Talks of a land bridge between India and Sri Lanka are buzzing once again. Those who feel nostalgic about the time when there was some kind of connectivity miss the point that it was built by the British to bring down slaves from India to Sri Lanka cheaply. While it served a colonial purpose, it has no utility today unless India is looking to do a colonial move against Sri Lanka.
Though Colonial Britain officially agreed to end slavery in 1833, it never gave up that lucrative industry until after WW2. According to British records close to a million South Indians were brought into the island from 1833 to 1860. It continued well into the 1940s. For all purposes they were slaves who were forced to put their finger print on paper to denote consent to receive meagre amounts of food and were swiftly put on ships or trains and sent to their destinations. Slaves brought from India’s Malabar Coast were classified as Malabar People and slaves from the Coromandel Coast were classified as Coromandel people. In 1911 both terms disappeared from the national census and in their place emerged new ethnic groups.
This large influx of slaves from South India devastated Sri Lanka economically, environmentally, socially, politically and militarily. Instead of useful crops, scant arable land was wasted for tobacco, tea and other crops with massive devastation caused to the environment, catchment areas, native dwellers who revolted against it and to native flora and fauna. Those who came to the island from India with just the clothes on them acquired wealth at the expense of natives over the years in an island with very limited resources. The rise in the wealth of communities brought from India directly corresponds to the poverty of natives as the island nation did not have large amounts of resources for all. Had no colonial population movement occurred, the islanders would have been far better off in every aspect of their lives.
If a new land connection is built between the two nations it will not be any different – nothing good will come to Sri Lanka through it. If it goes ahead, each community will have to think for themselves and carve up their exclusive ethnicity-based nation each within the island like western Europe did just before it started to develop rapidly. That is the only way they will be safe from the next wave of colonial occupation and slavery.
Operation Colombo and Operation Condor were covert operations carried out in the 1970s in Chile and South America, primarily aimed at eliminating political dissidents and leftist groups after the US-backed Coup against Chile’s democratically elected President Salvador Allende. This operation is a stark representation of state terrorism, where government employed systematic violence and human rights violations to maintain power and suppress opposition, often through extrajudicial killings and forced disappearances.
5 Must Know Facts
Operation Colombo and Condor involved several countries, including Chile, Argentina, and Uruguay, which collaborated to track down and eliminate leftist activists who were viewed as threats to their authoritarian regimes.
The operation was known for its brutality; many victims were abducted, tortured, and killed without any legal process, embodying state-sponsored terrorism.
It is estimated that hundreds of people were killed or disappeared during Operation Colombo, highlighting the extent of human rights abuses committed under the guise of national security.
The operation was initially disguised as a crackdown on criminal activity, but it quickly became clear that the primary goal was to silence political dissent and eliminate opposition figures.
Many details of Operation Colombo were kept secret for decades, with official narratives attempting to downplay or deny the extent of the violence and repression involved.
Review
What were the main objectives of Operation Colombo and how did it exemplify state terrorism?
The main objectives of Operation Colombo were to locate, capture, and eliminate political dissidents who posed a threat to military regimes in South America. This operation exemplified state terrorism by using systematic violence and intimidation tactics against civilians to instill fear and suppress any form of opposition. The government actions during this operation were characterized by extrajudicial killings and forced disappearances, fundamentally violating human rights.
In what ways did Operation Colombo relate to the broader context of state terrorism during the Cold War era in Latin America?
Operation Colombo was part of a larger pattern of US-backed state terrorism that emerged in Latin America during the Cold War, where US-backed military governments implemented violent measures against perceived leftist threats. These actions were often supported or overlooked by foreign powers fearing communism’s spread. The collaboration among South American dictatorships during this period exemplified how geopolitical tensions influenced domestic policies, leading to widespread human rights violations under the pretext of anti-communism.
Evaluate the long-term impacts of Operation Colombo on society and human rights advocacy in South America.
The long-term impacts of Operation Colombo on society included a pervasive climate of fear and mistrust among citizens toward their governments. The operation’s legacy has fueled ongoing human rights advocacy efforts across South America as victims’ families seek justice and accountability for the atrocities committed. Additionally, it has spurred legal reforms aimed at preventing future abuses and fostering greater respect for human rights, highlighting the need for transparency and accountability in governance.
A coordinated effort among South American dictatorships in the 1970s and 1980s to target leftist opponents and dissidents across national borders, involving kidnapping, torture, and murder.
Dictatorship: A form of government characterized by the concentration of power in a single authority or a small group, often resulting in the suppression of political freedoms and civil rights.
Human Rights Violations: Actions that infringe upon the basic rights and freedoms entitled to all human beings, often perpetrated by governments against their own citizens.
(Trump is in full gallop, who knows where he’ll stop?
Reins are not in his hands, nor feet in the stirrups)
Traumatic turn the world order is taking place in the time of Trump tends not to make much sense unless, from the pandemonium one sifts out a policy statement. Vice President J.D. Vance’s chastisement of Europe at the February 14 speech at the Munich European security conference is one such statement.
Europe’s enemy’s are not Russia or China; the enemy is within” he said. Europe was scared of its own people, its voters who were turning to parties the European establishment was averse too. He made a pointed reference to leaders who had not been invited to this very important conference”.
In ample demonstration of what he meant, Vance went onto meet the leader of Alternative for Germany, the far Right anti immigrant party which, before recent elections, was advancing in the popularity stakes. All other disparate political parties come together to form a wall” against the Alternative for Germany. This is precisely the manoevre to thwart the popular surge, according to Vance. Readers may yawn because Trump has churned the universe with a thousand decisions and indecisions that his next moment will reverse. But Vance’s speech, mark my word, is a marker.
I have revisited the Munich conference with a purposes: it was not a stand-alone outburst by Vance. It was a continuation of a process started by Trump’s ideological mentors, and companions to undermine the European union, promote nationalism” in European nations and puncture the balloon of globalization which weakens the nation state and, thereby, nationalism.
Terrifying tariffs as tactics in the new order were not spelt out, per sey in Vance’s speech which was heard by a hall packed with European grandees with open mouthed wonder.
It was not an off the cuff statement. Trump’s principal philosopher and friend, never mind if he served a brief jail term, Steven Bannon had been criss crossing Europe since at least the first Trump Presidency meeting, promoting, creating a chain of far Right leaders, bringing them in line with what was to emerge in bright silhouette as Trump’s project of remaking Europe as a fulcrum for the new world.
It was all clear as daylight from the start but you did not see it because the western media, the one that the Indian media supinely follows, had switched off its cameras on the story. In 2016, it was in the thrall of Hillary Clinton, front runner against Trump. For that reason, it was a target for Russian interference” throughout the 2016 campaign. How pulpy American democracy looked when the US Deep State was seen wringing its hands on Russians effectively” interfering in elections to defeat Hillary Clinton. And the media was swallowing these yarns hook line and sinker. I watched that story close.
Around 2013, there were two maestros with parallel agendas hopping from one European capital to the other promoting competing visions of the architecture western capitalism should create.
George Soros, the philanthroper was on a contrary path. He was out to strengthen globalization, the European Union in the liberal mode. He did everything possible to block Brexit. His open society”, was not closed” and circular; it leapt out of the stage like a ballet dancer.
Brexit produced panic headlines rather like the ones after Trump’s tariffs. A calamity” screamed the New York Times. Global panic” was the more moderate headline in London.
While Soros lamented Brexit, Steve Bannon was delirious. The Right-Wing Group he had formally registered in Brussel’s in 2017 was named The Movement”, a counter point to Soros’s Open Society.
Hungary’s Victor Orban, Frances’ Marine Le Pen, Italian Mateo Salvini, UK’s Nigel Farage, Netherland’s arch Euro sceptic, Gaert Wilters and a host of others were enlisted.
Some of these leaders are a trifle hesitant because of The Movement’s” American sponsorship. They see a clear contradiction. What kind of hybrid nationalism was being promoted in which Steve Bannon, an American plays a key role. This issue is being sorted out, but the broad ideological line is consistent – anti LGBT, anti abortion, anti immigrants and, strewn around Bannon literature in very small print, anti Islamization”. This last one will be brushed up to help remove the taint of genocide which has stuck on the faces of Netanyahu and his supporters in the US and the Israeli lobby in America. The Alternative to Germany has most tenaciously latched onto this one ever since Angela Merkel, following her instincts as a Vicar’s daughter, humanely opened the door to Syrian refugees fleeing the outside imposed civil war in their country.
Trump minced no words. His high decibel MAGA chant was his anti globalization drive. Hare brained takeovers of Panama, Greenland, Canada were preceded by an even sillier plan some year ago to administer Afghanistan just as the British ran India under a Viceroy.”
Erik Prince, the founder of Blackwater, the world’s biggest supplier of mercenary soldiers, was the author of the scheme which, through Bannon, reached The White House. The Pentagon shot it down.
The hegemon is in decline; he is coming down like a falling star.” This tiresome chant was another irritant to cope against which MAGA came in handy. Before obituaries are written on the old world order Trump has decided to dig out the pitch and initiate a totally new game. There will be no reordering of the world order which, in his mind is now extinct. He is for a world in which the US is more equal than others.
From inside fortress America, its walls ever higher, Trump’s teams will got out to promote nationalism and smash regional or global groupings which are the stepping stones towards globalization. The experience with Europe has been heady.
Wait a minute. Reports suggest that Trump’s demolition work in Europe is causing the nation states to recluster and rapidly:
An India-Sri Lanka direct rail or road link needs just a 25-km-long bridge. The Pamban Bridge, recently inaugurated by PM Narendra Modi, completes a crucial part of a direct train from Chennai to Colombo. Planned by the British, and brought to the drawing table time and again, an India-Lanka rail link would boost both ties and trade.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi last week inaugurated the Pamban Bridge, which replaces the 110-year-old bridge built during British colonial rule. (PTI Image)
Board the Indo-Ceylon Express from Egmore station in Madras (now Chennai), ride through the eastern coastal plains, cross the Pamban Bridge into Rameshwaram, reach Dhanushkodi, the last Indian station, then sail across the Palk Strait to Talaimannar and catch a train straight to Colombo. That’s how most people travelled from Madras to Colombo, Sri Lanka’s capital, before 1964, the year when the Rameswaram cyclone ravaged coastal Tamil Nadu.advertisement
The cyclone of 1964 destroyed the 110-year-old Pamban Rail Bridge, Pamban island’s only link to mainland India. The cyclone bearing winds of over 150 kmph also destroyed the railway line connecting Rameshwaram and Dhanushkodi, just 24 kilometres west of Sri Lanka’s Talaimannar. Since 1964, trains have been terminating at Rameshwaram, instead of Dhanushkodi.
