The National Budget is IMF influenced

The National Budget is IMF influenced, so what? Do we have a choice?

FT lk  19-11-2025

Cheers and jeers welcomed Sri Lanka’s National Budget 2026. This is normal when the country’s ends are many, but the means are limited. Budget promulgations based on important and urgent priorities, as seen by drivers of national policy, will produce winners and losers.

Although the Opposition is taunting the National People’s Power (NPP) Government about bowing excessively to the requirements of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and not adequately addressing the pressing needs of the low and middle-income citizens of the country, I applaud the focus and determination of the Government to not succumb to the temptation of giving what the country cannot afford to win votes at the upcoming provincial elections. In this light, the Budget represents a profound political and economic statement. 

Though largely guard-railed by the demands of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to increase tax collections, align electricity pricing with costs, strengthen social safety nets, implement anti-corruption measures, rebuild external buffers to ensure financial stability and complete debt restructuring with both private and bilateral creditors, I view the National Budget 2026 as one of deliberate abstinence, founded on the conscious refusal to resort to the addictive short-termism of populist measures that have historically defined Sri Lankan politics.

By prescribing the unpleasant but necessary medicine of structural reform, greater tax compliance, institutional clean-up, and reorientation towards productive investment, the NPP is taking a massive political gamble. Although I call it a gamble, it is the right approach. This is the gamble which both Mahinda Rajapaksa and Gotabaya Rajapaksa refused to take despite the commanding majorities they enjoyed in the Sri Lankan parliament in 2010 and 2020. 

The NPP is betting that the long-term seeds sown in this Budget in the forms of the new Revenue Authority, the enhanced Anti-corruption Framework, the Single Window for investment, and the shift towards export-led industrialisation will yield tangible fruits such as restored investor confidence, increased foreign direct investment (FDI), economic growth, greater job certainty, reduced inflation and general prosperity before the next round of presidential and general election. To me, this is a rare, non-populist commitment to national solvency over short-term political survival. Bravo!

Challenge for President Dissanayake and the NPP

The challenge for President Dissanayake and the NPP is twofold. Maintaining the political will to enforce these painful reforms against inevitable public discontent and ensuring that the complex institutional mechanisms like the Revenue Authority and Single Window are implemented effectively and without bureaucratic inertia. If they succeed, the 2026 Budget will be remembered not for its lack of relief and electoral silence, but as the blueprint that finally broke Sri Lanka's cycle of populist measures and laid the essential foundations for a prosperous and resilient long-term future.

The failure of the NPP Government to live up to its election promise that it would renegotiate the IMF deal in procuring fairer terms for the people has been the key censuring weapon of the Opposition. This is a classic example of sour grapes because had one of the parties in the opposition secured power, its approach to IMF’s “sword of Damocles” would have been very similar to that adopted by the NPP. Any attempt by the NPP to flout the key IMF conditions would be economic hara-kiri. Therefore, the NPP must not feel shy in stating that the Budget was influenced by the IMF benchmarks.

We must recognise that Sri Lanka’s push into the arms of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) was the culmination of years of economic mismanagement by various parties who are now in the Opposition, a series of catastrophic policy decisions and external shocks. The Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) insurrections in 1971 and late 1980s and the 26 year war between the Government and the Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) seeking an independent Tamil State, added fuel to the fire. We, the citizens, also had a good time living beyond the country’s means. At the core of the crisis was a persistent "twin deficit". A massive fiscal deficit with Government spending far exceeding revenue and a current account deficit with imports constantly outweighing exports. 

Failure of successive governments

For years, successive governments failed to expand the country's export revenue or diversify the economy, instead relying heavily on tourism, remittances, and foreign borrowing to bridge the gap. The situation spiraled in 2019 when the Government enacted deep tax cuts, drastically reducing Government revenue by an estimated two% of GDP. This critical misstep rapidly weakened public finances. Simultaneously, the Government banned chemical fertilisers, severely damaging the crucial agricultural sector, including tea.

The COVID-19 pandemic delivered a brutal blow, crippling the lucrative tourism industry and slashing remittances, the primary sources of foreign exchange reserves. As debt repayment deadlines loomed and foreign reserves depleted by over 70% in two years, the Government resorted to printing money, fuelling hyperinflation. Rating agencies downgraded the country, locking it out of international capital markets. In April 2022, Sri Lanka formally defaulted on its foreign debt, a first in its history. With no foreign exchange to import essential goods like fuel, food, and medicine, the nation faced an unprecedented humanitarian crisis, leading to widespread protests. 

