Sri Lankan President Anura Kumara Dissanayake with Prime Minister Narendra Modi. File
| Photo Credit: PTI

External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar with Vijitha Herath, Sri Lanka’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Foreign Employment and Tourism.
| Photo Credit: ANI

Image use dfor representational purpose only.
| Photo Credit: Getty Images/iStockphoto

In September this year, President Anura Kumara Dissanayake completed one year in office. This month, the parliament completes a year, with your party holding a majority. What has been the biggest success and challenge for your government?

Our success, I think, has been stability. Winning over the sceptics — who had the biggest fear that we would not be able to handle this, that we were inexperienced, that we did not know what we were talking about, did not have a plan, or that we are a bunch of communists. There was this huge fear that this was going to be unsuccessful, and that we would not be able to govern. I think we have proved everyone wrong.

We have shown ourselves to be stable, not just stable, but effective. We have brought about many changes in our political culture that now seem very normal. It has almost come to a stage where you do not have to talk about those things anymore. It has been normalised that you do not waste, there is no corruption, politicians will not protect criminals, there are no personal agendas at work, and that there is a plan, a collective vision. We are not being extravagant or flashing our power all around. People say, ‘you have a two-thirds [majority], you can do anything you want’. But we have not done anything we want, right? We have been very responsive to governance, we have allowed people to process what we are trying to do, and if there is resistance, we have adjusted. Some see that as a sign of weakness, but we don’t. Strength comes from not abusing power, when you have a lot of it.

We have demonstrated a real difference in governing style. At one level, it is great that it is so normal and people are not even talking about it, they are taking it for granted. At some points, though, I feel like ‘come on, give us a bit of credit for this.’ But the biggest thing about all this being normalised is that you cannot reverse it. People are not going to allow this to slide back. They will not expect anything less from any other political configuration, and I think that is a real achievement.

In terms of challenge, it is not only about the politicians changing, right? You must take this big state machinery along with you. A state machinery that has largely been dysfunctional for a long time but has still trundled on and delivered in some senses, but in a very haphazard way. It is not used to working to a plan, not used to being responsive, not used to thinking independently. So, changing all of this has been, and still is, the challenge. Because, though those at the top and middle level, are coming on board with this idea and rhythm of how we are working, but for the ordinary citizen to actually feel the change, that machinery must really change. That has been the frustration at some level — that things have not moved faster at the grassroots level, because of these kinds of blocks we encounter along the way.

When you say state machinery, do you mean bureaucracy?

The bureaucracy, the institutions, the classic problems we have talked about for years that come from duplication of institutions, decision making being so complicated and cumbersome, the lack of this orientation that the citizen comes first. You know these from even the simplest things — like how you talk to a person. All that needs to change as well.

And then the fact that things like digitisation have not happened. It is not an individual’s fault, it is just systemic failure.

So, we have inherited this systemic, institutional failure, and the challenge has been to identify the people who can change it and put them in the right places. And that takes time, because we need to identify those people, identify where the weaknesses are, we must try and make sense of this chaos and reorganise it, while we are also running a country and dealing with the day-to-day stuff. That has been the biggest challenge.

Your government is taking forward an IMF programme. Three years since the economic crash and sovereign default, there is relative fiscal stability, but high living costs persist, there is a constant refrain about low wages and stagnant incomes. Your coalition has acknowledged that the IMF deal is hard on ordinary people and had promised to renegotiate it. Why hasn’t that been possible?

We had said we cannot renegotiate the whole terms of reference, or all the parameters which were earlier agreed upon with the IMF, since that would have led to further chaos, further destabilisation. I don’t think we could have dealt with that, especially with the expectation that we would fail. To consolidate ourselves, we had to make sure we did not fail in the first instance. With that limitation, we have negotiated many things within those parameters, which are not entirely obvious, like [public] spending. We gave a significant public sector pay rise, incrementally brought in welfare benefits, raised capital expenditure on health and education. Even to attract FDIs, we have negotiated more flexibility for us to make those decisions with an eye to the future, and for the benefit of our people. Those negotiations were not easily made, they were tough, but they are less dramatic. So, perhaps the feeling is that we have not negotiated, but I don’t think that is a correct assessment.

At times, we are criticised by both sides, the left and the right. They say, ‘you are a left-wing party, what are you doing with the IMF?’. We are a very pragmatic group of people, and we really understand the state in which the country is. We need to make decisions based on these conditions, and not some utopian idea of where we would like to be maybe in 20 years. But we are heading in a particular direction. We said this openly to the IMF that, with all due respect and appreciation of our good working relationship, our goal is that we never to have to do this again.

The recent Budget president by President Dissanayake — also the Finance Minister — is the first full-year Budget of your government. What are its highlights?

The meticulous attention it pays to fiscal planning targets, and given all the limitations, the effort to address all key sectors. Whether it is the pensioners, estate workers, people with disability, or community dogs, the Budget pays attention to people’s everyday struggles, balancing this very complicated macroeconomic situation which requires daily monitoring. I think it sets the tone for the big transformations we want, whether in education, health or infrastructure.