Some past developments, source-based reports, the recent resurgence in celebrating Ram’s heritage, and the AIADMK’s political posturing before the 2026 Tamil Nadu election, all suggest that the dice might be rolling behind closed doors, and a new bridge between India and Sri Lanka isn’t unlikely. The seamless rail connectivity to Rameshwaram offers an opportunity to lay the groundwork for a direct India–Sri Lanka rail link. And that would mean bridging the gap between Rameshwaram and Sri Lanka’s Talaimannar in Mannar Island, including another bridge or tunnel parallel to the Adam’s Bridge, also called the Rama Setu.advertisement
The 1964 cyclone didn’t just disrupt connectivity between India and Sri Lanka, it dealt a blow to a grander vision: a seamless rail link between the two nations and beyond, first envisioned by the British, later proposed by a few multilateral forums, and now, reportedly, a subject of some discussion and buzz.
The island of Pamban, which houses Rameswaram, is connected to the Indian mainland by separate rail and road bridges. Rameswaram and Dhanushkodi, 20 km apart, are connected only by road along a narrow strip of land. The rail line between the two was destroyed in 1964. From Dhanushkodi, Sri Lanka is just 25 km away. (Google Maps)
The 110-year-old bridge served as the only connection to Rameshwaram, apart from ferries, from its commissioning in 1914 until 1988, when a parallel road bridge was constructed. The old bridge has been replaced by the one inaugurated recently by PM Modi.
The 1964 cyclone didn’t just destroy the rail link to Dhanushkodi, it also shattered the dream of a rail link all the way to Sri Lanka.
by Professor Amarasiri de Silva Courtesy The Island
Globalisation can be understood as relations between countries, and it fosters a greater relationship between countries that involve the movement of goods, services, information, technology, money, and human beings between countries. These relationships transcend economic, cultural, political, and social contexts.
Globalisation in the modern world today is a significant shift from the past. Globalisation in the modern world today is a state in which the world becomes interconnected and interdependent. This change occurs due to better technology, transport, communication, and foreign trade.
Trade routes have joined areas for centuries. The Silk Road and colonial sea trade routes are the best examples. But today, nobody can match the speed and scope of globalization.
Globalisation began to modernise after World War II. During this time, countries came to understand that they had to work together. They wanted to have economic cooperation and peace so that they would not fight any more. These significant institutions united countries for political and economic purposes and advantages. They allow free movement of products, services, and capital between countries. It encourages cooperation all over the world.
The second half of the 20th century saw fabulous technological advances. These advances sped up globalisation. The internet changed everything. It changed the way people communicate, share information, and do business. Traveling became faster and more efficient. Products and humans travel from one continent to another in record time. Companies can now do business globally. They outsource jobs, get access to global markets, and use global supply chains. This was the dawn of multinational firms and a global economy.
Flow of information is one of the characteristic features of the current age of globalisation. The internet allows news, ideas, and culture to be shared in real-time. Societies are experiencing unprecedented cultural interconnectedness. This has led to controversy over cultural sameness and dissimilation of local cultures. For example, the same is observed within countries too. In countries such as Sri Lanka the language differences between districts have become a non-issue, and the western province’s language has paved the way for others to emulate. Globalisation has allowed millions of individuals to lift themselves out of poverty, especially in Asia and Latin America. It does this by creating new employment opportunities and expanding markets. It has also increased economic inequalities, though. Wealth flows to those who possess technology and capital. Poor workers and communities are unable to compete regionally or internationally. Some countries have seen political backlash. In these countries, some people feel left behind by the benefits of globalisation.
Modern globalisation has a lot to do with environmental concerns. More production, transportation, and consumption have destroyed the planet. These are pollution, deforestation, and climate change. Global issues need global solutions. That is why international cooperation is essential in solving environmental problems. The Paris Climate Agreement is one such international effort to cooperate. There are constant debates regarding justice and responsibility between poor and rich countries.
Modern-day globalisation deeply influences our daily lives in many ways. It has opened up possibilities for economic growth, innovation, and cultural exchange. However, it also carries with it dire consequences like inequality, environmental destruction, and displacement of culture. The future of globalisation will be determined by the way we handle its impact. We have to see to it that its benefits are distributed evenly across all societies.
Tariffs are globalising-era import taxes. Governments levy them to protect domestic firms from foreign competition. But employed ruthlessly and as retaliation like today, and they can trigger trade wars. Such battles, especially between big economies such as the U.S. and China, can skew trade. They can destabilise markets and challenge the new era of globalisation. Tariff wars will slow or shift globalisation but won’t bury it.
Globalisation is not just a product of dismantling trade barriers. It is the product of enormous forces like technology, communications, and economic integration in markets across the globe. Tariffs can limit trade between countries or markets. They cannot undo the fact that most economies in the world today are interdependent. Firms, consumers, and governments depend on coordination across borders. They collaborate on energy, finance, manufacturing, and information technologies.
However, the effects of tariff wars should not be downplayed. Excessive tariffs among dominant nations compromise international supply chains. This also raises the cost for consumers and creates uncertainty for investors. The 2018 U.S.–China trade war created billions of dollars’ worth of tariffs. It also lowered the two countries’ trade. Industries such as agriculture, electronics, and automotive manufacturing lost money. These wars can harm international trade confidence. They also discourage higher economic integration.
There are some nations that are facing challenges. They are, therefore, diversifying trade blocs. Others are creating domestic industries. Some are also shifting to regional economic blocks. This may result in more fragmented globalisation. Global supply chains can become short and local. The COVID-19 pandemic and tariff tensions forced countries to re-examine the use of foreign suppliers. They began to stress self-sufficiency in vital sectors. These are medicine, technology, and food production.
Despite these trends, globalisation is not robust. The global economy can withstand crises. It does so due to innovation, new trade relations, and digitalisation. E-commerce, teleworking, and online communication link people and businesses across the globe. Sometimes these links are even stronger than before. Countries need to come together in order to combat challenges like climate change, pandemics, and cybersecurity. This is happening even as economic tensions rise.
Tariff wars can disrupt trade and create tensions.
However, they will not be likely to end globalisation, but instead, they reshape it. They might change its structure, create new partnerships, and help countries find a balance between openness and security. The globalization forces are strong and complex. They can be slowed down or reorganized, but not readily undone. The future of globalisation will depend on how countries strike their economic interests. They must also recognise their interdependence on each other in our globalised world. The world economy has a tendency to change during crises.
It does this through innovating, policy reform, building strong institutions, and changing economic behavior. But they also stimulate innovative and pragmatic responses by governments, companies, and citizens. The world economy has shown that it can heal, change, and change after crises like financial downturns, pandemics, and geo-political conflicts. One of the more notable examples of economic adjustment occurred in the 2008 global financial crisis. The crisis started when the housing market in the U.S. collapsed. The big banks collapsed, and then the effects spilled over to the world. This led to recessions, very high unemployment levels, and a drop in consumer confidence. In response, central banks like the U.S. Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank acted very quickly. They cut interest rates to near zero. They also started large-scale quantitative easing. Governments spent stimulus money in their economies. They assisted in bailing out banks and introduced tax-tight financial regulations. These actions stabilised markets and ultimately restored economic growth. The crisis also led to new financial watchdog mechanisms. One example is the Financial Stability Board, which has the objective of avoiding such collapses in the future. The COVID-19 pandemic created a unique crisis.
It reached health systems and economies globally. In 2020, the world suddenly stopped. Lockdowns and supply chain disruptions followed. This led to a sharp fall in GDP in almost all countries. Sri Lanka experienced it acutely. However, the world economy has adapted at a breathtaking speed. Remote work and online shopping flourished, driven by digital technology. Firms transitioned to new formats like contactless offerings, delivery platforms, and remote platforms. Governments rolled out massive stimulus packages to businesses and employees. Central banks infused liquidity to support financial systems. International cooperation on vaccine development and distribution also helped accelerate economic recovery. By 2021 and 2022, various economies were quicker to recover than expected, though unevenly by region. Another outstanding one is the manner in which economies adapted to geostrategic struggles:
The war of 2022 between Ukraine and Russia ravaged across world markets of food and energy, with special impact on Europe and the Global South.
European nations moved swiftly to abandon Russian natural gas. European nations also looked around for other sources of energy and increased usage of renewables. While shock caused inflation as well as supply shortages to a peak first, markets began to shift ultimately. And world grain markets looked elsewhere and established new channels of commerce. Such changes show the ways that economies can change under stress, even if ancient structures are upended. Climate change is demanding long-term change in the world economy.
The climate crisis isn’t a sudden crisis, like war or pandemic. But it’s pushing nations and businesses to make big changes. Green technologies are on the rise. Electric vehicles, solar and wind power, and carbon capture are the best examples. These technologies are indicative of how economies address environment crises. Financial institutions and banks are now embracing sustainable investing guidelines. Countries are uniting in a low-carbon future under the terms of the Paris Climate Accord. Technology is leading economic resilience.
The digital economy is going stratospheric—AI, cloud computing, and e-commerce are the jetpack! These technologies enable companies to be agile and resilient. Consider the pandemic and the financial crisis, for instance. Technology businesses did not just survive; they flew like eagles. They gave us remote work tools, digital payments, and virtual conversations, allowing us to stay connected when it was most important. These innovations have irreversibly shifted the terrain of worldwide business and work. The global economy’s history is marked by crises and its capacity to adapt and transform in response. The global economy proves strong during financial crises, pandemics, conflicts, and climate issues. Resilience shines through innovation, teamwork, and strategic adjustments. Though challenges linger and vulnerabilities remain, we’re not without hope.
Learning from crises helps us fortify and adapt our systems. This adaptability signals a promising evolution for the global economy amid future uncertainties.
The current trade war, especially between the United States and China, is reshaping globalization. It may lead to a new form of it. These tensions do not terminate globalization. Instead, they push it to evolve into a more complex and regional form. The new model includes economic factors. It also includes political, technological, and security factors. This leads to a world that remains interconnected but in more cautious, selective, and fragmented ways.
Trade wars tend to begin when countries want to protect their industries.
They might want to lower trade deficits. They also respond to unfairness, including intellectual property theft or state subsidies. The ongoing trade war between China and the U.S. has seen massive tariffs, export quotas, and increasing geopolitical tensions. This is a sharp departure from the post-Cold War era, which saw more free and open trade. Now, companies and governments prepare for everything. Safety and national interests are their concerns. This change is reflective of a trend that some experts call de-risking” or strategic decoupling.” One of the most obvious signs of this new course is the reorganization of global supply chains.
Many global companies want to diversify away from relying on one country. They especially want to decouple from China for manufacturing and raw materials. They diversify production by investing in different regions. It is called China plus one.” It means relocating operations to locations like Vietnam, India, and Mexico. This relocation takes global supply chains from centralized to more regionalized and redundant networks. These networks prepare for future shocks. Moreover, technology and digital infrastructure have an increasing role in this new globalization.