IMF program

Having exhausted all other options and facing an existential collapse, the Government had no choice but to seek an Extended Fund Facility (EFF) from the IMF as a last resort for a comprehensive $ 2.9 billion bailout and a path to debt restructuring. For Sri Lanka, it was Hobson’s choice at that time. For the NPP Government it was fait accompli when it assumed power. Notwithstanding NPP’s election rhetoric, Opposition’s expectation that the NPP would dramatically alter the IMF program is a wish too far. The National Budget must be judged against this background.

There exists an established framework to secure IMF’s Extended Fund Facility (EFF). Credit must go to the Ranil Wickremesinghe (RW) administration, which walked a tightrope in establishing this framework for the implementation of, and the monitoring of progress against, the IMF demands. The RW administration tackled the economic collapse by setting up a robust structural foundation to satisfy the IMF's Extended Fund Facility (EFF) and establish a base for monitoring and governance through, Fiscal Fortification via an unrelenting push for revenue-based fiscal consolidation through unpopular tax hikes. This move was not just about cash. It was about shifting Sri Lanka from debt-fuelled spending to sustainable, self-financed Government operations, Cost-Reflective Pricing. To stem the bleeding from massive losses in State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs), the Government established automatic, cost-reflective pricing formulas for fuel and electricity. This mechanism removed political interference, ensuring that prices cover the cost of supply, thereby preventing future Budgetary black holes, and  The Governance Overhaul. Crucially, the administration focused on institutional reform to rebuild trust. It took a historic step by publishing the IMF Governance Diagnostic Report, which was a first in Asia, publicly acknowledging deep-rooted corruption weaknesses. Furthermore, it worked on enacting key legislation like the Public Financial Management Act and the Public Debt Management Act to strengthen fiscal discipline, debt management, and accountability, providing the legal infrastructure for transparent, monitored financial conduct.

These steps represented the foundation of institutional credibility and tough, non-negotiable financial monitoring that the IMF required for long-term stability. RW achieved a lot in these respects. Despite the same, he lost the presidential election because of his leadership style and his inability to inspire a shared vision for all Sri Lankans. Not just one for Colombo’s elites.

Balanced approach

It was common sense for the NPP Government to continue with the RW initiated program to maintain economic stability and complete debt restructuring, while seeking changes to ease the immediate burden on the populace. These may be seen as de facto concessions or adjustments. The NPP Government is navigating a long, narrow, and tough path. To be fair, it has publicly sought a "balanced approach" from the IMF and has been partially successful in securing adjustments aimed at alleviating some politically painful conditions, such as easing the tax burden on certain groups and prioritising social spending.

There is no denying that the National Budget 2026 is structurally and numerically aligned with the IMF demands and benchmarks. It is, by design, an 'IMF Budget.’ Its key figures, the primary surplus target and the revenue-to-GDP goal, are direct quantitative requirements of the Extended Fund Facility. So- what is wrong? Beggars can't be choosers!

The National Budget 2026 is more than a mere financial statement. It is a critical policy document designed to solidify fiscal stability, accelerate structural reforms, and lay the groundwork for a productive, digitally empowered, and inclusive economy. The significant moves within the Budget reflect a dual commitment: adhering to fiscal discipline required for debt sustainability and simultaneously addressing the social needs and growth aspirations of the nation.

Fiscal consolidation and macroeconomic targets

The primary focus of the 2026 Budget is fiscal consolidation, the cornerstone of the country's economic program. The Government has set ambitious yet critical macroeconomic targets:

• Budget deficit target:

 The Budget aims to maintain the deficit at approximately 5.1% of GDP.

• Primary surplus:

 A primary surplus (revenue minus non-interest expenditure) of around 2.5% of GDP is projected, signaling the Government's commitment to generate enough revenue to cover operational costs and contribute towards debt servicing.

• Debt sustainability:

 The long-term goal of reducing Government debt is reinforced, with a projection to decline to 96.8% of GDP by 2026 and further to around 87% by 2030.

• Revenue mobilisation: Total revenue is targeted at Rs. 5,305 billion, being over 15.4% of GDP, emphasising that revenue enhancement is the main tool for deficit reduction, rather than cuts in essential public expenditure.

This disciplined approach is vital for restoring international creditor confidence and sustaining the momentum of the reform agenda.

Revenue and taxation reforms

The most significant moves involve taxation, aimed at broadening the tax base and improving collection efficiency.

debt servicing.