As Education Minister, you are leading reforms in the sector that has historically been seen as a big strength for Sri Lanka. A recent Human Rights Watch report linked inadequate state revenue to insufficient resources for education. You know the public education system well — you have taught in it and even been part of trade union action demanding an allocation of 6% of GDP in education. What is the root cause for the crisis in education?

The lack of direction and prioritising, the lack of a plan like in every other sector. I would say, deliberate neglect so you create a crisis that then forces very unjust interventions. There is this film called ‘Our Brand is Crisis’, I think that is what they did with education – create a crisis, make people lose trust in public education, then force them to opt for private tuitions, which are also not managed well.

So, you let go of that responsibility and officially say: ‘public education is still there’. But in reality, people are having to make do, or figure things out for themselves. This has led to huge institutional problems of deterioration, including in teacher training, a lack of coherence in policy, and huge infrastructure issues. They have just cast aside the fundamentals. So, it is not just about funding. Even if you had had, and put more money into this system, you would not have got what you wanted, because no one invested in building institutions. The National Institute of Education, which is responsible for curriculum, faces many challenges like vacancies, apathy or the lack of leadership.

But the amazing thing for me has been that despite everything, this machinery continued functioning to the level it has. It has somehow survived because of that really amazing investment made earlier. People who clung to it and did whatever they could, either as parents or teachers or administrators, who just kind of kept it going. It still produced quality graduates and students.

When we started this ambitious reform process, some wondered if we could really do this, especially people from private sector, who we brought in for inputs on certain things like IT. There is a system to this chaos, but it will deliver. Around 200,000 teachers are going to be trained by the end of the year; 70,000 new books are being prepared to be printed and delivered to the children from January 1, 2026. So things are moving.

In a recent Parliamentary intervention, you emphasised a “home-grown process” to deal with allegations of past human rights violations. Building trust among survivors, especially Tamils of the north and east who are still grappling with the impact of the civil war that ended 16 years ago is not easy, since they have been repeatedly let down by successive governments. How will your government earn their trust?

That is an area where we really need to do more work. We are not talking about a “home-grown solution” just because it is popular — we genuinely believe that is what will work in the long run and help prevent polarisation. Local systems must be designed to handle these issues; we cannot simply hand over responsibility to others. We must take ownership. The key, as you said, is trust, and that will take a lot of effort.

This is also where we would welcome more dialogue with civil society — discussions that recognise we are a new government, the need to build a new narrative. What was said or done in 1994, 2007, 2010, or 2015 should, for the moment, be set aside. Let us begin with an acknowledgement of our intentions and work together to move forward. We need help, ideas, and open discussions that do not hold us accountable for past baggage, or measure us by old standards. What we really need now is to generate new thinking, a fresh approach to these difficult questions, that is less antagonistic, less polarised — and to build a more constructive way of engaging. There’s a lot of work ahead for all of us.

What do you mean by new narrative?

I am not saying we have all the answers — and that’s exactly why we need new, fresh thinking on this. For years, we have had a particular way of understanding ethnic relations: what happened, who is to blame, and what needs to happen. I am not saying we should throw all of that out, but have we brought that up to speed with current realities and challenges? How might a generation born after the war be thinking and feeling about these issues?

We are now in a place where young people’s aspirations are changing. They are very different, and yet we are being asked to place our trust in a global system that is falling apart before our eyes. So, we need to think anew — not only about how to respond to victims, but also about how to reorganise society to approach these questions differently. To me, this is the moment to do that, because we are open to that conversation. We are not saying this or that, or drawing hard lines; we are open. And society too has that space now for dialogue. But it is sad to see that the conversation is not happening yet.

Why is that?

I think we are all struggling with a deficit of new ideas, of fresh thinking. That’s one part of it.

The other is exhaustion and a kind of pessimism about the possibility of anything new. I really feel that gap, this lack of imagination. And maybe it is tied to the cost we have paid as a country for losing so much human potential. We killed our best thinkers. We drove them out. The most visionary and radical minds, from all parts of the country, were labelled terrorists and eliminated simply for thinking differently. As a nation, we are now paying the price for that loss. You can see it everywhere — in politics, the arts, academia — this absence of people who can challenge us to think differently. It is almost a generational void.

The new generation, meanwhile, is very differently positioned. You have my generation, then a kind of lost generation, and then young people who are saying, ‘We want to figure out AI’. So, what do you expect us to do with that when you are still talking about smart classrooms? And there is something else I have always felt, even before I entered politics or joined the NPP. Many of our analyses rarely bring in the class factor. Our narratives about the war, ethnicity, and violence have missed that entire dimension. But we are now at a moment when class is critical — especially in understanding the transformations and political changes we have seen. If we leave class out of our analysis or our understanding of the state, we are leaving out an important chunk.

In 2016, before your entry into Parliament, you served as a member of the Public Representations Committee on Constitutional Reforms, which was a Cabinet appointed mechanism tasked with the first country-wide public consultations on constitutional reform. The NPP has promised a new constitution. Where does that promise stand?

We have always said that we need a consultative process. We have not fixed dates for it, but that has to happen. We have also said we are willing to start from where we left off in that earlier consultative process — and not reinvent the whole wheel. Of course, things have shifted since then, so there is a lot to consider, and a lot to do.

