by purported members of the Awami League inside India. A ministry-spokesperson also added that New Delhi expected a free, fair and inclusive elections in Bangladesh as early as possible to ascertain the will and mandate of the citizens.
One can remember that a year’s back, when a mass uprising in Bangladesh ousted the sitting premier Hasina, she came to India for asylum with a short notice. Then nobody thought that the Bangabandhu’s daughter had to stay in the neighbouring country for all these months. The centre has not yet announced that Hasina is given official shelter, but her passport was already suspended by the interim government of Bangladesh. The Muhammad Yunus-led caretaker government also continues pursuing Hasina’s deportation to face trials in her home country following hundreds of police complaints against her.
The recent initiative by Dhaka also shocked the people of India, where the Yunus-led regime alleged that many Hasina supporters were also taking shelter in India and even running offices here. A statement issued by the Bangladesh ministry of foreign affairs on 20 August stated that their attention was drawn to media reports of ‘offices of the banned political party titled Bangladesh Awami League were established’ in Delhi and Kolkata. This development occurs against the backdrop of growing anti-Bangladesh activities by Awami League leaders from the Indian territory, added the statement. It also asserted that any form of political activity and campaigning against the interest of Bangladesh by its nationals, staying on Indian soil, including the establishment of offices, constitutes an unambiguous affront to the people and State of Bangladesh.
Moreover, Dhaka warned that these developments threaten the mutual trust and respect underpinning good neighbourly relations between the two countries and called on New Delhi to take immediate action to halt any anti-Bangladesh activities and close Awami League offices (functioning legally or illegally inside India). Lately, the caretaker government has also warned the media outlets of Bangladesh to avoid airing or broadcasting any message from Hasina. Accusing the dethroned premier of making false and inflammatory claims on many occasions, Dhaka asked all satellite news channels and digital platforms in the country to ignore those inputs, otherwise it would invite legal actions. Earlier, the International Crimes Tribunal also prevented Hasina from making hate speeches.
The news relating to the temporary offices of Awami League in Kolkata and Delhi were spread by a number of Bangladeshi media outlets which quoted a recent BBC Bangla report. Those outlets claimed that over 2000 Awami League ministers and leaders along with retired bureaucrats, army & police officers, law practitioners and others are taking shelter in India with extended medical and tourist visas. They have rented common accommodations to assemble regularly and discuss political issues where many personally attend and some connect digitally from various parts of the globe. On one occasion, Hasina had reportedly addressed the gathering, which was eventually made public by selected media outlets.
However, the practice of supporting anti-India elements from its territory used to be a familiar approach for Bangladesh as it supported a number of armed militant outfits from northeast India for decades. Several separatist outfits from Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura, etc ran training camps inside Bangladesh before their surrender. As a return gesture, the said militant outfits did not raise voices against the Bangladeshi Muslims taking shelter illegally in India, even though public resentments against those migrants continued. The issue of infiltration gained momentum as Prime Minister Narendra Modi expressed his concerns for infiltration and demographic changes in the bordering localities due to a growing Muslim population. Addressing the nation on 15 August, Modi also announced that a high-powered mission will be established to address these issues, amid estimates that no less than 20 million undocumented Bangladeshis are living in India.
The LTTE recruited 5,000+ children as fighters. No one knows the exact number. This was genocide of children – a genocide UNHRC writes reports on but did nothing to stop.
LTTE stole childhoods, turned innocence into weapons. LTTE supporters overseas did not mind Tamil children being kidnapped. LTTE supporters overseas sent their children to schools & universities but poor & low caste Tamil children were kidnapped & trained in camps. The children who tried to flee & return home were shot or cruelly tortured.
The Sri Lanka Army rescued them — disarmed, rehabilitated, returned to families.
Would Geneva have saved them? Or abandoned them?
Who should Sri Lankans trust — our Army, or outsiders?
WE TRUST OUR ARMED FORCES … their bravery and acts of kindness have never got the appreciation they deserve
Former President Ranil Wickremesinghe, who was arrested and remanded on Friday (22), has been granted bail, Ada Derana reporter said.