• Broadening the tax net:

 A key structural reform is the proposed reduction in the registration thresholds for the Value Added Tax (VAT) and the Social Security Contribution Levy (SSCL), effective from 1 April, 2026.

 This move will bring a larger number of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) into the formal tax structure, enhancing tax equity and revenue.

• Tax structure rationalisation:

The Budget signals a commitment to gradually adjust the direct-to-indirect tax ratio from the current 25:75 to a more equitable 40:60. This shift is essential for a progressive tax system.

• Trade tax simplification:Efforts to standardise customs duty bands and the phased removal of para-tariffs are intended to simplify the trade regime, reduce the cost of imports for production, and enhance Sri Lanka's competitiveness in the global market.
• Investment incentives for SMEs: 

To counterbalance the broadened tax net for smaller players, the Budget proposes to reduce the qualifying investment threshold for enhanced capital allowances from $ 3 million to $ 250, 000. This measure makes investment-related tax benefits accessible to a much wider range of SMEs, encouraging capital formation and job creation in the domestic sector.

Structural and governance reforms

Beyond fiscal numbers, the 2026 Budget prioritises structural and governance reforms crucial for long-term economic transformation.

• Anti-corruption drive:

 Restructuring and modernising loss-making SOEs remain a top priority. The Budget proposes introducing a Public Commercial Business Management Act to strengthen governance, accountability, and commercial viability in these institutions. Furthermore, there are proposals to merge or close redundant public sector institutions to improve overall efficiency.

• Anti-Corruption Drive: The Budget calls for adequate funding to be allocated to key institutions like the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption (CIABOC) and the judicial system to strengthen their capacity and ensure swifter justice, tying economic reform to better governance.

Digital transformation:

 A significant thrust is placed on digitalisation. Key initiatives include the rollout of the first Digital ID in 2026, establishing a national data exchange infrastructure, facilitating the commercial launch of 5G services, and implementing an e-procurement system for the Government. Furthermore, zero service fees are proposed for online payments to the Government to encourage cashless transactions.

Sectoral development and social welfare

The Budget seeks to balance fiscal austerity with targeted measures to boost specific economic sectors and protect vulnerable populations.

• Export and investment promotion:

 A Trade National Single Window is to be established to streamline export-import processes. Investment promotion is strengthened through the implementation of a Public-Private Partnership (PPP) framework and amendments to the Port City and Strategic Development Acts to ensure predictable concession frameworks for foreign investors.

• Focus on production economy:

 The Budget emphasises strengthening domestic production, particularly in agriculture, through the modernisation of paddy processing, strengthening food storage, and expanding irrigation. For the SME sector, the consolidation of key enterprise development agencies aims to provide a more streamlined support system.

• Social protection: While maintaining fiscal prudence, the Budget continues to support targeted social welfare programs like 'Aswesuma'. A notable direct move for workers is the announced increase in the plantation sector's daily wage to Rs. 1,750, effective from January 2026, aiming to address cost-of-living pressures in this key sector.

The primary risk to the Budget 2026 is maintaining fiscal consolidation while addressing popular dissent and weak execution capacity. Revenue targets are ambitious, relying heavily on widening the tax net and improved compliance. Failure to sustain this strong revenue performance, especially amid potential global trade slowdowns or domestic resistance to new taxes, like a wealth tax, would widen the projected 5.1% GDP deficit and derail the IMF program. Second, there is a significant risk of underspending on capital projects, as seen in 2025, which limits growth potential and makes long-term fiscal stability harder to achieve. Third, political resistance and "reform fatigue" threaten structural reforms, particularly the restructuring of State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs) like the Ceylon Electricity Board. Policy inconsistency and frequent reversals of major decisions can deter vital foreign investment. Finally, while the Budget aims to balance discipline with social justice, rising costs of living and public frustration with reforms could create social instability, undermining the policy continuity required to secure final debt restructuring and achieve the targeted 7% medium-term growth.

Sri Lanka at a pivotal juncture

Sri Lanka stands at a pivotal juncture. The profound economic and governance crises of the recent past have delivered a clear, unequivocal mandate. Political division must yield to national unity. The Government and the Opposition share a sacred, non-negotiable duty to the citizens. Make the national strategy work. The country's long-term strategy, whether it concerns economic recovery, anti-corruption reforms, constitutional changes, or debt restructuring, is far too vital to be held hostage by partisan rivalries. When political leaders spar, the nation suffers. Austerity measures, structural reforms, and regaining international trust require consistency and longevity. Any policy that can be dismantled or reversed with a change in Government is fundamentally unsustainable.