The Provincial Council elections need to take place, and that is targeted for next year. Funds have been allocated, and the Election Commission will have to work out the details — after looking into whether a new law is needed, or the Parliament agrees to proceed with the old system. So, there’s a process there.

In our first two years, our priority will be on the economic side of things, because we cannot afford to let that ball drop. Everything else has taken something of a back seat — whether that is good or bad — but keeping the economy steady is a lot of work. Delivering on education, health, and other areas is huge too.

Something else we need to think through is that, at least at the leadership level, we are not overtly racist. We may be unintentionally so — because that is how we have been socialised to think about different people — but never intentionally. The impact of that shift, I think, should not be underestimated. Even institutionally, leadership is now far more sensitive to overt racism and has intervened many times to say, “you cannot do that.” That needs time to take root — to bring about an institutional shift towards a more open, inclusive society and structures, including an inclusive constitution. Otherwise, we risk falling back into the “them versus us” mentality. This is something I have been reflecting on more, especially when you look at what’s happening globally — the rise of the alt-right, the backlash against feminism, and the reversal of rights we took for granted.

I recently heard of a movement in the US advocating to take away women’s right to vote. It shows how quickly things can slide back. Look at New Zealand — I just finished reading Jacinda Ardern’s autobiography. She led all those progressive initiatives and yet she was pushed out, resigned because her presence was seen as damaging to her party, and much of what she championed has since been reversed. There was backlash.

So, if you don’t bring people along with you, reversals can take us even further back. It is the classic Marxist idea — structural conditions have to be created for real change. I feel our responsibility is to create those structural conditions that make progressive transformations possible and sustainable. It is not just about changing laws or adopting new terminology or even a new constitution — it is about building the conditions for a genuine, substantive shift.

You make an important point. The fact that your party’s poll campaign was not racist, reflected in the general election results. At the same time, the unprecedented goodwill your government enjoys across the country will not last forever; expectations, disappointments, and the pressures of incumbency inevitably set in. So, while there is a small window of political goodwill and opportunity to act now, there is also the risk of moving too fast and provoking a backlash. How do you see that balance playing out?

See, I don’t think we have reached that window of opportunity yet. Our government’s trajectory is not the traditional one where the peak comes at the beginning. People did not elect us because they were convinced we were the right choice; they did so because they were utterly disgusted with everyone else. They decided they would never give them a chance again. They decided to place their faith in us, give us a chance. They are watching us closely, they are being very vigilant.

I think our real window will come a few years later, when we have earned people’s trust and they feel their faith was not misplaced. That is when meaningful change can truly happen. We understand this, which is why we are not flashing our 159-seat majority. We know people took a huge leap of faith in us, and we cannot let them down by making rookie mistakes or rushing decisions. Our responsibility is far greater than a routine change in government. So yes, I think our window of opportunity lies a little further down the line.

You recently visited both China and India. What were your key takeaways from these back-to-back visits?

The enormous goodwill was evident — genuinely so. The opportunities I was given to meet with leaders were remarkable. I am not the President of the country; I am the second citizen. Yet I was afforded the chance to meet them, and they were extremely accommodating of our needs. Leaders and other officials from both countries showed great interest in Sri Lanka and expressed strong goodwill — wanting to engage, to help, and recognising Sri Lanka’s importance to them. These are two major powers — one a close neighbour and the other a regional one — both acknowledging Sri Lanka’s significance. I think that is extremely important. It shows there is real goodwill towards us, and that goodwill can be harnessed for the benefit of our country and the region.

Is there pressure on Sri Lanka while dealing with two major partners with competing interests?

I think we will always have to be careful about how we balance the different regional leaders and their ambitions. But in some ways, global changes are making this easier for us. Traditional lines of friendship and enmity no longer work the same way — the axis has clearly shifted towards this region. Most countries in Asia now recognise the need to look to one another, as we have become the centre of global growth. The old Western model that long dictated international relations has shifted. In that sense, it would be a mistake to see India and China as antagonistic; recent events show that they continue to engage with each other constructively. So, as long as we manage our relations wisely, I do not think we will face any undue pressure.

As you mentioned, the liberal world order is unravelling amid this global turmoil, wars raging in Gaza, Ukraine, and Sudan; countries grappling with Donald Trump’s trade policies; and far-right, neo-fascist parties gaining ground. Your government has pledged a neutral foreign policy — can Sri Lanka reconcile these competing global forces, while pursuing a principled foreign policy?

It is not easy. Principled positions are extremely important — for us as a government and for us as the NPP, a movement that came together around shared values. We are a value-based, principle-driven, ideologically aligned group, and that is central to who we are. But we also need to be conscious of our place in the world. How we express those principles, whether by shouting from our rooftop or in other ways, must consider our tiny position and vulnerabilities in global affairs. The stronger we become as a country, the more we can resist external pressures and stand firmly by our principles. Without that understanding, simply making noise is not necessarily useful.

We are meeting just after Zohran Mamdani’s mayoral win in New York City, which has drawn global attention. Did you follow the story?