The order was issued by Colombo Fort Magistrate Nilupuli Lankapura.
Former President Ranil Wickremesinghe was ordered released on three surety bails of Rs. 5 million each.
The hearing of the case filed against former President Ranil Wickremesinghe commenced at the Colombo Fort Magistrate’s Court, at around 1:40 p.m. on Tuesday.
The former President, who is at the Intensive Care Unit of the Colombo National Hospital at present, joined the court hearing virtually via Zoom.
During the hearing, a detailed medical report of former President Ranil Wickremesinghe’s medical was presented to the court by his attorneys.
According to the submissions made by President’s Counsel Anuja Premaratna, three of the four coronary arteries of the former President have been blocked.
He also submitted that the former President is suffering from multiple health complications and therefore requested the Magistrate to consider it as a special case and released former President Wickremesinghe on bail.
Earlier today, Prisons Media Spokesperson Jagath Weerasinghe said the former President is unlikely to be produced before court today, due to medical recommendations stating that he must continue to remain under observation in the ICU.
He further stated that if the Magistrate issues an order for Wickremesinghe to be presented via Zoom for legal proceedings, necessary arrangements can be made accordingly.
Accordingly, the case against the former President was taken up without his presence at the Colombo Fort Magistrate’s Court.
Following his arrest on Friday (22), court ordered that former President Wickremesinghe be remanded until today. However, considering his health condition, he was first admitted to the Prison Hospital, and later transferred to the Intensive Care Unit of the Colombo National Hospital based on medical advice.
Former President Wickremesinghe, who was arrested by the Criminal Investigations Department at around 1:10 p.m. on Friday for allegedly misusing state funds, was produced before Colombo Fort Magistrate Nilupuli Lankapura at around 3:00 p.m. the same day.
The case, filed under the under provisions of the Penal Code and the Public Property Act, was adjourned after initial submissions, and subsequently the commencement of court proceedings delayed due to a blackout at the Fort Magistrate Court premises.
After the resumption, considering the submissions made by the Attorney General’s Department and the defence attorneys, Colombo Fort Magistrate Nilupuli Lankapura ordered that the former President be remanded until August 26, a first in the history of Sri Lanka.
Wickremesinghe was taken into custody for allegedly misusing government funds” after being questioned about a September 2023 visit to London to attend a ceremony for his wife at a British university while he was head of state.
Ranil Wickremesinghe had stopped in London in 2023 on his way back from Havana, where he attended a G77 summit.
He and his wife, Maithree, attended a University of Wolverhampton ceremony.
Wickremesinghe had maintained that his wife met her own travel expenses and that no state funds were used.
However, the Criminal Investigation Department of the police alleged that Wickremesinghe used government money for his travel on a private visit and that the state also paid his bodyguards.
Wickremesinghe became president in July 2022 for the remainder of Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s term, after the latter stepped down following months of protests over alleged corruption and mismanagement. He lost his re-election bid in September 2024.
This was the first time a former president had been arrested in Sri Lanka’s history.
Former President Ranil Wickremesinghe’s legal counsels say that the National Audit Office has conducted an audit on the President’s expenditure head and there’s no mention of a misuse of state funds, adding that there’s no case, and the accusation against him is false.
A request by the Bribery Commission to seize the property of former Minister Rajitha Senaratne, who has an outstanding warrant for his arrest, was rejected by the Colombo Chief Magistrate.
The warrant was issued for Senaratne in a case where he is accused of causing a loss of over Rs. 20 million to the government.
The alleged offence is linked to a sand mining project at the Kirinda Fisheries Harbour, which was awarded to a Korean company.
The Bribery Commission had sought an order to seize a property in Colombo, registered under Senaratne’s name and valued at over Rs. 30 million.
The Chief Magistrate advised the Commission to make the request on the next hearing date, which is the 29th, should the suspect fail to appear in court.