A united front sends a powerful signal to the world and, more importantly, to every Sri Lankan. Our future is not one of perpetual crisis, but of shared, resilient purpose. The time for a new political culture, defined by sincerity and collaboration, is now. National stability depends on it. Finally, do not refer to IMF dictated Budgets. We got ourselves into it.

(The writer is currently a Leadership Coach, Mentor and Consultant and boasts over 50+ years of experience in very senior positions in the corporate world – local and overseas. www.ronniepeiris.com.)

How many times has Israel violated the Gaza ceasefire?

 EXPLAINER

How many times has Israel violated the Gaza ceasefire? Here are the numbers

Since the ceasefire took effect one month ago, Israeli attacks have killed at least 242 Palestinians and injured 622.

(Al Jazeera) By AJLabs 11-11=2025 

Published On 11 Nov 2025 11 Nov 2025

One month into the declaration of a ceasefire in the Gaza Strip, Israel has violated the agreement with near-daily attacks, killing hundreds of people.

Israel violated the ceasefire agreement at least 282 times from October 10 to November 10, through the continuation of attacks by air, artillery and direct shootings, the Government Media Office in Gaza reports.

The office said Israel shot at civilians 88 times, raided residential areas beyond the “yellow line” 12 times, bombed Gaza 124 times, and demolished people’s properties on 52 occasions. It added that Israel also detained 23 Palestinians from Gaza over the past month.

Israel has also continued to block vital humanitarian aid and destroy homes and infrastructure across the Strip.

Al Jazeera tracks the ceasefire violations to date.

What are the terms of the ceasefire?

On September 29, the United States unveiled a 20-point proposal, without any Palestinian input, to end Israel’s war on Gaza, release the remaining captives held in the enclave, allow the full entry of humanitarian aid into the besieged territory and outline a three-phase withdrawal of Israeli forces.

Some of the main conditions of the first phase, which is ongoing, include:

• An end to hostilities in Gaza by Israel and Hamas
• Lifting the blockade of all aid into Gaza by Israel and stopping its interference in aid distribution
• Release of all captives held in Gaza – alive or dead – by Hamas
• Release of some 2,000 Palestinian prisoners and disappeared people from Israeli jails
• Withdrawal of Israeli forces to the “yellow line”

Following mediation by partners including Egypt, Qatar, and Turkiye, representatives from some 30 countries gathered on October 13 for a ceremony to sign the Gaza ceasefire agreement, led by US President Donald Trump.

However, Israel and Hamas were notably absent, raising doubts about the summit’s ability to achieve tangible progress towards ending the war and resolving the core issues of Israeli occupation and the 18-year-long siege of Gaza.

Israel has pledged not to allow a Palestinian state, and the US has continued its large-scale arms transfers and diplomatic backing to Israel throughout its genocidal war on Gaza, while offering only vague statements about Gaza’s future.

Israel attacks Gaza nearly every day

According to an analysis by Al Jazeera, Israel has attacked Gaza on 25 out of the past 31 days of the ceasefire, meaning there were only six days during which no violent attacks, deaths or injuries were reported.

Despite continuing attacks, the US insists that the “ceasefire” is still holding.

Israel still killing Palestinians

Since the ceasefire took effect at noon on October 10, Israel has killed at least 242 Palestinians and injured 622, according to the latest figures from the Palestinian Ministry of Health.

On October 19 and 29 – two of the deadliest days since the latest ceasefire – Israel killed a total of 154 people.

On October 19, accusing Hamas of violating the ceasefire after two Israeli soldiers were killed in Rafah, Israeli forces killed 45 people in a massive wave of air raids across the Gaza Strip.

Hamas’s armed wing, the Qassam Brigades, pointed out that Israel controls the Rafah area and it had no contact with any Palestinian fighters there.

On October 29, Israel killed 109 people, including 52 children, after an exchange of gunfire in Rafah that killed one Israeli soldier.

Israel also said a body transferred from Gaza by Hamas via the Red Cross did not belong to one of the captives due to be released under the ceasefire.

“The Israelis hit back, and they should hit back,” Trump told reporters, calling Israel’s attacks “retribution” for the soldier’s death.

Here are the latest figures from the Palestinian Ministry of Health in Gaza, tracking the casualties from October 7, 2023, through November 10, 2025:

• Confirmed killed: at least 69,179 people, including 20,179 children
• Injured: at least 170,693 people

Israel still choking aid

The ceasefire stipulated that “full aid will be immediately sent into the Gaza Strip”. However, the reality on the ground remains very different.