Yes, it was really lovely and exciting to see. In many ways, it felt very reminiscent of how we did things — that grassroots, people-driven campaign, standing up to the powers that be, the status quo, and still winning. It was a true triumph, the result of years of work and mobilisation by those who kept the progressive flag flying under very difficult conditions — people like Bernie Sanders and others. So yes, it was really heartening and [made me feel] hopeful.

You referred to the rise of anti-women, anti-feminist forces elsewhere. What has your experience been as a woman in power within a largely male political landscape?

You know, if I ever write about this journey, I think I will write about the gender aspect — because it has been amazing. At one level, it is striking how, when I meet women leaders anywhere in the world, regardless of political persuasion, we immediately connect. We have all experienced similar things, whatever our contexts. I always knew it would be a journey to bring a feminist perspective into a largely male political space, so I had no illusions about that.

What has surprised me, though, is not my political colleagues within my party, but the reactions of male colleagues from other spaces — their struggle to deal with this change. It is as if they do not quite know how to process it. Even men I would have thought of as deeply feminist have reacted in unexpected ways. Oddly enough, none of my women friends have had this problem — they have been completely supportive and protective.

On the political front — from being a national list MP to mobilising people and securing one of the highest vote counts in your party and being appointed Prime Minister — what has that experience taught you about political activism?

Grassroots work – that’s what politics is really about. There are no shortcuts. Organising people, building trust, that is democracy. Everything else is about being at the right place, at the right time, and huge amounts of luck, but the conditions must fall into place. And nothing replaces the hard work at the ground level.

The political goodwill we have seen over the last few years could never have translated into real momentum and votes without connecting with people directly. Thousands of women were part of this — that is what makes it truly remarkable. We have long discussed women’s political participation in terms of quotas and numbers, but what is happening now is far deeper. Housewives in small villages feel they have a voice, a say, and the power to mobilise. Young women look at the 22 women in Parliament and think, ‘I can do that too’. That is the real change. Of course, there is pushback — intense, often hateful — but that only shows something fundamental is shifting. The challenge now is to make sure this change moves in the right direction, in the right way, and remains sustainable, especially in a traditionally very male party, and male-dominated political space.

Since you mention your party, there is considerable intrigue about the dynamic between the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP), which has a left-insurgent history, and its broader National People’s Power coalition. What is this dynamic like, especially while in government, because there is often speculation over differences or a rift.

All this talk about a “rift” between the two is really political. The NPP was never separate in that sense. The JVP took the lead in forming it — they recognised that if they wanted to come to power, they needed to build a broader coalition. Those who joined the NPP knew this from the start — that we were bringing in a certain kind of expertise or experience, but the political path was led by the JVP. We were comfortable with that. Most of us came from academia, civil society, or NGOs, and we had reached the limits of what we could do within those spaces. Initially, we tried to push the JVP from the outside, and later, we became part of the NPP movement ourselves. So, for me, it was never a question of “JVP versus NPP.” The NPP exists because of a conscious decision by the JVP to create it. If that decision had not been made, there would be no NPP — we would not have just come together on our own.

The political landscape in Sri Lanka is set to change as its citizens elect a new President on Saturday. Sri Lanka’s 17 million voters will choose from among 39 candidates in the country’s first election after the people’s uprising of 2022, which led to then President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s ouster.

This year’s election is dominated by two major alliances, the SJB (Samagi Jana Balawegaya) and the NPP (National People’s Power), apart from various smaller parties and independent candidates.

President Ranil Wickremesinghe of the UNP (United National Party) is contesting as an independent. Wickremesinghe, popularly known as RW, is being supported by many rebel legislators of the SLPP (Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna) headed by former president Mahinda Rajapaksa. Also in the contest are opposition leader Sajith Premadasa from the SJB alliance; leftist leader Anura Kumara Dissanayake of the JVP (Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna) – the presidential candidate of NPP – and Mahinda’s son, Namal Rajapaksa, as the SLPP candidate.

Poll surveys and experts suggest that Lankan voters are prioritising issues such as economy, education, health, law, and security. Matters of corruption and wrongdoing among politicians, which dominated the electoral narrative, have receded into the background after the 2022 unrest. Since most governments in the past didn’t solve the corruption issue, people feel it’s better to talk about development. They hope to elect a leader who can pull them out of dire poverty.

Gloomy past

In the last election, held after the Easter bombings on April 21, 2019, Gotabaya Rajapaksa of SLPP (Namal’s uncle) won a decisive victory and Sajith Premadasa came second. However, three years later, the world saw Sri Lankans oust President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, having endured a steady economic slide. The flawed economic and monetary policies of Gotabaya, along with the COVID-19 pandemic that dented tourism – a chunk of the economy – resulted in an unsustainable debt level. In April 2022, Sri Lanka defaulted on its debt and asked the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for assistance. The Russia-Ukraine war further aggravated the crisis with rising food, medicine and fuel prices resulting in mass protests never seen before in the country’s history.