Trade tensions are an indication of the strategic value of semiconductors, telecommunications, and artificial intelligence. Nations are realizing that technology is a national security issue. Therefore, they have invested in their local capabilities and restricted foreign technologies’ access. The U.S., for example, has put export restrictions on high-end microchips and blocked some Chinese technology companies from accessing its market. China and other nations have increased efforts in developing independent ecosystems for technologies. This has given rise to parallel technology realms. This could result in a bifurcated” global economy with different standards and systems. The current trade war is also strengthening the advent of regional trading blocs.
Global trade agencies like the World Trade Organization are getting weakened. This is owing to the fact that the world’s major nations are competing with one another. Hence, the nations are currently opting for regional agreements to develop economic cooperation. Discuss the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) in Asia. And let’s not forget the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA). Collectively, these agreements represent a new era of globalization. It’s no longer a free-for-all; rather, it’s a strategic web spun with trusted partners and regional ambitions resulting in ‘islands’ or ‘regions’ of globalization. The new model of globalization creates greater independence and security for some but presents issues.
The countries that previously prospered from the exportation of goods and involvement in the global market may face greater challenges. As protectionism rises and competition becomes greater, customers may pay more. Economic inefficiencies are a likely reason. Additionally, the disintegration of international institutions may stop countries from agreeing on important issues. Problems like global warming, pandemics, and economic downturns can become harder to resolve. The current trade war will not end globalization, but it is reshaping it. We see a new type of globalization that is fragmented, regional, and strategic in character. Countries are still interdependent, but such economic dependency is underpinned by trust, security, and competition. Globalization is changing, so we must balance these changes with the imperatives of cooperation in our globalized world.
New types of globalization include regional trade blocs, reshaping supply chains, tech decoupling, and growing geopolitical tensions.
For Sri Lanka, the changes have far-reaching consequences.
Being a small nation strategically located, Sri Lanka relies on trade, tourism, and foreign investment. Globalization is, however, more fragmented and politicized and security-oriented. This offers opportunities and challenges for Sri Lanka. To survive, the country must reform its economic policies. It must diversify relationships and maneuver the rival interests of global powers with caution.
One of the most immediate effects of the new globalization is realigning global supply chains.
Multinationals want to wean themselves from China. They want to shift production elsewhere. Sri Lanka can be a new hub for light manufacturing, logistics, and services. Being located on key shipping routes in the Indian Ocean means that it is a vital node in global ocean trade. Sri Lanka can lure more foreign investment by improving its infrastructure, bolstering digital strength, and upgrading the regulations. This would help firms to open up business. This would create employment as well as improve export-led growth. But the shift towards regionalism in global trade also poses danger.
The rest of the countries outside these alignments might be left out as major economies create closed trading blocs. Examples include the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) and bilateral agreements like the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework. Sri Lanka is not part of most of the world’s biggest trade blocs, limiting its access to large markets and preferential trade conditions. Exclusion could make exports less competitive. It could also reduce the nation’s appeal as an international production base. To fulfill this, Sri Lanka must pursue trade agreements with regional powers like India and ASEAN nations in order to keep up with shifting trade networks. One key feature of the new era of globalization is a focus on ‘technological sovereignty’.
This includes the rise of alternative digital ecosystems, especially between China and the US. Sri Lanka must manage the tech divide wisely. Countries are closing doors to other people’s technologies and creating their own networks. Cyber security, digital infrastructure, and data governance require investments. Sri Lanka also needs to balance embracing new technology while preserving its digital sovereignty. Dependence on technology from a single country could yield dangers, as digital tools will be the main movers in the realms of governance, finance, and communication. Geopolitical competition, especially in the Indo-Pacific, also affects Sri Lanka’s economic and strategic location.
The island’s location has drawn China and India and Western nations. China’s involvement in Sri Lankan infrastructure projects, such as the Hambantota Port and the Colombo Port City, has yielded economic advantage as well as concerns regarding debt dependence and strategic control. Meanwhile, India and its allies have expressed interest in balancing Chinese power in the region. This is a sensitive balance that Sri Lanka has to exercise strategic diplomacy to reap foreign investment without being entangled in great power rivalry or compromising sovereignty. In addition, economic resilience in the face of global shocks—such as the COVID-19 pandemic, energy shocks, and food crises—has emerged as a top priority in the new era of globalization.
The recent economic slump in Sri Lanka, marked by a sovereign default, foreign exchange crises, and inflation, underscored the country’s vulnerability to global shocks. These events underscore the need for greater economic diversification, sound fiscal management, and long-term development. Sri Lanka must build stronger domestic industries, shift to clean energies, and transform regional supply systems that are less vulnerable to shocks from the outside. Generally speaking, therefore, the new patterns of globalization present Sri Lanka with a risk-laden world of possibility too.
While transforming global patterns of trade and investments creates new doors to economic growth, it steers the country towards more aggressive competition, geopolitical tensions, and internal vulnerabilities. To thrive in this fast-evolving world, Sri Lanka must adopt an assertive strategy of regional integration, technological resilience, strategic diplomacy, and inclusive economic reform. On the way, it can transform foreign uncertainty into a platform for sustainable and sovereign development.
The Communist Party (CP) of Sri Lanka yesterday (10) expressed grave concern over the NPP government’s unilateral decision to enter into a defence MOU with Quad-member India.
The CPSL urged All democratic and progressive forces to pressure the government to reveal the contents of the defence agreement with India. It also asked the NPP government to revive the Indian Ocean Peace Zone proposal at the UN and mobilise global opposition to militarisation in the region. All democratic and progressive forces had to build a United Front against a New Cold War, the CP has said.
General Secretary of CP Dr. G. Weerasinghe has issued the following statement: This decision has been taken without consultation or debate in Parliament and in the context of a New Cold War and heightened militarisation of the Indian Ocean.
During Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Sri Lanka from 4-6 April, a defence MOU was exchanged between Secretary of the Ministry of Defence of Sri Lanka retired Air Vice Marshal H.S. Sampath Thuyacontha and Indian Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri.
Indian media has framed this MOU as being part of Indian strategy to counter China’s presence in the region.
President Anura Kumara Dissanayake assured Modi that Sri Lanka, will not permit its territory to be used in any manner inimical to the security of India as well as towards regional stability”. While the CPSL has no fundamental objection to this, questions remain over India’s own commitment to regional stability.
The fact is that India is a member of the Quad and has partaken in US efforts to contain China in a New Cold War. In 2024, current US Secretary of State Marco Rubio tabled a bill in congress to grant India a status on par with NATO members. During a meeting between Modi and US President Donald Trump in February, India and the US entered into a 10-year defence partnership framework to transfer technology, expand co-production of arms, and strengthen military interoperability.
By entering into defence agreements with India, there is a very real danger of Sri Lanka being dragged into the Quad through the back door as a subordinate of India. Sri Lanka could become a de facto part of the Indo-Pacific Strategy and compromise its non-aligned status. This would be antithetical to Sri Lanka’s interests as China is a major investor and trade partner for the country and has supported our sovereignty in international fora.
Sri Lanka is currently not directly embroiled in any conflict with an external actor and therefore has no need to enter into defence agreements. The last defence agreement that Sri Lanka entered into was with the UK-Ceylon Defence Pact (1947-1957), which was a neocolonial arrangement detrimental to Sri Lanka’s sovereignty and international relations.
The defence MOU with India could also be interpreted as a step towards further militarisation of the Indian Ocean, which is a violation of the UN Declaration of the Indian Ocean as a Zone of Peace which both countries supported.”
Colombo, April 11 (Daily Mirror) – The U.S. does not have the economic capacity to impose its will on the rest of the world, former President Ranil Wickremesinghe said today.
He said the following in his statement:
In 1950 the U.S. had 50% of the world’s GDP. Today it is only 25%, China has 19% and the EU 13%. These high reciprocal tariffs seeks to destroy the manufacturing capacity of Asia from East Asia to South Asia. This also affects Australia. In one blow, the faith in the Indo Pacific has been lost. It will also weaken support for Taiwan in the region.
Many low paying jobs in Asia, totaling over millions will be affected. The aspirations of joining the middle class destroyed, public support will move towards China now. China stands strong in our part of the world. This was the best time for China to hit back when the whole world was affected, so they haven’t got to be isolated. It seems to have planned a response to the US. China has to survive 18 months till the US midterm elections. President Xi has no midterm elections. Russia is also winner from the US-China rivalry unscathed by tariffs and with a weaker US handling the Ukraine peace talks already, new proposals for a World Order has come out.
ASEAN especially wants the WTO to mediate in the question of tariffs. Former Prime Minister Gordon Brown has suggested a coalition of the willing and at the same time that China has to increase its domestic consumption, providing an alternate market. The question we faced earlier was determining China’s place in a U.S. made world order. Now we have to decide the place of U.S.
Former President Ranil Wickremesinghe has indicated that he is prepared to appear before the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption (CIABOC) to record a statement about the bribery case filed against New Democratic Front MP Chamara Sampath Dassanayake.
This is in response to the letter directed by CIABOC earlier today.
The communiqué issued by the Office of the former President states it is baffling and surprising about the quick reaction by the Bribery Commission to follow up on his media statement, which was given mere 18 hours ago.
However, the communiqué states that since the summons has been issued during the New Year period, the former President and his attorneys will not be available in Colombo, and therefore, a different date will be requested to appear before the commission.
Earlier today, in a letter directed to former President Wickremesinghe, the Assistant Director General of the CIABOC, Asitha Anthony has requested him to be present before the Commission at 09.30 a.m. on Thursday (April 17) with regard to a statement the ex-president had made about the case.
According to the letter, the Assistant Director General noted that the media statement made by the former President indicates that he has more information regarding the case and by making the statement he has gotten involved in the on-going investigations.
Accordingly, former President Ranil Wickremesinghe has been requested to present any relevant information to substantiate his recent statements made pertaining to the case filed against MP Dassanayake.
According to the letter, if the former President fails to appear before the Commission without a valid reason, the commission is bound to act according to the provisions given in article 126 of the Anti-Corruption Act, No. 9 of 2023.
Yesterday (Apr 7), former president Ranil Wickremesinghe claimed that MP Chamara Sampath Dassanayake withdrew the fixed deposits belonging to the Uva provincial council, over which he is now facing corruption charges, in accordance with a circular issued during his tenure as the prime minister.
The former president questioned whether the MP’s arrest over the matter was in response to his vocal criticism of the government in parliament.
Parliamentarian Chamara Sampath Dassanayake has been remanded until 21 April by the Badulla Magistrate’s Court for allegedly misappropriating a sum of Rs. 1 million of the Uva Provincial Council in 2016.
MP Chamara Sampath Dassanayake was taken into custody on March 27, over three separate corruption-related cases.
The Colombo Magistrate’s Court previously granted bail in the cases filed against him but he remains in remand custody due to an order issued by the Badulla Magistrate’s Court.
According to the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption (CIABOC), Dassanayake had solicited funds from three state banks, claiming they were intended to provide bags for preschool children in the province.
Two banks complied, granting him Rs. 1 million and Rs. 2.5 million, which were later transferred to his personal foundation account.