According to the World Food Programme (WFP), only half the required food aid is currently reaching Gaza, while a coalition of Palestinian relief agencies says total aid deliveries amount to just one-quarter of what was agreed under the ceasefire.

From October 10 to November 9, only 3,451 trucks have reached their intended destinations inside Gaza, according to the UN2720 Monitoring and Tracking Dashboard, which monitors humanitarian aid in Gaza.

According to truck drivers, aid deliveries are facing significant delays, with Israeli inspections taking much longer than expected.

According to the Government Media Office, as of November 6, only 4,453 trucks had entered Gaza since the ceasefire began, out of an expected 15,600.

This averages about 171 trucks daily, far short of the 600 trucks per day that were supposed to enter.

Yet the White House says nearly 15,000 trucks carrying commercial goods and humanitarian aid have entered Gaza since October 10, a figure sharply disputed by Palestinians and aid groups.

In addition, Israel has blocked more than 350 essential and nutritious food items, including meat, dairy, and vegetables crucial for a balanced diet. Instead, non-nutritious foodstuffs are being allowed, such as snacks, chocolate, crisps, and soft drinks.

Did Hamas release the captives it’s supposed to release?

On October 13, as per the ceasefire deal, Hamas released all 20 remaining living Israeli captives in exchange for 250 Palestinians serving long prison sentences and 1,700 Palestinians disappeared by Israel since October 7, 2023.

As part of the deal, Hamas is also expected to return the bodies of 28 Israeli captives in exchange for 360 Palestinian bodies held by Israel.

As of November 10, Hamas had returned 24 Israeli captives’ bodies, with four remaining in Gaza. The group has said it requires heavy excavation equipment to recover the remaining bodies buried under the rubble from Israeli bombardment.

Israel has so far returned 300 Palestinian bodies, many of which were mutilated and showed signs of torture. Many remain unidentified.

What does international law say about ceasefires?

According to Lieber Institute, a ceasefire is designed to halt active combat, or “freeze a conflict in place”, but it can be ambiguous in international law.

The suspension of hostilities is best understood as a cessation of active hostile military operations.

Resuming hostilities would breach political agreements, but it might not be a violation of international law unless the ceasefire was part of a binding treaty or United Nations Security Council resolution.

The Expulsion of Muslims

The Expulsion of Muslims from the North by the LTTE in October 1990: Raison Détre

DBS Jeyaraj, whose chosen title is “How and Why the LTTE Evicted Muslims from the Northern Province in “Black October 1990,” when placed in DBSJeyaraj.com on 22 October 2020, …… This article was written in 2015 to mark the Twenty–Fifth Anniversary of Muslim Mass Expulsion From North by the LTTE. It is being re-posted without any changes to denote the 32nd annivrsary of the tragic event.

The Investigation launched by the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has in accordance with its terms of reference probed the period of time from the 2002 February ceasefire until the end of the war in May 2009 to ascertain whether war crimes, crimes against humanity and human rights violations occurred in Sri Lanka during the final phase of the war as alleged. The focus on these particular years has naturally led to the overlooking of many other terrible incidents which happened in the years preceding 2002. Notable among these horrors is the mass expulsion of Muslims from the North by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam(LTTE).

The twenty-fifth anniversary of this cruel, inhuman episode in the history of Tamil –Muslim relations in Sri Lanka is being widely remembered at present. It was in October 1990 that the tiger organization (LTTE) forcibly expelled the Tamil speaking Muslim people from the Northern Province in an atrocious act amounting to ethnic cleansing. Within a few days the Muslims were chased out of their homeland where they had lived for many, many centuries.

mosque in Chavakachcheri

The mass expulsion of Muslims from the North in 1990 was a humanitarian catastrophe. Uprooting a people from their habitat at gun point and driving them away after depriving them of their cash and jewellery was despicable and unpardonable. I have often written about this tragedy in the past. I now intend to focus upon this mass expulsion on the occasion of its 25th anniversary. I shall be drawing on some of my earlier writings in a bid to revive memories of this mass expulsion by relating in brief the tale of this terrible tragedy. I also want to trace the sequence of events that led to this sordid exercise in which the Tamil speaking Muslims were chased out by their gun toting linguistic brethren.

“Black October 1990”

“Black October” 1990 began in the Jaffna peninsula with the expulsion of Muslims of Chavakachcheri on October 15th and ended with the Muslims of Jaffna town on Oct 30th. The mass eviction of Muslims on the Northern mainland began a few days before it commenced in Jaffna town and concluded a few days after the peninsula was “cleansed” of Muslims.