The uprising was given the name of ‘Janatha Aragalaya‘ (a Sinhala term). Then Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa resigned and subsequently, his brother Gotabaya Rajapaksa quit as President and fled. Ranil Wickremesinghe, a former minister, became Prime Minister. In July 2022, Ranil took over as president through a parliamentary vote with the support of the Rajapaksas’ party SLPP, which still has the majority in the legislature. Ranil Wickremesinghe adopted severe austerity measures, with support from the IMF.

New leaders

Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s inept governance and his decision to leave the country tarred the image of the Rajapaksa clan and the SLPP the most. Most SLPP MPs are supporting either Ranil or Sajith in this election. Namal Rajapaksa, they say, is just a symbolic candidate to keep the SLPP alive.

Sajith’s SJB has the support of the Tamil and Muslim minorities, who form 11% and 9% of the population.

Though Tamil parties have fielded a common candidate, the largest party ITAK (Ilankai Tamil Arasu Kachchi) has extended its support to Sajith Premadasa. In 2019 also, Tamils had voted for Sajith but there was an unprecedented consolidation of Sinhala votes behind Gotabhaya Rajapaksa after the Easter bombings, which helped him win the election.

The political space created by Rajapaksas’ dismissal was filled by Anura Kumara Dissanayake and the JVP, who urged Sri Lankans to go for a broader change. Once in the margins, the party has emerged as a credible, major political force.

As far as Ranil Wickremesinghe is concerned, most members of his party UNP are now with Sajith, though he has support from some legislators of the SLPP like state Defence Minister Premitha Bandara Tennakoon. Ranil is banking on his handling of the economic crisis to fetch him votes.

“People want change this time. They don’t want to vote for the same party and old candidates. The new voters, especially on social media, are rooting for Anura Dissanayake. However, on the ground Sajith has a lot of support base, especially in the rural areas,” says Thushara Gooneratne, editor-in-chief, Mawrata News.

“Most people think of Sajith as pro-poor just like his father, former President R Premadasa.”

India’s Stake

In recent times, anti-India sentiment has surged in the neighbourhood, because of various reasons. Be it Nepal, Maldives, Sri Lanka or Bangladesh, politicians have been successful in diverting the people’s ire towards India.

For India, the sorry plight of the Tamil population in the north and east of Sri Lanka has been a concern for a long time. Successive Lankan governments have failed to implement the 13th Amendment signed as part of India-Sri Lanka agreement in 1987, which provided for devolution of powers to local governments in the north and the east. India, in fact, raised the Sri Lankan Tamil issue at the 51st session of the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva in 2022. With the new government, India would like to push for the restoration of provincial councils, which would give a measure of autonomy to Lankan Tamils.

India has stakes in a stable and peaceful Sri Lanka. It wants to restrict China’s growing interference in the country because of its geo-strategic location in the Indo-Pacific. The 99-year lease of Hambantota port to China in 2017, feeding the debt-trap narrative, has exacerbated India’s concerns.

Anura Dissanayake’s party has often been seen as close to China, India’s principal geopolitical rival. But for some time now, Dissanayake has enjoyed a different kind of authority within Sri Lankan politics, which has in turn earned him recognition as a rising political force even from India’s point of view. As a reflection of this, New Delhi invited Dissanayake in February to engage with him.

“Whoever wins this time will engage with India. Sajith is pro-India. But even Dissanayake, who was known to be anti-India before. India is important for Sri Lanka’s growth and stability,” says Thushara.

India needs all the goodwill it can command in order to navigate the increasing complexities in the neighbourhood, The escalating regional conflicts and a continuous shift in the global economic order. A friendly, stable neighbourhood is a good start.

External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar being welcomed by Governor of Eastern Province of Sri Lanka, Senthil Thondaman, upon his arrival in Colombo, Sri Lanka, Thursday, June 20, 2024.
| Photo Credit: PTI

External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar arrived in Sri Lanka on Thursday, June 20, 2024, his first visit here in his second consecutive term in office, during which he will hold talks with the country’s leadership to bolster bilateral ties.

Also read: India will collaborate with Sri Lanka on debt treatment: Nirmala Sitharaman

Mr. Jaishankar was received by Tharaka Balasuriya, State Minister of Foreign Affairs, and Senthil Thondaman, Governor of the Eastern Province, on his arrival in Colombo.

“Landed in Colombo for my first visit in the new term. Thank Minister of State @TharakaBalasur1 and Governor of Eastern province @S_Thondaman for the warm welcome. Look forward to my meetings with the leadership,” Mr. Jaishankar posted on X.

Sri Lanka is central to India’s Neighbourhood First and SAGAR policies, he wrote.

Mr. Jaishankar and Sri Lankan President Ranil Wickremesinghe jointly unveiled the virtual plaque to mark the formal commissioning of the Maritime Rescue Coordination Centre (MRCC) in Sri Lanka under a $6 million grant from India, according to the Presidential Media Division Colombo.

This includes a centre at Navy headquarters in Colombo, a sub-centre in Hambantota and unmanned installations at Galle, Arugambay, Batticaloa, Trincomalee, Kallarawa, Point Pedro and Mollikulam, said the statement.

Mr. WickremesingheDr. Jaishankar jointly unveiled the virtual plaque for 106 houses in Kandy, Nuwara Eliya and Matale under the Indian Housing Project with 24 houses in each model village in Colombo and Trincomalee being handed over virtually.

