Sri Lanka has long neglected to thoroughly examine and counter the swirling accusations about wartime atrocities many of which are based on flimsy evidence and politically charged narratives. By failing to investigate all available facts and systematically challenge dubious claims, the country has left itself exposed to global criticism, media distortion, and diplomatic pressure.
A new phase of this anti-Sri Lanka narrative emerged recently in Brampton, Ontario, Canada, where a monument was unveiled to honor what is described as the “Tamil genocide.” Widely reported as a tribute to Tamil victims of Sri Lanka’s civil conflict, the unveiling coincided with commemorations tied to the so-called Mullivaikkal massacre. These events revive the claim originating from the UN Secretary General’s Panel of Experts (PoE) that 40,000 civilians perished in the final phase of the war. That figure, often criticized as inflated and speculative, continues to serve as a rallying point for critics.
Brampton’s Mayor Patrick Brown, addressing the monument unveiling, declared: “Genocide deniers, you are not welcome in Brampton, you are not welcome in Canada. Go back to Colombo.” These remarks, quoted in several media outlets, seemed crafted to resonate with the city’s approximately 12,000 residents of Sri Lankan Tamil descent. Brown’s inflammatory rhetoric is emblematic of how politicians in the West use Sri Lanka as a symbolic battleground for diaspora politics.
But Canada’s moral outrage is ironic. A country that only recently began confronting its own legacy of abuse against Indigenous populations now sees fit to lecture Sri Lanka. Just three decades ago, Canada was shutting down church-run residential schools where the remains of thousands of Indigenous children were discovered in unmarked graves grim evidence of forced assimilation programs. Yet, here they are, pointing fingers at Sri Lanka without reconciling with their own past.
The Murky Reality of Tamil Victims
Those who continue to propagate the genocide narrative conveniently ignore the foundational role India played in creating and nurturing Tamil militant groups in the early 1980s. Over time, numerous claims emerged about the number of dead often devoid of clarity about who died and under what circumstances. The focus remained almost exclusively on LTTE casualties, presenting them as civilian losses.
What Mayor Brown and his ilk neglect to acknowledge is that thousands of Tamils were killed not by Sri Lankan forces, but by rival Tamil groups particularly during internecine clashes for dominance in the North and East. These internal killings often went undocumented or were ignored because they didn’t align with the Western narrative of a Sinhala-dominated state oppressing Tamils.
India’s Bloody Fingerprints
In 1987, Narendra Modi joined the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) a key year in Sri Lanka’s war history. That same year, India arm-twisted Sri Lanka into accepting a deployment of the Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF). The stated objective was to disarm Tamil groups, but India’s true intention was to manipulate the post-conflict political order. When Sri Lanka’s military launched Operation Liberation to flush out the LTTE from Vadamarachchi, India intervened by sending its air force over the Palk Strait to force a ceasefire and safeguard LTTE leader Prabhakaran.
In a twist of fate, Prabhakaran later ordered the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi, the very Indian leader who rescued him. Had Gandhi allowed the Sri Lankan military to finish the operation, the LTTE’s reign might have ended then and there saving countless lives and preventing future catastrophes like the Maldives attack.
More recently, Prime Minister Modi pushed back against former U.S. President Donald Trump’s claim of American mediation in a ceasefire, stating instead that India halted its military action following communication from Pakistan’s army to India’s Director General of Military Operations. He also emphasized India’s unity against terrorism, claiming that “zero tolerance” is the path to a safer world. Yet, this principle starkly contrasts with India’s own destabilizing actions in Sri Lanka during the 1980s.
If India is truly committed to fighting global terrorism, it must first acknowledge its role in exporting violence to Sri Lanka. Modi’s government has an opportunity to correct that history and set the record straight as Western governments escalate their criticism of Sri Lanka.
A Heavy Price Paid by All
India’s covert warfare against Sri Lanka inflicted immense damage on both nations. It conducted backroom diplomacy while fueling a proxy conflict that threatened to destroy Sri Lanka from within. India’s friendship with the Soviet Union during that time only added another layer of Cold War complexity to the regional struggle.
On May 12, 2025, Prime Minister Modi addressed the nation following the Pahalgam massacre, which took place on April 22. He stated that the military was now authorized to obliterate terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan. Modi singled out Bahawalpur and Muridke as the epicenters of global jihadist ideology alleging connections to attacks like 9/11 and the London Tube bombings. His speech boasted that India had eliminated over 100 terrorists in a recent offensive, including major leaders operating in Pakistan for decades.