The bulk of Northern Muslims were then living in the Mannar district .They were sent out.Apart from Jaffna and Mannar , the Muslims of Mullaitheevu and Kilinochchi districts were also sent out .The Muslims in Vavuniya were luckier as most of their villages were in the Government controlled areas. More than 50,00 Muslims were expelled from the northern mainland by the LTTE. Together with those of the peninsula the Muslims driven out from the Northern Province numbered around 75,000 in 1990.

The northern Muslims like their Tamil counterparts were equally affected by the on going war then. They too like Tamil civilians had from time to time vacated their homes during intense shelling or bombing.They had always returned home in a few days. But the eastern province situation was taking a different turn.

Tamil – Muslim hostilities were increasing in the East. The desertion of some Muslim cadres in the LTTE and a few of them going over to the enemy incensed the Eastern LTTE under Karuna (military commander) and Karikalan (political commissar). Many other Muslim cadres in the LTTE were executed by the leadership. An anti – Muslim spirit pervaded the LTTE.

On the other hand the UNP govt of the day also exploited and aggravated these feelings. Many Muslim anti-social elements were inducted as homeguards. These sections collaborated with the security forces in promoting anti-Tamil violence. In some cases Muslim homeguards were responsible for Tamil civilian massacres. Some Tamil hamlets and villages were destroyed by Muslim homeguard led mobs. They were given covert support by sections of the security forces.

The LTTE in turn responded with terrible gruesome massacres of Muslim civilians. The Sammanthurai and Kattankudi attacks on Mosques and killing of Muslims while praying and the massacres of civilians at the Saddham Hussein model village of Eravur being notorious examples.

A diabolical aspect to this state of affairs was the deliberate attempt to foment Tamil – Muslim friction by a section of the security establishment. A case in point was the shady phenomenon of “Captain Munas”. A “unit” under the command of this Captain Munas was reportedly responsible for many disappearances and executions of Tamils in Batticaloa in 1990. The name Captain Munas was loathed and feared. It was assumed that he was a Muslim. However in later years the Soza commission of inquiry revealed that the so called capt. Munas was in actual fact an “intelligence” official named Richard Dias.

Tamil –Muslim Relations

Though Tamil-Muslim relations were at a low point in the East the situation was quite different in the North. Both communities continued to co – exist there peacefully. One reason being that Muslims were a small minority posing no threat whatsoever to the Tamil majority.

This situation of Muslims living peacefully in the North while tensions prevailed in the East was unacceptable to the Eastern tigers. A delegation led by Karikalan the then LTTE eastern political chief came to the North to persuade tiger supremo Prabhakaran that “stern” action should be taken against Muslims. Karikalan apparently wanted a lesson to be taught to the Muslims. Even as this pressure was being exerted on the tiger hierarchy an incident occurred at Chavakachcheri in the Thenmaraaatchi sector of the Jaffna peninsula.

On September 4th 1990 a group of Tamils aligned to the LTTE as “helpers” had an altercation with some Muslims near the Chavakachcheri mosque. Some tried to attack the Mosque also. Youths of the Muslim community apprehended some of the Tamils involved and handed them over to the LTTE.The tigers released them and warned the Muslim “minority” not to “offend” the Tamil “majority” .On September 25th a Muslim youth protesting the denial of a Pass by the LTTE to leave the Penisula was assaulted by tiger cadres who “arrested” him. He went “missing” thereafter.

Most of the Chavakachcheri Muslims lived on Dutch road in the town. The LTTE while investigating an incident of intra-Muslim violence discovered some swords in the house of a butcher.According to tiger “explanations” this had triggered off an alarm bell. The LTTE conducted a search of Muslim houses and businesses and found about 75 swords concealed in a shop owned by a prominent Muslim trader .This was seen as part of a deadly conspiracy. Even if this explanation were true one cannot see 75 swords being of any use against the Kalashnikovs of the LTTE.

 Children at Osmania College, Jaffna-August 2014

The shop where the swords were found belonged to a Muslim businessman whose lorries travelled to and from Colombo for trade. The LTTE intelligence known for its excessive paranoia suspected a greater conspiracy. It was suspected that the security-intelligence apparatus could be using Muslim businessmen travelling frequently to Colombo as agents to engage in sabotage or act as spies. Pre-emptive action was required it was felt.