Neighbourhood-first policy

Under its ‘Neighbourhood First’ policy, India is committed to developing friendly and mutually beneficial relations with all its neighbours.

SAGAR or Security and Growth for All in the Region is India’s vision and geopolitical framework of maritime cooperation in the Indian Ocean region.

The trip to Sri Lanka will be Mr. Jaishankar’s standalone bilateral visit after he assumed charge as the External Affairs Minister for the second term on June 11.

Mr. Jaishankar was last week part of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s delegation at the G7 Outreach summit in Italy’s Apulia region.

The Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) in New Delhi said the External Affairs Minister will have meetings with the Sri Lankan leadership on wide-ranging issues.

“This will be the External Affairs Minister’s first bilateral visit after the formation of the new government under Prime Minister Narendra Modi,” it said.

“Reaffirming India’s Neighbourhood First Policy, the visit underlines India’s continued commitment to Sri Lanka as its closest maritime neighbour and time-tested friend,” the MEA said in a statement.

“The visit will add momentum to connectivity projects and other mutually beneficial cooperation across sectors,” it said.

Sri Lankan President Ranil Wickremesinghe was among seven top leaders from India’s neighbourhood and the Indian Ocean region who attended the swearing-in ceremony of Prime Minister Modi and the Union Council of Ministers at the Rashtrapati Bhavan on June 9.

(With inputs from PTI)

Arguably India’s most popular project in Sri Lanka, the ambulance network has attended to about 82 lakh calls and 19 lakh medical emergencies till date, including in remote areas
| Photo Credit: File Photo

An India-gifted free ambulance service in Sri Lanka, providing vital pre-hospital emergency care across the island for eight years, appears to be in need of critical support, going by a recent social media post by a public health professional.

Yasuni Manikkage, a doctor working at a Colombo-based government hospital, on Tuesday took to ‘X’ to flag a 51-year-old man’s sudden death at his residence in Colombo. “Desperately called Suwaseriya, but they did not have any available ambulances nearby. We could not save him on time. Why is funding Suwaseriya 1990 & saving lives not a priority for Lankan government?” she asked in the post that has since drawn much attention.

The delay in response time — the nearest ambulance was 30 minutes away — is uncharacteristic of the ‘Suwaseriya 1990’ service. From the time it was launched in July 2016, with a $7.56-million Indian grant, and expanded in two years with an additional $15.09 million from India, it has made a mark with its promptness and efficiency. Arguably New Delhi’s most popular project in Sri Lanka, the ambulance network has attended to about 82 lakh calls and 19 lakh medical emergencies till date, including in remote areas.

After the initial Indian grant assistance to set up the service Sri Lanka took over and has since been running it with a team of professionals working in coordination with the Ministry of Health. Over 700 of the medical technicians were trained in India initially, but following the pandemic years Sri Lanka developed its own training programme at the University of Kelaniya.

Despite the service’s reach and wide acclaim — a World Bank report called it one of the world’s most digitally advanced and free ambulance services — sustaining it is proving a challenge after Sri Lanka’s crushing financial meltdown in 2022, according to Dumindra Ratnayaka, Chairman of the Suwaseriya Foundation.

The island nation’s unprecedented economic crisis brought with it hyperinflation and a drastic rise in living costs, pushing many Sri Lankans, including thousands of medical professionals and technicians, to seek opportunities abroad. Consequently, Sri Lanka’s public health system, and the ambulance service that is part of it, are impacted. “Of our nearly 1,500 staff, we have lost 400 since 2022,” Mr. Ratnayaka said, speaking of the difficulty in finding technicians and putting them through training before they can come on board.  Staff salaries are currently in the range of LKR 50,000 (roughly ₹ 13,800), with which an individual, let alone a family, can hardly make ends meet in Sri Lanka.

The government cannot increase salaries for just one section of public service, and it cannot afford salary hikes across the board at the moment, Sri Lanka’s Health Minister Ramesh Pathirana said. “We have made the necessary budgetary allocation for the ambulance service. The country is stabilising, and things are improving in the health sector too,” he told The Hindu on Wednesday.

Despite the budgetary allocation, an apparent funding crunch prompted the ambulance service to seek adoption last year. Through private sector donations and corporate assistance, it has raised LKR 750 million since, but sustaining the service may need more than individual philanthropy, public health experts noted.

Of the ambulance service’s fleet of 322 vehicles, over 50 are currently offline owing to either staff shortages, or a delay in repairs.  “Dimo, who are Tata’s agent here, have also lost many mechanics, they have migrated. That means the time taken to repair a vehicle has increased considerably,” Mr. Ratnayaka said, pointing to how the country’s enduring crisis manifests in many ways.

‘Suwaseriya’ is the “last thing” that should be underfunded, contended Colombo-based writer Andrew Fidel Fernando. He recalled how after an unexpected patellar dislocation last year, a call to 1990 brought swift and expert medical care to the spot. “It took barely 5 minutes for the ambulance to reach the park I was at, playing with my kids. The staff were very receptive, incredibly professional, and efficient. There aren’t too many things in Sri Lanka’s public service that I would call world class, but this ambulance service certainly is!” he said.