However, when a third bank refused to provide funds, Dassanayake reportedly retaliated by withdrawing the Uva Provincial Council’s fixed deposits from that institution.
The Bribery Commission filed a case against the MP, citing the government incurred a financial loss of Rs. 17.3 million due to his actions.
For decades, Sri Lanka has benefited from substantial international development assistance aimed at addressing our national priorities. From education and agriculture to climate resilience initiatives, donor-funded projects have catalysed progress and innovation across the country. Yet as we navigate our economic recovery, a disturbing pattern undermines the effectiveness of this vital support—one that demands immediate national attention.
The Accountability Gap
Despite formal financing agreements between international donors and the Government of Sri Lanka, our internal oversight mechanisms remain woefully inadequate. Government ministries routinely treat donor-funded Project Management Units (PMUs) as independent entities rather than integrated extensions of their core functions. This systematic detachment creates a dangerous accountability vacuum.
When international funding agencies—bilateral, multilateral, and philanthropic—allocate resources to Sri Lanka, they do so based on trust. These funds represent not gifts but partnerships built on mutual accountability. The funds come from foreign taxpayers who expect their contributions to yield meaningful outcomes for Sri Lanka’s development.
Yet the evidence shows an alarming pattern: even with PMUs embedded within ministries and staffed by qualified professionals, government engagement remains superficial. Many ministries fully delegate responsibilities to PMUs and consultants without conducting data analysis, field verification, or performance reviews. This hands-off approach not only delays implementation but fundamentally undermines the sustainability of outcomes once projects conclude.
The Transparency Crisis
Recent assessments reveal that only approximately 40% of key information on foreign-funded projects is publicly accessible in Sri Lanka. More concerning still, procurement-related disclosures—where corruption risks are highest—hover at a mere 20%. These statistics represent more than technical shortcomings; they signal a critical transparency deficit that threatens future donor partnerships.
If Sri Lanka wishes to maintain the confidence of international partners in this competitive global funding landscape, transparency must become non-negotiable. Our public financial management systems require urgent modernization, including real-time tracking mechanisms, digital performance dashboards, and comprehensive stakeholder reporting.
The Policy Implementation Paradox
Perhaps most troubling is the recurring investment of donor funds into national policies and strategies that never transcend paper. Year after year, substantial resources support the development of sophisticated policy frameworks involving international consultants, local experts, and senior officials. Yet once these documents are finalized, implementation responsibility dissolves. No ministry claims ownership, budgets remain unallocated, and institutional responsibilities remain undefined.
This represents more than inefficiency—it constitutes a fundamental breach of trust. Several longstanding development partners have already withdrawn support from Sri Lanka due to these systemic weaknesses. Projects funded by organizations such as USAID have concluded with limited long-term impact, primarily due to the absence of national vision and political will to implement recommendations.
A Solution: Centralized Coordination and Oversight
The time has come for Sri Lanka to establish a National Donor Project Management and Oversight Unit under the direct authority of the Presidential Secretariat. This entity must be:
Legally empowered to monitor all donor-funded activities across ministries
Staffed with monitoring specialists, financial analysts, and data management experts
Required to publish quarterly performance reports accessible to Parliament and the public
Authorized to address implementation delays, inefficiencies, and budgetary issues regardless of sector
This unit would serve not to duplicate donor functions but to ensure coherence and accountability across all externally funded initiatives, providing the government with real-time insight into implementation challenges.
Proven Tools for Enhanced Governance
Sri Lanka can adopt globally proven mechanisms to strengthen implementation integrity. Integrity pacts—formal agreements among funders, government entities, and contractors to abstain from corrupt practices—have demonstrated effectiveness in countries facing similar challenges. Additionally, third-party monitoring through civil society organizations and academic institutions can provide independent verification of progress.
These approaches have yielded positive results throughout South Asia and beyond. What Sri Lanka requires is the leadership commitment to implement them systematically.
Government ministries must transition from passive observers to active stewards of donor investments. This means integrating donor-funded initiatives into national planning cycles, aligning them with sectoral strategies, and applying the same rigorous oversight used for government-funded programs.
Donor projects should function as seamless extensions of our national development agenda—implemented through ministries with clear lines of accountability to citizens, Parliament, and the wider public service.
Capacity Building as Strategic Investment
Officials often cite capacity constraints as justification for implementation shortfalls. However, capacity development cannot occur in isolation. Ministries must prioritize training in results-based management, financial reporting, and evaluation methodologies. These skills are essential not only for current project delivery but for building sustainable systems that endure beyond individual funding cycles.
Conclusion: From Symbolism to Stewardship
Sri Lanka stands at a pivotal moment. With fewer international donors active in our country and intensifying global competition for development finance, we can no longer afford to treat external assistance as supplementary funding. Every rupee must generate measurable value for our citizens—a goal achievable only through meticulous planning, oversight, and execution.
The government has a historic opportunity to redefine its relationship with the international development community. This requires taking genuine ownership of every project from conception to completion, ensuring policies translate into action, and rebuilding donor confidence at this critical juncture in our national development.
This is not merely a call for better documentation or retrospective evaluations. It is an urgent appeal for transformative leadership, coordination, and governance reform. The future of Sri Lanka’s development partnerships—and the benefits they bring to our people—depends on our actions today.
The views expressed in this article are based on extensive experience in the development sector and do not represent any organization.
Muslims should their house in Order and stop collaborating with Israel and NATO’s war machine and their Saudi Wahhabi- Salafi- ISIS Project
Explaining Arab political failure to challenge Israel through traditional analysis—such as disunity, general weakness, and a failure to prioritize Palestine—does not capture the full picture.
The idea that Israel is brutalizing Palestinians simply because the Arabs are too weak to challenge the Benjamin Netanyahu government—or any government—implies that, in theory, Arab regimes could unite around Palestine. However, this view oversimplifies the matter.
Many well-meaning pro-Palestine commentators have long urged Arab nations to unite, pressure Washington to reassess its unwavering support for Israel, and take decisive actions to lift the siege on Gaza, among other crucial steps.
While these steps may hold some value, the reality is far more complex, and such wishful thinking is unlikely to change the behavior of Arab governments. These regimes are more concerned with sustaining or returning to some form of status quo—one in which Palestine’s liberation remains a secondary priority.
Since the start of the Israeli genocide in Gaza on October 7, 2023, the Arab position on Israel has been weak at best, and treasonous at worst.
Some Arab governments even went so far as to condemn Palestinian resistance in United Nations debates. While countries like China and Russia at least attempted to contextualize the October 7 Hamas assault on Israeli occupation forces imposing a brutal siege on Gaza, countries like Bahrain placed the blame squarely on the Palestinians.
With a few exceptions, it took Arab governments weeks—or even months—to develop a relatively strong stance that condemned the Israeli offensive in any meaningful terms.
Though the rhetoric began to shift slowly, the actions did not follow. While the Ansarallah movement in Yemen, alongside other Arab non-state actors, attempted to impose some form of pressure on Israel through a blockade, Arab countries instead worked to ensure Israel could withstand the potential consequences of its isolation.
In his book War, Bob Woodward disclosed that some Arab governments told then-US Secretary of State Antony Blinken that they had no objections to Israel’s efforts to crush Palestinian resistance. However, some were concerned about the media images of mutilated Palestinian civilians, which could stir public unrest in their own countries.
That public unrest never materialized, and with time, the genocide, famine, and cries for help in Gaza were normalized as yet another tragic event, not unlike the war in Sudan or the strife in Syria.
For 15 months of relentless Israeli genocide that resulted in the killing and wounding of over 162,000 Palestinians in Gaza, official Arab political institutions remained largely irrelevant in ending the war. The US Biden administration was emboldened by such Arab inaction, continuing to push for greater normalization between Arab countries and Israel—even in the face of over 15,000 children killed in Gaza in the most brutal ways imaginable.
While the moral failures of the West, the shortcomings of international law, and the criminal actions of Biden and his administration have been widely criticized, for serving as a shield for Israel’s war crimes, the complicity of Arab governments in enabling these atrocities is often ignored.
The Arabs have, in fact, played a more significant role in the Israeli atrocities in Gaza than we often recognize. Some through their silence, and others through direct collaboration with Israel.
Throughout the war, reports surfaced indicating that some Arab countries actively lobbied in Washington on behalf of Israel, advocating against an Egyptian-Arab League proposal aimed at reconstructing Gaza without ethnically cleansing its population—an idea promoted by the Trump Administration and Israel.
The Egyptian proposal, which was unanimously accepted by Arab countries at their summit on March 4, represented the strongest and most unified stance taken by the Arab world during the war.
The proposal, which was rejected by Israel and dismissed by the US, helped shift discourse in the US around the subject of ethnic cleansing. It ultimately led to comments made on March 12 by Trump during a meeting with Irish Prime Minister Micheál Martin where he stated that No one’s expelling anyone from Gaza.”
For some Arab states o actively oppose the only relatively strong Arab position signals that the issue of Arab failures in Palestine goes beyond mere disunity or incompetence—it reflects a much darker and more cynical reality. Some Arabs align their interests with Israel, where a free Palestine isn’t just a non-issue, but a threat.
The same applies to the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah, which continues to work hand in hand with Israel to suppress any form of resistance in the West Bank. Its concern in Gaza is not about ending the genocide, but ensuring the marginalization of its Palestinian rivals, particularly Hamas.
Thus, blaming the PA for mere ‘weakness,’ for ‘not doing enough,’ or for failing to unify the Palestinian ranks is a misreading of the situation. The priorities of Mahmoud Abbas and his PA allies are far different: securing relative power over Palestinians, a power that can only be sustained through Israeli military dominance.
These are difficult, yet critical truths, as they allow us to reframe the conversation, moving away from the false assumption that Arab unity will resolve everything.
The flaw in the unity theory is that it naively assumes Arab regimes inherently reject Israeli occupation and support Palestine.
While some Arab governments are genuinely outraged by Israel’s criminal behavior and growingly frustrated by the US’ irrational policies in the region, others are driven by self-interest: their animosity toward Iran and fear of rising Arab non-state actors. They are equally concerned about instability in the region, which threatens their hold on power amid a rapidly shifting world order.
As solidarity with Palestine has increasingly expanded from the global South to the global majority, Arabs remain largely ineffective, fearing that significant political change in the region could directly challenge their own position. What they fail to understand is that their silence, or their active support for Israel, may very well lead to their own downfall.
Ramzy Baroud is a journalist and the Editor of The Palestine Chronicle. He is the author of five books. His latest is These Chains Will Be Broken: Palestinian Stories of Struggle and Defiance in Israeli Prisons” (Clarity Press, Atlanta). Dr. Baroud is a Non-resident Senior Research Fellow at the Center for Islam and Global Affairs (CIGA), Istanbul Zaim University (IZU). His website is www.ramzybaroud.net
Police investigating the 2019 Easter Sunday carnage have taken former State Minister Sivanesathurai Chandrakanthan, alias Pilleyan, into custody.