So the Chavakachcheri Muslims concentrated mainly on Dutch road were expelled on October 15th 1990. Close upon 1000 people were forced to leave at gunpoint. They were told to go beyond Vavuniya the southern most town of the Northern province. The Chava Muslims reached Vavuniya on Oct 18th.Once the Chavakachcheri Muslims were ordered to leave the chain reaction started.

Tragedy of Expulsion

The tragedy of this expulsion was that the Muslims began fleeing the areas they had lived in for generations on the orders of an armed movement. There was no protest, no opposition. Such was the terror and power of the LTTE. Besides the Muslims were few in numbers.

Five years later Tamils too were forced into fleeing Jaffna in large numbers during the engineered exodus of 1995. Later in 2007 – 2009 Tamils in the northern mainland of Wanni had to move from place to place as the war escalated. Ultimately they were restricted to a small strip of littoral on the Mullaitheevu coast. Some would say perhaps that these are manifestations of the greater law of Karma or the universal principle of Dharma!

According to explanations provided by the LTTE later, the presence of an Eastern contingent under Karikalan in the North in October was greatly responsible for the decision of mass expulsion. Essentially it was depicted as some form of retaliatory warning to the eastern Muslims. This decision was further influenced by the exaggerated threat perception. In a blatantly racist mindset the Muslims were seen as potential fifth columnists. It was against this backdrop that the mass expulsion exercise took place.

The Muslims in Mannar district comprised 26% of the district population according to the 1981 census. They were 46% of the Mannar Island linked to the mainland by the Thalladdy causeway .The premier and relatively prosperous Muslim village on Mannar Island was Erukkalampitty. Around 300 tiger cadres encircled Erukkalampitty on Oct 21st 1990 and robbed the Muslims of cash, jewellery and valuable electronic goods. Around 800 – 850 houses were targeted.

On Oct 22nd some Muslims from Marichukkatty village near the Mannar – Puttalam district border were arrested by the LTTE for allegedly having clandestine dealings with the armed forces. On Oct 23rd the villagers of Marichukkatty were ordered to leave the place. This was followed by an eviction order on Oct 24th to all muslims in the Musali AGA division where Marichukkatty is situated. Musali incidently is a Muslim majority AGA division.

The expulsion process continued in Mannar.on Oct 24th the LTTE announced by loudspeaker that all Muslims living in Mannar Island should go out by Oct 28th and that they should report to the local LTTE office to finalise the procedures of expulsion. The helpless Muslims prepared to do so and began packing. On Oct 26th the LTTE “invaded” Erukkalampitty again and seized all the packed belongings of Muslims.

Many Tamils of Mannar including members of the Catholic clergy remonstrated with the LTTE over the expulsion order but to no avail. The LTTE then extended the expulsion deadline to Nov 2nd.

Muslims of Mannar Island

On October 28th evening the LTTE sealed off Erukkalampitty and other Muslim areas on Mannar Island. The Muslims of Mannar Island from the town and areas like Erukkalampitty, Tharapuram, Puthukkudiyiruppu, Uppukulam, Konthaipitty etc were forced to assemble enmasse on selected spots on the beach.They were left there without food or water or proper facilities for personal care. Concerned Tamil citizens from Mannar argued with the LTTE and managed to take bread and water to the thousands of people on the beach.

And then the Muslims of Mannar Island were forcibly sent 60 miles south by sea to Kalpitiya in the North Western province.Boats owned by Muslims in Mannar and Puttalam were used for this purpose. The entire exercise took more than three days. At least one child fell in the waters and died. Some infants and elderly people passed away soon after reaching Kalpitiya.

A happy returnee holds a hurricane lamp in one hand and balances aid items on her head at a UNHCR distribution point-Arippu, Mannar District (2009) pic: UNHCR/B.Baloch

If that was the pathetic plight of Muslims on Mannar Island the situation of Muslims in the Mannar district mainland was equally wretched. The Muslims from the Muslim majority Musali AGA division as well as other Muslims living in other areas such as Vidathaltheevu, Periyamadhu, Sannar, Murungan, Vaddakkandal, Parappankandal etc were ordered by the LTTE on Oct 25th to surrender their vehicles, bicycles, fuel and electronic goods to the Mosque or local school.

On October 26th they were ordered to report to the local LTTE office for instructions on how to “leave” the district.Each family was allowed possessions in five travel bags, 2000 rupees in cash and one gold sovereign. The Muslims were checked in three places –Madhu,Pandivirichaan and a location near Vavuniya town. At Madhu and Pandivirichaan ,people carrying more items than they were “allowed” found those being confiscated and “receipts” issued by cadres. But near Vavuniya many of the items including thermos flasks were arbitrarily looted. This segment of Muslims arrived on foot to Vavuniya.