Indian and Sri Lankan pilgrims leave Katchatheevu in March 2023 after attending the St. Anthony’s Church festival.
| Photo Credit: The Hindu

The story so far: On March 31, Prime Minister Narendra Modi posted on social media platform ‘X’ that he blamed the Congress for “callously” giving away Katchatheevu island to Sri Lanka. He cited a media report on documents received in response to a Right to Information Act application from K. Annamalai, the Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) Tamil Nadu president. Soon after, External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar held a media conference, in which he sought to elaborate on Mr. Modi’s allegation. Calling for a “solution”, he said the bilateral agreements signed by India and Sri Lanka in 1974 and 1976, when the Congress and the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) were in power respectively at the Centre and in Tamil Nadu, displayed indifference about Katchatheevu island, and compromised Indian fishermen’s rights in the Palk Strait separating India and Sri Lanka.

Where is Katchatheevu?

Katchatheevu is an uninhabited island spanning some 285 acres in the Palk Strait that separates Tamil Nadu and northern Sri Lanka. More precisely, it is located 14.5 km south of Delft Island and about 16 km to the northeast of Rameswaram. It is barren, has no drinking water or infrastructure, except a sole Catholic structure dedicated to St. Anthony.

What was the dispute?

The dispute was over who owns Katchatheevu. Negotiations began in 1921, between the British colonial governments of Madras and Ceylon, with both sides claiming territorial ownership. The matter was settled some five decades later, after the Governments of India and Sri Lanka, under Prime Ministers Indira Gandhi and Sirimavo Bandaranaike, signed two bilateral agreements in 1974 and 1976. The governments agreed that Katchatheevu falls within Sri Lanka’s territory, and on a maritime boundary in the Gulf of Mannar and Bay of Bengal to define the two countries’ exclusive economic zones. With the exclusive economic zones, India and Sri Lanka agreed to exercise sovereign rights over the living and non-living resources of their respective zone. The understanding was that fishing vessels and fishermen of India and Sri Lanka shall not fish in each other’s waters, territorial sea and the exclusive zone.

However, despite the historic dispute over its territorial definition, fishermen from Tamil Nadu visit Katchatheevu every March, along with their Tamil-speaking counterparts of northern Sri Lanka, for the annual St. Anthony’s festival. The Indian fishermen do not require a passport to visit the island in Sri Lankan territorial waters for this purpose, because the 1974 agreement expressly permitted them to access the island for rest, drying of nets, and the festival, while prohibiting any fishing activity.

What did India get?

Commentary and analysis from the time, including in The Hindu, shows New Delhi was seen as gaining some diplomatic mileage with its neighbour, which was tilting towards China then. A few years after the liberation of Bangladesh, and alongside the difficult question of citizenship for Indian-origin Tamils who were rendered stateless in Sri Lanka, New Delhi deemed strong and close ties with Sri Lanka important. Further, New Delhi got sovereign rights over Wadge Bank, located near Kanniyakumari, and its rich marine resources. Earlier this year, the Union Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Directorate of Hydro-Carbon put out Notice Inviting Offers (NIO) for the exploration and development of oil and gas blocks in India, under the Hydrocarbon Exploration and Licensing Policy (HELP). The move drew flak from residents of Kanniyakumari and environmentalists who raised concerns over such activity impacting the marine ecosystem around Wadge Bank.

Are fishermen arrests related to the island?

No, they are not. Indian fishermen from Tamil Nadu have been facing arrests by the Sri Lankan Navy for many years now, for fishing illegally in Sri Lanka’s territorial waters. Invariably, the arrests are made well past Katchatheevu, very close to Sri Lanka’s northern shores. Northern Sri Lankan fishermen, also Tamil speaking, have been agitating since the end of the island nation’s civil war in 2009, to assert their fishing rights. The Indian fishing boats are a major impediment to their post-war recovery.

In particular, they resist the use of the bottom-trawling fishing method used by their Indian counterparts, where trawl nets go down to the seabed, and scoop out all marine organisms, including small fishes and eggs. Eager to boost its marine exports, India began encouraging mechanised trawler fishing decades ago, when the Norwegian government invested millions of dollars into modernising India’s fishing fleet from the 1950s and up to the early 1970s. Owing to the practice, marine resources along Tamil Nadu’s coast have depleted, pushing Indian fishermen towards the Sri Lankan coast, rich in marine biodiversity, especially shrimps. Northern Sri Lankan fishermen are opposing the use of the fishing method that Indian fishermen stubbornly hold on to, despite the two governments in 2016 agreeing to expedite the “transition towards ending the practice of bottom trawling at the earliest”. The fishermen’s conflict is a contest between Tamil-speaking fishermen in India and Sri Lanka, with those from Tamil Nadu habitually fishing illegally in Sri Lankan waters, using bottom trawlers that are banned in Sri Lanka. Although many politicians in India often conflate the two issues, Katchatheevu is not the site of this struggle, and its “retrieval” cannot be a solution to it.

What has been the response?