Police said that he had been arrested in Batticaloa and brought to Colombo. The CID questioned the former lawmaker on 20 November, 2024 following the accusations made by Hanzeer Azad Maulana, one time spokesperson for the Tamil Makkal Viduthalai Pulikal, led by Pilleyan, that his former leader had arranged for a meeting between a senior military intelligence officer and Muslim extremists detained at the Batticaloa Prison. Moulana made the accusation in a documentary produced by UK’s Channel 4.
By Yohan Perera and Ajith Siriwardana Courtesy The Daily Mirror
Colombo, April 10 (Daily Mirror) – This government will not lay their hands on either Mahinda Rajapaksa or Ranil Wickremesinghe though they brag about apprehending robbers, MP Chamara Samapth Dassanayake told Parliament.
“You will only catch few small fish instead of big ones. I am the only sitting MP which the present government has arrested,” MP Dassanayake added.
He said the Beragala detention camp was the most dangerous though the government is harping only on Batalanda.
India’s plan to develop a major energy hub in Trincomalee, Sri Lanka, marks a strategic move to strengthen its presence in the Indo-Pacific and counter China’s growing influence in the region. Trincomalee’s deep-water harbour, historic oil tank farm, and strategic location near India make it ideal for energy storage, supply, and transit. Partnering with the UAE brings financial muscle and technical expertise, helping ensure reliable energy access for both India and Sri Lanka. The project supports regional energy security, boosts Sri Lanka’s economy, and serves as a counterbalance to China’s debt-trap diplomacy,” especially after Beijing’s control of Sri Lanka’s Hambantota Port. Beyond energy, the initiative deepens India-Sri Lanka defence ties, including a five-year military cooperation agreement, and signals India’s broader aim to be Sri Lanka’s most dependable partner in development and security
Foreign Militaries and Mercenaries Dirty War Operations, Paramilitary terror and Torture House Training Operations a la the Jakarta Method” and Operation Colombo” to Bolster ‘Yankie Dickie’ Jayawardena against India, then allied closely with the Socialist block and Soviet Union/ Russia.
Is history repeating with the setting up of Chabad Houses all over Sri Lanka?
ISRAEL SAID TO AID SRI LANKA FORCES—New York Times Archives
Credit…The New York Times Archives
Israeli intelligence agents and former British Army commandos are training Sri Lanka’s security forces as part of a new drive by the Government to combat a violent Tamil separatist movement in the north, the country’s National Security Affairs Minister says.
The minister, Lalith Athulathmudali, said in an interview this week that the training programs were aimed at overhauling the organization of intelligence gathering, building an effective information-gathering network and training a paramilitary unit to combat the Tamil insurgents.
(In Israel, Government officials denied any role in military training aid to Sri Lanka. A Sri Lanka official on a private visit to Israel had hinted earlier at assistance from the Israelis in an antiter rorist intelligence program.)
Mr. Athulathmudali, reiterating statements made last month by the President of Sri Lanka, Junius R. Jayawardene, said Sri Lanka had turned to the Israelis as a final resort after the United States, Britain and West Germany rejected official requests for aid in improving the intellligence system and training troops in counterinsurgency. Diplomatic Ties Broken in ’70
Since June 1 Sri Lanka has allowed Israel, with which it broke diplomatic relations in 1970, to maintain a special interests section under the protection of the United States Embassy here.
”Our intelligence system was not geared to this kind of thing,” said Mr. Athulathmudali. About 10 Israeli agents have trained about 100 Ceylonese in intelligence tactics in the last two months, he said.
”They come in batches and give a course,” the minister said. ”They do not go outside the classroom.” The training is being conducted in Colombo at a site that Mr. Athulathmudali declined to identify.
The minister said that former members of Britain’s Special Air Service, now working for a private security company based in the Channel Islands off Britain, had already trained a group of paratroopers who took part in a recent antiterrorist operation. They performed ”quite well,” and ”have come back for further training,” he said. Britons’ Presence Confirmed
A British diplomat said he did not know much about the British training team although he confirmed that they were here.
The presence of the Israelis, the Security Affairs Minister said, drew a few initial protests from ambassadors of nations proclaiming nonalignment, especially from the Middle East. The displeasure eased, he said, after President Jayewardene summoned the Arab diplomats and told them this was an internal matter.
But the Moslems of Sri Lanka were offended, and there has been rioting this summer to protest Mr. Jayewardene’s announcement about Israeli assistance. ”The Moslems are still angry,” a senior Government source said, ”although they have become quieter on the issue.”
The matter has been complicated by the recent visit of a high Government official to Jerusalem, where he spoke of Arab pressure on Sri Lanka to end dealings with Israel and of how the Government had resisted it. The official is Douglas Liyanage, secretary in the Ministry of State and the chief censor of domestic news reports.
In an apparent attempt to head off a possible outburst of Arab irritation, a Government spokesman said Thursday that Mr. Liyanage had not been authorized to visit Israel and that his statements represented his private views. Israelis Deny Training Role
JERUSALEM, Aug. 25 – Israeli Government officials have denied any role in military training aid to Sri Lanka.
A Sri Lanka official on a private visit here a few days ago hinted at Israeli antiterrorist intelligence help.
Officials here, when asked about reports of help in military training, have always said there was no operative aid, suggesting Israel was not involved in current military operations against Tamil dissidents.
Last week they said the only Israeli experts in Sri Lanka were two diplomats manning the new Israeli interests office in the United States Embassy in Colombo and three agricultural experts.
Mr. Liyanage, secretary of the Sri Lanka Ministry of State, the official who was on a visit here, said his country was benefiting from Israel’s broad experience in antiterrorist intelligence and that British military experts who had served in Oman were also helping Sri Lanka.
Mr. Liyanage said in an interview in The Jerusalem Post that Israeli security experts had not been involved in sea patrols or other operational activity, but had helped improve intelligence efforts in the civil strife. Gandhi Voices Concern
NEW DELHI, Aug. 25 (Reuters) – Prime Minister Indira Gandhi said today she was deeply concerned over reports that Israeli aid was being provided to the Sri Lanka Government in its fight against Tamil separatists.
The Press Trust of India news agency quoted Mrs. Gandhi as telling the lower house of Parliament, ”We do not like the presence of foreign troops or any type of interference.” She said that British experts were also understood to be providing antiguerrilla training to Sri Lanka’s security forces.
The news agency quoted the Prime Minister as having said the Indian Government was trying to help bring an early end to the tensions in Sri Lanka.
”We are doing everything possible to try to bring people to the negotiating table, offering our good offices to Sri Lanka as a friendly neighbor,” she said.
She denied accusations by Sri Lanka that India had planned an invasion of the island republic last year after ethnic violence in which 400 people, mainly Tamils, died. ”There was no such plan,” she said.
On Sunday, the New York Times published an extensive article on US involvement in the Ukraine war entitled The Partnership: The Secret History of the War in Ukraine,” which admits that America was woven into the war far more intimately and broadly than previously understood.”
The United States” was woven into the killing of Russian soldiers on sovereign Russian soil,” the Times report asserts.
The article is an admission that the United States waged, and is waging, an undeclared, unauthorized and illegal war against Russia. It makes clear that American officers, some deployed inside Ukraine, have been selecting targets for attack and authorizing individual strikes, making them, for all intents and purposes, combatants.
The article documents how, over the course of the war, the Biden administration systematically violated its own restriction on the conduct of war, up to the point of authorizing the attacks on Russian territory, using American weapons, ordered by American commanders.
The Times report explains that American officers decided what Russian troops and civilian targets would be attacked, transmitted their coordinates to the Ukrainian military, then authorized the attacks using weapons provided by the NATO powers themselves. It reports that American and British soldiers were deployed to Ukraine to personally direct combat operations.
The article presents a picture of the Ukraine war in which the American military planned everything from large-scale strategic troop movements to every individual long-range strike. As the article explains, American and Ukrainian officers planned Kyiv’s counteroffensives. A vast American intelligence-collection effort both guided big-picture battle strategy and funneled precise targeting information down to Ukrainian soldiers in the field.”
The US command center in Wiesbaden, Germany would oversee each HIMARS [long-range missile] strike” against Russian troops. US officers would review the Ukrainians’ target lists and advise them on positioning their launchers and timing their strikes.”
So tight was the US oversight that The Ukrainians were supposed to only use coordinates the Americans provided. To fire a warhead, HIMARS [missile] operators needed a special electronic key card, which the Americans could deactivate anytime.”
As the Times account explains, Each morning, U.S. and Ukrainian military officers set targeting priorities—Russian units, pieces of equipment or infrastructure. American and coalition intelligence officers searched satellite imagery, radio emissions and intercepted communications to find Russian positions. Task Force Dragon then gave the Ukrainians the coordinates so they could shoot at them.”
As a result of this arrangement, the United States military was, in the words of one European intelligence official quoted in the article, part of the kill chain,” i.e., making decisions about which Russian troops and infrastructure would be attacked.
Among the targets provided by the US to Ukrainian troops was the Moskva, the flagship of the Black Sea fleet, which was attacked and sunk on April 14, 2022. The US also provided coordinates for a long-range missile attack on the Kerch bridge from the Russian mainland to Crimea. For the first time, the Times reports that the Ukrainian attack on the 2024 Toropets arsenal west of Moscow was directed by the Central Intelligence Agency. As the article explains, C.I.A. officers shared intelligence about the depot’s munitions and vulnerabilities, as well as Russian defense systems on the way to Toropets. They calculated how many drones the operation would require and charted their circuitous flight paths.”
The article points to the lengths to which American officers went to obfuscate their direction of the war. As the Times explains, The locations of Russian forces would be ‘points of interest.’ As one official cited in the article explained, If you ever get asked the question, ‘Did you pass a target to the Ukrainians?’ you can legitimately not be lying when you say, ‘No, I did not.’” The Times wrote that HIMARS strikes that resulted in 100 or more Russian dead or wounded came almost weekly.”
Just as importantly, the Times article also admits that an undisclosed number of active duty US troops were deployed to Ukraine. Time and again, the Biden administration authorized clandestine operations it had previously prohibited. American military advisers were dispatched to Kyiv and later allowed to travel closer to the fighting.” And the British military had placed small teams of officers in the country after the invasion.”
In addition, the article provides extensive details on the conflicts between various US and Ukrainian officials, and within the US military itself, over the direction of the war. If a single, unified theme emerges from these various conflicts and disagreements, it is the consistent pressure by the United States for Ukraine to mobilize a broader share of its population, and in particular more and more young people, to fight and die in the US-led war.
The article recounts the demand by General Christopher Cavoli, then NATO’s supreme allied commander for Europe, to get your 18-year-olds in the game.” It noted the demand by Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin to Ukrainian President Zelensky to take the bigger, bolder step and begin drafting 18-year-olds.” As one American official complained, it’s not an existential war if they won’t make their people fight.”
Indeed, it is not an existential war.” It is not a war of self-defense. It is a US-NATO war, directed and led by NATO officers, with Ukrainians doing the dying.