The arrest of Former President Ranil Wickremesinghe which was carried out yesterday by the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) after arriving to record a statement over allegations of misusing state funds despite being unprecedented in the history of Sri Lanka seems to have many circumspect areas which appear not only to be questionable but appears also to points towards an act of revenge and unethical on the part of the NPP Government where many grey areas appear to have surfaced towards its legitimacy albeit its sudden enactment and a degree of ruthlessness on the part of those who initiated the arrest namely the present Administration especially considering the prima facie evidence presented towards its justification where a far deeper and in depth investigation would have been more appropriate given his status as a former Head of State.
This has been attested to by many who have opposed the arrest including international sources and those within the country who have voiced their vehement opposition where perhaps more consideration should have been given as the fallout from such an action could easiily compromise as well as jeopardize the future of the presidency as we know it and does not favour the well being of the country towards future stability as many intellectual minds have observed and perhaps even a slur on a Nation which has struggled through many crises where Mr Wickremasinghe has stood firm towards their resolution in patriotic dedication as some have put it and hardly fair by him that such a sudden enactment of stringent authority has been imposed towards his incarceration when greater consideration should have been given to the role he paid in restoring Sri Lanka to a degree of normalcy where the conclusion that he misappropriated State Funds seems more speculatively erroneous as one delves into their realities relative to those who handled his official expenses.
The arguments towards its validity appear to have not been proven beyond reasonable doubt and a benefit of the doubt perhaps something the former President was entitled to given his denial and the facts presented by his legal representation which probably deserved greater attention and scrutiny rather than being shrugged off ignominiously as the case appears to have been.
The probe concerns his September 2023 visit to London to attend a University of Wolverhampton graduation ceremony for his wife, Professor Maithree Wickremesinghe, during which investigators claim government money was used for travel and security expenses.
Former President Wickremesinghe has denied the charges, insisting that his wife bore her own costs and no public funds were misused.
There is evidence also that the University conferring the honor on Mrs Wickremasinghe had officially invited them and the expenses which Mr Wickremasinghe is said to have misappropriated could well have been attributable to part of an official visit outside the country in his capacity as President. The CID had earlier presented evidence to the Fort Magistrate’s Court and recorded statements from his former private secretary Sandra Perera and former presidential secretary Saman Ekanayake.
He was taken into custody last morning after stating his case in defence attested to by his legal representation and is expected to be produced before the Fort Magistrate’s Court later on.Subsequently he has been remanded without bail until the 23rd of August it has ben learned.
Wickremesinghe, who assumed the presidency in July 2022 after Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s resignation and lost re-election in September 2024, is now the first former President in Sri Lanka’s history to be arrested.
There are shades of anti Wickremasinghe sentiment and pursuit by his political opponents relative to the infamous Batalanda massacres
which took place during his tenure where despite an in depth investigation he was found to have no liabilities regardless of his political status and no charges were proven against him.
All things considerd including his present weakened health and the response of the majority of those loyal to him who have expressed their justifiable concerns in the matter of his arrest perhaps a reversal of the conditions he is being subjected to from a government perspective which appears unfair and unjustified may be in order provided a through investigation towards his accusations is re-initiated towards the maintenance of Democracy within the Nation.
It also seems unfair that he has been denied bail which further attests to the determination of the Government to incarcerate him unconditionally and needs consideration which now seems to be on compassionate grounds for a former Head of State whose health conditions could easily deteriorate and worsen.
The LTTE banned Sinhalese & Muslims from Jaffna in 1990.
Entire families left with only the clothes on their back.
What happened to their land What happened to their homes What happened to their belongings & possessions? What did LTTE do with these? Similarly, the LTTE took lands & homes of Tamils too — these Tamils are begging the Armed Forces not to leave North These Tamils trust Sri Lanka’s Armed Forces more than LTTE – only those living in North know this truth. You wont hear it from those living in Oslo, Toronto, London, Paris or Colombo
If Geneva dictates our Army to leave North, who will shield us, Tamils who know the truth are asking?