Opposition parties led by the Congress have slammed the remarks, citing the government’s own position in 2015 that the previous agreements did not “involve either acquiring or ceding of territory belonging to India”. Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M.K. Stalin asked if PM Modi raised the issue of the retrieval of the Katchatheevu island with Sri Lanka once during his 10-year rule. Senior diplomats, who have led Indian missions in Sri Lanka, said questioning past agreements could damage India’s credibility and impair relations with our neighbour. Former National Security Adviser Shiv Shankar Menon told The Hindu that reopening the 50-year-old-agreement could prove to be a “self-goal.”

Editorial | No man’s land: Playing politics over Katchatheevu 

In what some see as a muted response from the Sri Lankan government, the country’s Foreign Minister Ali Sabry has said there is no need to resume talks on a matter resolved 50 years ago. Sri Lanka’s Fisheries Minister Douglas Devananda has accused India of acting in self-interest “to ensure Sri Lankan fishermen do not have access” around Katchatheevu. Fishermen on both sides have voiced concern over the remarks, while reminding the two governments that much needs to be done to resolve the actual fisheries conflict that is threatening both the region’s marine ecosystem and livelihoods of fisher folk who depend on it.

New Delhi:

A tiny island between India and Sri Lanka on Palk Straight has become the latest flashpoint between the Congress and the BJP ahead of the Lok Sabha elections.

The island of Katchatheevu, a disputed area, was given to Sri Lanka by the Congress government headed by late Prime Minister Indira Gandhi through an agreement in 1974.

Katchatheevu — around 33 km from the Indian coast near Rameswaram — has been a disputed territory between India and Sri Lanka since the British period. Back then both nations were British colonies. The British, citing the traditional claims of the Ramnad zamindari of Ramanathapuram, had attached it to the Madras Presidency.

But the dispute broke out again after Independence over fishing rights around the island.

To settle the discord and strengthen ties with Sri Lanka, the government headed by Indira Gandhi had agreed to cede it to island nation under the 1974 “Indo-Sri Lankan Maritime agreement”.

At the time, the uninhabited volcanic island — 1.6 km in length and around 300 m wide — was thought to have little strategic value. But over the last decades, the situation has changed owing to the rise of China and its growing influence over Sri Lanka.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi last evening asserted that the Congress “callously” gave it away to Sri Lanka. “Eye-opening and startling! New facts reveal how Congress callously gave away Katchatheevu. This has angered every Indian and reaffirmed in people’s minds – we can’t ever trust Congress,” PM Modi posted on X, formerly Twitter.

Doubling down on Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s charge at Opposition over the Katchatheevu island row, External Affairs Minister Dr S Jaishankar today said Jawaharlal Nehru, the country’s first Prime Minister, wanted to give away the island to Sri Lanka.

Responding to the remarks, senior DMK leader RS Bharathi said the Prime Minister has “no achievements” to showcase . “If PM Modi was keen on Katchatheevu, he could have reclaimed that island during his 10 years in office. Why did not he take up the Katchatheevu issue?” Mr Bharathi said.

The argument has been seconded by Congress chief Mallikarjun Kharge. The Katchatheevu island was given to Sri Lanka as part of a friendly agreement in 1974, Mr Kharge added, pointing out that the BJP-led government too had undertaken a similar “friendly gesture” towards Bangladesh on exchange of border enclaves.

Colombo:

External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar on Wednesday called on Sri Lankan President Ranil Wickremesinghe in Colombo and held “extensive discussions” aimed at enhancing the relationship between the two neighbours.

The minister, who is here to attend the 23rd Council of Ministers Meeting of the Indian Ocean Rim Association (IORA), met with President Wickremesinghe at the Presidential Secretariat.

“Called on President of Sri Lanka Ranil Wickremesinghe today evening in Colombo. Conveyed the warm greetings of PM @narendramodi. Discussed the progress in taking the India-Sri Lanka relationship forward across the many domains of our cooperation,” Mr Jaishankar said in a post on platform X.

During their meeting, they engaged in “extensive discussions aimed at enhancing the relationship” between India and Sri Lanka, the President’s office said.

Additionally, three new bilateral agreements were signed to foster greater cooperation between the two countries, it added.

The minister said India and Sri Lanka also launched a logo celebrating the 75 Years of “our diplomatic relationship today”.

Sharing the picture of the logo on X, he said, it “captures our deep historical, cultural and people to people bonds”.

India and Sri Lanka launched a logo celebrating the 75 Years of our diplomatic relationship today.

Captures our deep historical, cultural and people to people bonds. pic.twitter.com/a78c8Rfj8f

— Dr. S. Jaishankar (@DrSJaishankar) October 11, 2023

S Jaishankar arrived in Colombo on Monday evening to attend the IORA Council of Ministers meeting – the highest decision-making body of IORA, the largest and pre-eminent organisation in the Indian Ocean Region with 23 members and 10 dialogue partners.

At the meeting, India assumed the Vice Chair role of IORA for 2023-25 leading to chairing in 2025-27.

This was his second visit to Sri Lanka in 2023.

S Jaishankar last visited Colombo in January during which he held talks with Lanka’s top leadership and discussed the entire gamut of close bilateral partnership and steps to strengthen it in all spheres.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)