This report contradicts nearly everything that the Biden administration, and the New York Times itself, had told the public about the Ukraine war since it began over three years ago.
The official position of the White House throughout the Biden administration was that NATO is not involved” in the war in Ukraine, as White House spokesperson Jen Psaki stated in 2022. It is not a proxy war,” Psaki said, This is a war between Russia and Ukraine.” Those who claimed the contrary were, in the words of the White House, repeating Kremlin talking points.”
The New York Times systematically supported the Biden administration’s false claims about the degree of US involvement in the war, condemning true assertions that the United States was waging war against Russia as Russian propaganda.” As the Times wrote in March 20, 2022, Using a barrage of increasingly outlandish falsehoods, President Vladimir V. Putin has created an alternative reality, one in which Russia is at war not with Ukraine but with a larger, more pernicious enemy in the West.”
But the Times does not attempt to reconcile its own admission now that America was woven into the war far more intimately and broadly than previously understood” and its earlier statement that claims of American involvement in the war constituted an alternate reality.”
To be blunt, the New York Times deliberately lied to the American public for years.
Why did the Biden administration engage in war against Russia, without telling the American people? And why did the Times, which obviously knew all of this in real time, never tell the public?
In War, the book by journalist Bob Woodward on the Biden administration, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan explained the Biden administration’s thinking on the Ukraine war:
Biden felt his ability to really support Ukraine fully, have their back with weapons and consequential levels of support, rested on his ability to reassure the American people that they were not going to get their country dragged into that war. The president has essentially created the necessary permission structure for sustained American support to Ukraine.
In other words, the ability of the United States to fight a war with Russia was premised on the American public not knowing that the United States was fighting a war against Russia. And the Times saw it as its duty to enable this war by covering up the real extent of US involvement.
Had the Times acknowledged the extent to which Washington was directing the war, it would have burst the propaganda bubble about Ukraine waging a defensive fight for democracy” against Putin’s unprovoked war of aggression.” The fact of the matter is that the war was and remains a US-led imperialist war aimed at subjugating Russia to the status of a semi-colony, and seizing control of key natural resources and geostrategically significant territory in a new redivision of the world.
The Times is not a newspaper in a strict sense of the term—a sort of fourth estate” independently reporting in the public interest. It is the quasi-official publication of sections of the state. As such, what it reveals, and what it lies about, are dictated by the interests of those factions.
The lies of the Times must be contrasted to the coverage of the World Socialist Web Site. Each and every one of the major points belatedly admitted by the Times was reported in real time by the WSWS. Since the 2022 invasion, the WSWS consistently referred to the war in Ukraine as the US-NATO war against Russia in Ukraine”—a characterization that is completely consistent with the latest account published in the New York Times.
The lasting legacy of the Ukraine war, beyond the countless number of Ukrainian and Russian lives lost—which collectively number in the hundreds of thousands—is the breaking of an effective prohibition, in place since the end of World War II, on a direct war against a nuclear-armed state by the United States.
Whatever the future course of the Ukraine war —which is far from certain despite the efforts of the Trump administration to refocus US resources on war with China—a precedent has been set. In the event that the Trump administration provokes a crisis over the Taiwan Strait, or anywhere else in the world, this precedent will be invoked as the basis for ever further military escalation.
We remind our readers that publication of articles on our site does not mean that we agree with what is written. Our policy is to publish anything which we consider of interest, so as to assist our readers in forming their opinions. Sometimes we even publish articles with which we totally disagree, since we believe it is important for our readers to be informed on as wide a spectrum of views as possible.
United Republican Front (URF) leader Patali Champika Ranawaka, on Monday (07), said that the signing of MoUs/agreements with India seemed to be a unilateral decision taken by President Anura Kumara Dissanayake at the expense of his government, as well as the country.
The former Minister alleged that the relevant ministers and officials hadn’t been consulted in this regard. Ranawaka was addressing a public gathering, in Batticaloa, in support of URF candidates contesting the forthcoming LG polls, under the ‘Pencil’ symbol.
The ex-lawmaker said that some of these MoUs would require passage by a two-thirds majority in Parliament, and a referendum, in case they were contrary to the Constitution.
Ranawaka said that nothing was known about the MoU on defence cooperation. The URF leader accused the NPP of betraying the country and pursuing an agenda inimical to the country’s interests. The ex-Minister asked President Dissanayake whether he would give into President Trump’s demand to station US troops here to do away with increased tariffs on Sri Lankan exports, (SF)
Colombo, April 9 (Daily Mirror) – Former Health Minister Rajitha Senaratne claimed that if someone like President Ranil Wickremesinghe were currently in government, he would have directly engaged with Elon Musk, Senior Advisor to the U.S. President, to negotiate a reduction of the 44% tariff imposed on Sri Lankan goods.
Addressing the media, Senaratne said that U.S. President Donald Trump operated under the influence of Elon Musk, who he claimed was the person proposing tariff rates to the President.
“Ranil Wickremesinghe is the only Sri Lankan who has had a cup of tea with Elon Musk and the only person to invite him to bring the Starlink satellite internet service to Sri Lanka,” he said.
He further said that Musk’s provision of Starlink internet in Sri Lanka wouldn’t earn him any significant profit. “The revenue from Starlink isn’t even enough for Elon Musk’s pocket money. Yet, he agreed to provide it out of friendship with Ranil Wickremesinghe,” Senaratne added.
Although the Telecommunications Regulatory Commission of Sri Lanka (TRCSL) had approved Starlink, the government was toppled before the project could move forward. At the time, NPP Economic Council member Sunil Handunnetti referred to Elon Musk as an “economic hitman.”
Senaratne also noted that Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi successfully negotiated a tariff reduction to 27% after speaking with the U.S. President. Similarly, the Presidents of Cambodia and Vietnam held direct phone conversations with the U.S. President.
Colombo, April 10 (Daily Mirror) – India has proposed a land connectivity project with Sri Lanka once again during the visit of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, but the Sri Lankan government has not committed yet, the Daily Mirror learns.
In 2002, the then Sri Lankan government proposed a land bridge between Rameswaram in Tamil Nadu, India, and Talaimannar in Sri Lanka. That was based on the ancient land link called Ram Setu or Adam’s Bridge.
According to the plan, road and rail bridge links were proposed to be developed.
Later, the two sides again started talks on the project, and it even crept into the joint statement issued during the time of the last government. It was not included in the joint statement issued after the visit of President Anura Kumara Dissanayake to New Delhi last year, though.
During the latest visit of Prime Minister Modi, the Indian side proposed it. The Sri Lankan government did not respond to it immediately, as reported.
Prime Minister Modi, on his way back from Sri Lanka, had a Darshan of Ram Setu, also known as Adam’s Bridge, a vast chain of natural limestone shoals that spans an impressive 30 miles (48 km) over the Indian Ocean. This ancient land bridge is celebrated for its geological, historical, and mythological significance. The ancient limestone bridge is believed to have been built by Lord Ram.
Meanwhile, India is ready to consider Sri Lanka’s request to increase the apparel export quota to 50 million units only in terms of the proposed Economic and Technology Cooperation Agreement (ETCA), the Daily Mirror learns.
In the wake of the United States slapping 44 percent tariffs on Sri Lankan exports, Sri Lanka is currently in the process of exploring fresh avenues to support businesses now grappling with U.S. tariffs.
Recently, Foreign Minister Vijitha Herath is reported to have said that Sri Lanka requested India to expand the quota to export under the Indo-Lanka Free Trade Agreement to 50 million units from the current 8 million.
However, Daily Mirror learns that this is a demand made by the Sri Lankan side during talks on ETCA.
India is ready to look at Sri Lanka’s request only when negotiations resume on ETCA.
Colombo, April 9 (Daily Mirror) – SJB MP Jagath Vithana alleged in Parliament that former President Ranil Wickremesinghe funded Maithripala Sirisena’s 2015 Presidential campaign-on the condition that Arjuna Mahendran be appointed Central Bank Governor.
The MP said he will reveal much more of a fresh investigation being held into the Bond Scam if he is summoned for it.
President Anura Kumara Dissanayake emphasized that since assuming office, the current government has taken decisive steps to free the process of combating bribery and corruption from political interference.
He emphasised that while the political mechanism has been liberated from engaging in such crimes, it is now the responsibility of the administrative machinery operating beneath that political structure to fall in line and correct its course without delay.
He explained that a grace period of six months has already been provided for the state officials to adjust to this new direction. The President firmly warned that if the public service mechanism fails to act appropriately within this period, the government will not hesitate to take firm legal action against those officials from May onwards.
President Dissanayake expressed these views today (09), participating in the launch of the National Anti-Corruption Action Plan 2025–2029, held at the Bandaranaike Memorial International Conference Hall (BMICH) in Colombo, according to the President’s Media Division (PMD).
Bribery and corruption have proliferated, undermining the integrity and values of the country’s state institutions, the President said. He observed that over the past six months of the present government, no section of the public service has been allowed to collapse and that if officials continue to resist change, the government will proceed to remove and replace them after May.
The President pointed out that bribery and corruption have caused the nation to fall behind for decades in the eyes of the world. He reiterated that enforcing the law against these crimes is not an act of political revenge but a profound human responsibility.
The President stressed the need to build a society that respects the law and fears wrongdoing, adding that conducting lectures or workshops alone would not suffice in achieving this goal. He emphasised that people must practically witness that any person who commits a crime will be subjected to punishment under the law.
President Dissanayake noted that corruption in Sri Lanka ranges from minor bribery, from the village level to bringing poor quality medicinal drugs. Bribery and corruption have escalated from minor instances to grave financial crimes, extending from local councils to looting the Central Bank.
The President further said that previous rulers safeguarded and protected those engaged in corrupt activities.
He also revealed the emergence of a network of thieves within several state administrative institutions and certain bodies responsible for enforcing the law, comprising underworld elements involved in bribery and corruption. He confirmed that these criminal networks have already been identified and assured that measures will be implemented in the future to dismantle and eliminate them.
President Dissanayake solemnly pledged that the responsibility of eradicating bribery and corruption will not be passed on to the next generation but will be resolved within this generation itself, under the leadership of the present government.
Drawing a comparison with India, which gained independence a year before Sri Lanka, the President noted that through a consistent national policy framework, India has successfully achieved space exploration and built a massive workforce in the software industry.
In stark contrast, he pointed out that Sri Lanka, due to poor decisions made by its political leadership, was declared a bankrupt state in 2022.
He further stated that the current government has taken on the responsibility of leading Sri Lanka towards the international stage through a national policy framework that ensures transparency and accountability for every rupee spent from public funds.
The President added that by implementing this framework, it is possible to build public trust in law enforcement and judicial institutions and that it must be made clear to the people that there will be no mechanism available for anyone to escape the law after committing a crime.