Yet in his sweeping anti-terror speech, Sri Lanka was glaringly absent. For a country that militarily defeated one of the world’s deadliest guerrilla movements the LTTE Sri Lanka’s omission was notable. Perhaps it didn’t fit the convenient geopolitical narrative.
The Hidden Death Toll
There is no dispute that thousands died during Sri Lanka’s civil war, but critics often gloss over the different types of deaths that occurred:
- Tamil militants killed in internal conflicts among rival groups.
- Fighters who perished in clashes between Indian-trained factions.
- Combatants lost during battles with Sri Lankan security forces.
- Young Tamil trainees who died in Indian training camps or during sea transfers from Tamil Nadu.
- Cadres killed by rival groups in Indian territory, including the assassination of EPRLF leader K. Padmanabha in Madras in June 1990.
- Rebels eliminated by Indian forces in Sri Lanka’s North and East.
- LTTE operatives killed in naval encounters with Indian maritime forces.
- PLOTE members neutralized during their failed coup attempt in the Maldives.
- Tamil National Army fighters, created by India to prop up the EPRLF, who were decimated by the LTTE between 1989 and 1990, as President Premadasa flirted with Prabhakaran.
These deaths, while politically inconvenient, are part of the full story. They cannot be excluded from discussions about accountability.
The Sooka Controversy
Yasmin Sooka, a key member of the UN’s Panel of Experts on Sri Lanka, has been widely cited in international reports on war crimes. Her past roles include serving on South Africa and Sierra Leone’s Truth and Reconciliation Commissions and advising on sexual violence in the Central African Republic.
However, a request for clarification from the UN Deputy Spokesperson Farhan Haq confirmed that Sooka had never been an official legal advisor to Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, despite being frequently referred to as such. This factual discrepancy undermines the credibility of her advocacy, especially given her ongoing leadership at the International Truth and Justice Project (ITJP).
The Cost of Silence
Sri Lanka’s greatest failing in the post-war era may be its refusal to proactively counter these accusations. Even 17 years after the war’s end, the country has not mounted a full-scale response to the war crimes allegations. Lieutenant General Shavendra Silva, who retired on December 31, 2024, after four decades of service, lamented this in an interview. He criticized successive governments including Mahinda Rajapaksa’s for failing to clear the military’s name.
His frustration is valid. The release of the PoE report in June 2016, timed with the UN Human Rights Council’s 32nd session, coincided with the exposure of smuggling networks used to relocate ex-LTTE cadres into Europe. The report cited intelligence operatives from Pottu Amman’s inner circle now living as European citizens.
Compiled using interviews with 75 Tamil individuals in the UK, France, Switzerland, and Norway, the report revealed that most had fled Sri Lanka post-2009. An attempt to include Germany-based ex-militants failed, as they refused to participate due to distrust of the international process.
Interestingly, there was no similar interest in those who fled to India a glaring omission in the ITJP’s work.
Selective Memory, Strategic Silence
The report, prepared under Sooka’s guidance, ignored inconvenient truths. It did not account for those who sought refuge in India, nor did it investigate intra-Tamil group violence. Its emphasis was always on portraying Sri Lanka as a monolithic perpetrator of ethnic cleansing.
But history shows otherwise. During Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga’s presidency, Sri Lanka reestablished control over the Jaffna peninsula by 1995. The Tamil United Liberation Front (TULF) participated in the 1998 local elections, a move that angered the LTTE. The TULF’s entry into electoral politics was a strategic blow to the LTTE’s influence, proving that Tamil political representation could exist outside militancy.
The author of this analysis was present in Jaffna during those pivotal elections. Of 17 local councils, the TULF contested only the Jaffna Municipal Council and Waligamam North Pradeshiya Sabha. Even that limited participation angered the LTTE, which viewed elections as a threat.
Time for a Truthful Reckoning
Those who organize commemorations for LTTE combatants should also account for rival militants and forcibly recruited children who were lost to the war. If Brampton Mayor Patrick Brown wants to understand his Tamil constituents better, he might investigate whether they fled Sri Lankan state forces, Indian soldiers, or the LTTE itself.
For too long, the focus has been on a partial truth. Thousands of former militants now live overseas, unacknowledged in conversations about “disappearances.” Western countries that harbor them refuse to cooperate with Sri Lanka—creating a one-sided discourse that ignores the complexities of a multi-faceted conflict.
The ITJP’s survey, titled “Forgotten Sri Lanka’s Exiled Victims,” tried to spotlight these invisible voices. But without full transparency, and a balanced reckoning of history, Sri Lanka remains trapped in a narrative not of its making, but one it has failed to confront.
SOURCE :- SRI LANKA GUARDIAN