He stated that the purpose of the National Anti-Corruption Action Plan 2025-2029 is to guide the country towards becoming a nation of integrity. The government plans to establish Internal Affairs Unit within all state institutions including the Presidential Secretariat and implement a system for monitoring these units through digital technology to ensure accountability and transparency.
The Action Plan has been designed around four key strategic priority areas: prevention and public participation, institutional strengthening and the enforcement of law along with reforms in law and policy.
The President highlighted that eliminating bribery and corruption is one of the most decisive factors in a country’s development and progress. In Sri Lanka, the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption (CIABOC) has been identified as the leading state institution entrusted with strengthening this mechanism. Accordingly, it was recognised that a robust national anti-corruption policy that operates across all sectors is essential to creating a corruption-free society.
In preparing this Action Plan, CIABOC engaged all relevant stakeholders by conducting extensive programmes at both national and provincial levels. A broad public consultation process was carried out, including a comprehensive survey to assess public opinion on corruption through media announcements in all three languages and via social media networks, the statement said.
This process gathered proposals from a diverse range of participants, including Members of Parliament, judges, state officials, the private sector, international organisations, civil society organisations, community-based organisations, religious groups, persons with special needs, media professionals, youth, children and the general public. Additionally, foreign state experiences and suggestions from various groups across all provinces were taken into consideration when formulating the Action Plan.
By implementing this National Anti-Corruption Action Plan, the government hopes to foster a committed citizenry determined to combat corruption, a political will fully supportive of this effort, a comprehensive legal framework and a disciplined, transparent public service across all sectors, with the shared vision of building a country of integrity for future generations.
Addressing the event, the Japanese Ambassador to Sri Lanka, Hideaki Mizukoshi, stated that Corruption remains a great challenge for many countries, including Sri Lanka as it undermines economic growth, weakens public trust in government institutions and discourages foreign investment. However, he noted that due to the reform initiatives of the present government, investors are once again showing increasing interest in Sri Lanka.
Ambassador Mizukoshi further stated that Japan has always believed that transparency and good governance are fundamental pillars for sustainable economic development and therefore, has supported anti-corruption initiatives globally for over a decade.
Meanwhile, the UNDP Resident Representative in Sri Lanka, Ms. Azusa Kubota, stated that according to Sri Lanka’s first-ever National Taxpayer Perception Survey conducted last year, 84% of respondents indicated that corruption directly affects their willingness to pay taxes.
She further noted that corruption deters investment, increases the cost of doing business, undermines sustainable development and human security, and causes an estimated annual loss of USD 1.3 trillion for developing countries.
Referring to the Budget Speech delivered by the President, Ms. Kubota emphasised that the State must be accountable for every cent of taxpayers’ money and stated that this Action Plan would serve as a roadmap for transforming Sri Lankan society.
The event was attended by the Chief Justice, Supreme Court Justice Murdu Fernando; the Attorney General, Parinda Ranasinghe PC; the Secretary to the President, Dr. Nandika Sanath Kumanayake; the Chairman of CIABOC, former High Court Judge Neil Iddawela; the Director General of CIABOC, R.S.A. Dissanayake; the Commanders of the Tri-Forces; the Inspector General of Police; senior officials from the security forces and a large number of state officials.
Health officials urge the public to remain vigilant and seek immediate medical attention if they experience symptoms linked to mosquito-borne diseases, as cases of Chikungunya, dengue, and malaria are back on the rise in Sri Lanka.
Officials warn that the global spread of Chikungunya — now reported in over 115 countries — is also being observed locally. So far, 190 suspected cases have been reported in Sri Lanka, of which 65 have been clinically confirmed.
The highest number of cases has been recorded from the Western Province.
Medical professionals stress that with the current increase in mosquito populations, proactive measures are essential to control the spread. They recommend eliminating mosquito breeding grounds as a key step in prevention.
Meanwhile, health authorities are also battling a resurgence of dengue.
At the Ratnapura Teaching Hospital, 87 individuals, including 37 staff members, are currently being treated for the disease. In response, urgent cleaning operations are reportedly underway at the hospital premises and surrounding areas.
In a separate development, a confirmed case of malaria has been detected at the Horana District Hospital. The patient, a resident of Ellakanda in Horana, had recently returned to the country from overseas.
According to the Kalutara Malaria Control Unit, while no primary vector mosquitoes were found in the area, secondary vector species were detected.
The Health Entomology Division has since launched an awareness campaign in the neighborhood, educating residents and distributing mosquito nets as a preventive measure.
Although Sri Lanka was declared malaria-free in 2016, the National Malaria Control Campaign has reported 14 cases so far this year — all involving Sri Lankans returning from abroad.
Colonialism stands as one of history’s darkest legacies—a calculated system of exploitation that left entire nations scarred. From Asia to Africa, the Americas to the Pacific, powerful empires such as Britain, the Netherlands, Spain, and others plundered lands, oppressed their people, and devastated centuries-old cultures. This legacy also includes the systematic erasure of indigenous populations, often amounting to acts of genocide. Though colonialism is often relegated to history, the echoes of these atrocities still resonate through the structural inequalities it left behind. It is imperative to call attention to these crimes, not only through acknowledgment and reparations but as a reaffirmation of human dignity. By holding colonial powers accountable, the voices of the oppressed can find justice, and humanity can confront one of its darkest chapters.
Colonial empires spanned continents, using similar methods to consolidate power and exploit resources. These systems of oppression often blurred the lines between war crimes, human rights abuses, and genocide. Examples of colonial atrocities include the Irish Famine, during which over a million Irish citizens perished due to British policies that prioritized exports over local food needs, and the Bengal Famine of 1943, where wartime policies caused the starvation of 2–3 million Indians. British colonialism also witnessed the genocide of Tasmania’s Indigenous populations, a near-total annihilation during British colonization. The Mau Mau Uprising in Kenya is another tragic chapter in Britain’s colonial history, where tens of thousands of Kenyans seeking independence were arrested, tortured, or executed in British-run concentration camps.
Similarly, the Dutch Empire’s history is marked by violence, including the massacre of nearly 15,000 inhabitants of the Banda Islands to monopolize the nutmeg trade, and the brutal forced labor practices in the Dutch East Indies that devastated local populations. Under both Dutch and later Indonesian control, the indigenous Papuan people experienced near-total erasure through violence and cultural destruction.
Colonial atrocities extend far beyond Britain and the Netherlands. Portugal dominated much of the transatlantic slave trade, forcing the migration and deaths of countless African slaves in colonies like Angola and Mozambique. Spain’s colonization of the Americas decimated Indigenous populations through warfare, enslavement, and diseases like smallpox. France’s colonial history includes the brutal massacre of Algerians seeking independence, and King Leopold II’s Congo Free State, under Belgian rule, reduced the Congolese population by millions due to forced labor, disease, and widespread killings. These are only a few examples that demonstrate the systematic atrocities perpetrated by colonial powers across the globe.
Sri Lanka’s experience under colonial rule tells a tale of sustained exploitation. Conquered successively by the Portuguese, Dutch, and British, the island became a battleground for resource extraction, cultural subjugation, and systematic manipulation of its people. The British colonial administration implemented divide-and-rule policies that fostered ethnic divisions by restructuring Sri Lanka’s provinces and falsely claimed Tamil homelands, an idea still echoed by separatist movements today. The British also introduced Indian Tamil laborers to work on tea plantations, forever altering Sri Lanka’s demographics and sowing the seeds for lasting ethnic tension.
Colonial accounts, such as those from John Davy, document the brutality inflicted on Sri Lanka’s Kandyan Kingdom. Following the 1818 rebellion, Davy noted that “none of the leading families survived.” Smallpox, starvation, and punitive measures decimated entire populations, while events like the 1848 Matale rebellion exemplify the systemic efforts to break the spirit of the Sinhalese nation.
Dr. Sudat Gunsekara, a prominent scholar and advocate for the preservation of Sri Lanka’s sovereignty, has deeply critiqued the colonial legacy and its effects on the nation’s ongoing struggles. Gunsekara highlights how British colonial policies, especially the introduction of ethnic divisions, laid the foundation for the ethnic tensions that still plague Sri Lanka today. His work calls for a deeper understanding of the way colonial powers intentionally fractured the unity of the Sinhalese nation, causing divisions that continue to impact Sri Lanka’s national identity and political landscape. In his influential works, Gunsekara urges a reevaluation of colonialism’s role in shaping the contemporary challenges Sri Lanka faces, particularly in terms of ethnic strife and the manipulation of historical narratives by foreign actors.
Shenali Waduge, a prominent writer and advocate for Sri Lanka’s sovereignty, has documented the dangers posed by Tamil separatist movements. Her writings highlight the historical inaccuracies and geopolitical manipulations underpinning the Tamil Eelam narrative. For instance, she critiques the Vaddukoddai Resolution of 1976, which transitioned Tamil separatism from political demands to armed militancy, and exposes how foreign governments, NGOs, and diaspora groups have perpetuated separatist agendas, often at the expense of Sri Lanka’s unity. Waduge also dismantles the myth of a Tamil homeland, emphasizing that the Northern and Eastern provinces were historically part of the Sinhala Buddhist civilization, as evidenced by archaeological and historical records.
Sri Lanka’s strategic location and abundant natural wealth have made it a target for external invaders since ancient times. From the era of King Ravana to the colonial period, Sri Lanka’s struggle for sovereignty against foreign domination has remained constant. Today, political complexities arising from the British-imported Tamil labor force continue to create social tensions, while regional interests from India add to the challenges faced by the Sinhalese people, who have defended their identity for over 12,000 years.
Modern manifestations of colonial legacies include international travel bans imposed on Sri Lankan military personnel, often based on alleged war crimes. These actions reflect outdated imperial mindsets that seek to undermine Sri Lanka’s sovereignty. Accusing Sri Lanka of genocide without acknowledging colonial crimes reveals a hypocritical disregard for the oppressive histories of those imposing such sanctions.
The legacy of British colonial rule in Sri Lanka is deeply intertwined with systemic atrocities that sought to dismantle the island’s cultural identity and sovereignty. The scorched-earth policies during the Uva-Wellassa rebellion not only annihilated entire villages but also caused mass starvation, leaving generations scarred by loss and destruction. The Kandyan Convention’s promises, including the protection of Buddhism and cultural traditions, were blatantly breached, showcasing the colonial administration’s disregard for its own agreements. Furthermore, divide-and-rule strategies cemented ethnic divisions, fostering tensions that persist to this day. Modern repercussions of these colonial policies are evident in the accusations of war crimes levied against Sri Lankan military personnel, which often ignore the genocidal brutality of colonial powers. Such hypocrisy underscores the need for justice, accountability, and acknowledgment of these historic crimes to pave the way for meaningful reconciliation.
The current travel bans imposed on Sri Lankan military personnel attempt to misrepresent the victory over the LTTE as a war crime, undermining the immense sacrifices made by the Sinhala Buddhist nation to defend their state. Furthermore, there is a growing trend at certain governmental levels to frame any action taken to protect the country as barbarism, rather than recognizing it as a necessary act of safeguarding the nation’s sovereignty and identity.
The survival of Sri Lanka’s leaders, such as Shavendra Silva, Jagath Jayasuriya, and Wasantha Karannagoda, is extraordinary, given the genocidal brutality committed by British colonial rulers. These crimes, including mass killings, rapes, the burning of temples, and the destruction of paddy fields, aimed to obliterate the Sinhala Buddhist state and erase its cultural identity. Yet, these leaders not only exist today but rose to defend their motherland against the LTTE, a Western-backed separatist insurgency. Their survival is a testament to the resilience of the Sinhalese people. They can hold the UK government accountable for the genocide of their ancestors and expose the hypocrisy of vilifying them for protecting their nation.
As the author, I have explored and addressed these critical issues in works such as Invisible Destructive Force Behind Vanishing Nation, New Challenge for Buddhism, A Sinhala Buddhist Reply to the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission, Sinhala Vimasuma, and Sihala Investigation. These books aim to dismantle historical myths, expose covert agendas that threaten the Sinhala Buddhist nation, and advocate for the preservation of Sri Lanka’s heritage, sovereignty, and unity.
Colonial powers must be held accountable for their systemic oppression, genocide, and cultural destruction. This requires truth commissions to provide a complete record of oppression, legal recourse through international trials, reparations for nations subjected to exploitation, and education reforms to ensure future generations never repeat these horrors. Sri Lanka’s history mirrors the struggles of other native populations worldwide, and by addressing the legacies of colonialism, Sri Lanka can amplify its call for global justice. Together, we must unite to ensure that no nation suffers in silence, and no voice goes unheard.
One of the gravest disservices to our nation’s history lies in the distorted narratives taught in many schools, where children are misled to believe that Sri Lanka’s independence was achieved without any bloodshed. This fabricated version of events erases the sacrifices of countless national heroes who fought and died to free the island from colonial oppression. Such distortions are often part of hidden educational agendas designed to suppress the truth and align with external influences. By propagating these lies, we risk denying future generations their right to understand the true struggles that shaped the nation’s identity. Rectifying these historical inaccuracies is not just about truth—it is about preserving the legacy of those who laid down their lives for Sri Lanka’s freedom.
“Let us stand united to preserve our heritage, protect our sovereignty, and honor the sacrifices of those who built and defended our nation. Together, we can pave the way for a future where justice prevails, and humanity thrives in harmony.”
By Palitha Ariyarathna
Note: The atrocities of colonial rule were actions of imperial administrations, not reflective of ordinary citizens, past or present. Modern governments of former colonial powers must address these historical injustices and their lasting effects.
References:
John Davy, An Account of the Interior of Ceylon (1821) – Chronicles British brutality post-1818 Kandyan rebellion.
Madhusree Mukherjee, Churchill’s Secret War (2010) – Highlights the Bengal Famine caused by British policies.
Shenali Waduge – Critiques Tamil separatism and historical inaccuracies (LankaWeb).
Dr. Sudath Gunasekara – Explores British-created ethnic divisions in Sri Lanka (LankaWeb).
Mau Mau Uprising Records (Kenya, 1952–1960) – Details British violence during Kenya’s decolonization.
Caroline Elkins, Imperial Reckoning – Documents atrocities during colonial rule.
Studies on British divide-and-rule policies – Examine ethnic divisions in Sri Lanka (Academic Analyses).
Reports on modern travel bans and accusations – Address international allegations against Sri Lanka’s leaders (Global Reports).
India does not want South Asian nations to develop ties with China, but India is happy to expand relations & economic partnerships with China. This logic is hard to comprehend but is a fact. Nepal’s ties with China improved following the 2015 earthquake. The same year Nepal was formulating a new constitution. India demanded changes to certain clauses which Nepal refused resulting in India closing its borders & disallowing food, medicines, essentials & fuel to reach Nepal. The embargo lasted 6 months (Sept 2015-Feb 2016) Slapping Nepal with an economic embargo at a time when Nepal was recovering from the April 2015 earthquake is inhumanity at a new level. Close to 9000 people died from the earthquake, over 25,000 were injured, and over 2.8m were displaced. Imagine being denied food, fuel, medicines 5months after the earthquake?
What led to Indian embargo
India’s claim to territories under Nepal – Kalapani, Lipulekh, Limpiyadhura
Nepals increasing ties with China via BRI projects, investments, infrastructure development – which India viewed as undermining its position as Nepal would no longer be reliant on India.
2015 Nepali constitutional change with Nepal refusing to accommodate changes India wanted inserted. India claimed it was concerned about the Madhesi community that India was aligned to. Madhesi’s demand a separate province. India expressed solidarity with them. Nepal accused India of sponsoring Madhesi protests. India demanded Nepal amend its constitution. So many similia rites to how India functions in Sri Lanka using the concern for Tamil people against Sri Lanka.
Eventually, in 2020 Nepal issued a new map including Kalapani, Lipulekh & Limpiyadhura as territory of Nepal. As per the Sugauli Treaty signed between Nepal and British East India Company in 1816, Limpiyadhura, Lipulekh, and Kalapani, all the areas situated to the east of the Mahakali River, belong to Nepal.
India now claims Kalapani as India’s Uttarakhand state.
This is no different to the demand for Sri Lanka’s Kachchetivu by India.
India’s demand that Nepal amend its constitution, include greater provisions for communities aligned with India was viewed by Nepal as interference in its internal affairs. Eventually Nepal had to agree to some amendments. Such was the bullying tactics India adopted.
The flipside of India’s treatment towards Nepal has been a rise in nationalist sentiment among Nepali’s against India & their realization they need to unite to assert their sovereignty & to distance from India’s obsessive influence on Nepal as a result of appeasement policies of their leaders which had weakened Nepal & its people.
A scenario Sri Lankans need to also ponder.
Indian imposed sanctions began after Nepal adopted its new constitution on 20 September 2015 & officially ended in February 2016 (after 6 months) but the humanitarian crisis continued as Nepali people suffered from the damage of the previous 6 months. The situation was confounded as a result of the devastating earthquake in April 2015 in Nepal.
FUEL – Nepal’s fuel supplies come through India. When India stopped allowing fuel trucks to pass its borders, fuel shortages took place across Nepal. Lack of fuel disrupted transport, emergency services-hospitals, operations etc, food supply chains, Transport came to a halt. People had to walk to get basic supplies. Ambulances, fire trucks, were all impacted. Factories & businesses were forced to shut down.
MEDICINES / MEDICAL SUPPLIES – Entire Nepali healthcare system came to a halt. Hospitals which were already weakened following the April earthquake, were further impacted & doctors & nurses struggling to help their people. Patients requiring chronic medications, surgical procedures, emergency care were the most vulnerable. There were no life-saving drugs or painkillers to give. Due to fuel shortages, doctors or medical care providers could not reach remote areas. Rural Nepal suffered the most
FOOD SHORTAGE – Entire food supply chain was impacted. Nepal’s food supplies also come through Indian borders. Nepali’s had to begin rationing food intake. Prices of food skyrocketed. Farmers could not transport their agricultural produce because there was no fuel. So agricultural products could not reach the people & were wasted.
Closure of Businesses/Factories – Businesses that relied on imports (from India) had to shut down resulting in job losses & an economic downturn. As Nepal’s biggest trade partner was India, the Indian sanctions severely affected Nepalis (another lesson for Sri Lanka over reliance on Indian imports)
Social & Psychological Impact – The blockade resulted in frustration leading to resentment & tensions & protests across the country. People feared for their basic survival. These are key issues Sri Lankans need to also ponder.
India’s punitive action against Nepal impacted 30million Nepalis.
Nepal shares a long border with India (over 1800 km) India’s concern is Nepal becoming a strategic base for China. However, India’s security concerns do not deem India has any right to undermine Nepal’s sovereignty. Nepal has every right to pursue its foreign policy. That foreign policy does not have to be what India demands. Moreover, if Nepal has not done anything to undermine India’s security, why should India interfere in Nepal’s sovereignty?
In inviting the self-appointed policemen of the world to South Asia/Asia, is it not India who has made the entire region vulnerable by becoming its strategic partner & going so far as to sign strategic defense pacts? Is it not this country together with its multiple minions who will one day destroy India’s defenses?
Weren’t these very minions all involved with the LTTE after India secretly trained them in India & are the one’s calling for war crimes against Sri Lanka? These agents are the ones who will undermine India’s national security. Sri Lanka or Nepal has never done so. The way India treats its neighbors, none of these citizens would even come forward to defend India in such a future scenario. All of India’s goodwill gestures to its neighbors are seen as ulterior motives by India without sincerity or genuine goodwill.
In 1987 India violated Sri Lanka’s territory with a parippu drop. There was no international condemnation & no UNHRC to hold red cards about violating international norms.
In 2015 India launched an economic blockade preventing food, essential goods, fuel, medicines passing India’s borders to Nepal. India closed all its entry/exit points to Nepal preventing goods reaching Nepal. Nepali people only suffered. Depriving civilians of essential goods in times of peace or even conflict is a violation of human rights under the International Covenant on Civil & Political Rights (ICCPR).
These laws are good only on paper. Nothing was done against India.
India had violated Article 2(1) – the Principle of Sovereignty (UN Charter)
India had violated Article 2(7) – UN Charter prohibiting intervention in the domestic affairs of sovereign states
Nepal reached out to the international community following Indian imposed economic blockade & the humanitarian crisis that ensued. Nepal appealed to the UN, other countries, & international human rights organizations to pressure India to lift the blockade. Only diplomatic responses were forthcoming. Even the UNSC did not intervene.
What this means for Sri Lanka too is that, after allowing India to exceed interference in internal affairs in Sri Lanka, if it comes to even an India-created humanitarian crisis, the world would only issue the usual emotionless statements & Sri Lankans would suffer like Nepalese did. In handing over everything to India, Sri Lankans must prepare for a similar eventuality as that which Nepal faced. Nothing is enough for India.
While the world just looked on. It was China who came forward to supply fuel & humanitarian aid to Nepal. Several thousand metric tons of fuel was supplied via the Kerung border in Tibet (by Nov2015 20,000 metric tons of fuel sent) China sent over 1000 metric tons of medicines & humanitarian aid including blankets. China opened Rasuwa & Kerung border routes to supply rice, wheat flour & other foods to Nepal & even supplied construction materials (cement & steel)
Pakistan & Bangladesh showed solidarity with Nepal & even made fuel available through alternative routes.
Sri Lankans cannot suffer because its politicians/political parties fail to identify friends from foes & ensure diplomatic actions are taken to ensure Sri Lanka’s sovereignty, territory & resources are protected. Allowing foes access to anything that makes Sri Lanka vulnerable via secretly signed agreements will eventually make only Sri Lanka & its people suffer, the culprits will shake off all responsibility & the reactions of the UN/International community is a good example of what we can expect in the future.