The expulsion went on in other parts of the Northern Wanni mainland. On October 22nd morning a few Muslims in Neeravippitty in Mullaitheevu district were arrested on “suspicion” that they were supplying information to the armed forces. The same evening all Muslims in Mullaitheevu district were ordered to leave within a week’s time. The following day on Oct 23rd all Muslims living in Kilinochchi district were ordered to go out within five days. According to the 1981 census Muslims comprised 4.6% of Mullaitheevu and 1.6% of Kilinochchi districts respectively.

Muslims in Vavuniya district comprised 6.9% of the district according to 1981 census. The bulk of these people were living in Govt controlled areas. However the few Muslims living in LTTE controlled areas were also ordered to leave by November 1st.

Jaffna Muslims Unperturbed

Even as the expulsions were taking place in Wanni the Jaffna Muslims were unperturbed. According to the 1981 census Muslims in the Jaffna district were 1.66% of the total population. A portion of these in Chavakachcheri had been already chased out.But the Jaffna town area Muslims could not see any danger befalling them. These were things happening to others for different reasons. Jaffna Muslims saw themselves as integral to Jaffna.

Nothing could happen to them from their Tamil brethren. Like some Jewish people during the Hitler era they continued with “normal” life unmindful of the brewing disaster.

It appears in retrospect that the LTTE was more harsh on Jaffna Muslims than the others. They were given an incredibly short deadline to leave Jaffna. This may have been due to the LTTE deciding that Jaffna be “cleansed” of Muslims by November. Comparatively the tigers came “last” to the Jaffna Muslims. The LTTE D-Day for them was October 30th.

Many Jaffna Muslims left Sri Lanka after their expulsion and sought refuge in Western countries. Some came to Canada also. I have met and interacted with several of these persons in Toronto and quite a few are now close friends. I have listened to them relating harrowing tales of their horrible experiences during the expulsion and after. Their accounts saddened and depressed me greatly.

It was about 10.30 am in the morning that the LTTE vehicles with loudspeakers began plying the roads and lanes of the Jaffna Muslim residential areas. A terse announcement was repeated incessantly that representatives of each Muslim family should assemble at the Jinnah stadium of Osmania College by twelve noon. Armed tigers began patrolling the streets. Some began a house to house announcement in the thickly populated lanes and by – lanes.

The people abandoned whatever they were doing and hurried to the grounds. At 12. 30 pm a senior tiger leader Aanchaneyar addressed them. Aanchaneyar later went by another name Ilamparithy. Aanchaneyar or Ilamparithy had a brief message.The LTTE high command for reasons of security (Paathukaappu) had decided that all Muslims should leave Jaffna within two hours. Failure to do so meant punishment. No further explanation was given.

When people started to question him Ilamparithy lost his cool. He barked loudly that the Muslims should simply follow orders or face consequences. He then fired his gun several times in the air. A few of his bodyguards followed suit. The message was clear. The people thought initially that the army was going to invade Jaffna and that the LTTE was asking everyone to leave. Only belatedly did they realise that only the Muslims were being ordered to leave.

With more and more armed tigers coming into the area the perturbed Muslims began packing. Initially they were not told of any restrictions on the things they could carry. So people packed clothes, valuables, jewels and money. Buses, vans and lorries were made available for transport by the tigers. Many Muslims made their private transport arrangements too.

Long-term but temporary housing for displaced Muslims in Hidathnagar village, Puttalam District (pic: Norwegian Refugee Council-2007)

 

“Aunthumuchanthi Junction Queues

The Muslims streaming out of their homes were now given a fresh order. They were asked to queue up at the “Ainthumuchanthi” junction. As the hapless people lined up they were in for a terrible shock. Male and female cadres of the LTTE began demanding that the Muslim people hand over all their money, belongings and jewellery to them. Each person would be allowed only 150 rupees each. Each person would be allowed only one set of clothes.

Feeble protests were raised. The brandishing of sophisticated weapons and threats in aggressive tones quickly silenced them. The suitcases with clothes and other belongings were confiscated. They were opened first and selected clothes taken out. If a person wore trousers an extra set of trouser and shirt was given. If a person wore a sarong an extra sarong and shirt was given. All the money and documents including title deeds to property,cheque books and national identity cards were confiscated.

Women and girls were stripped of jewels. Some women cadres were brutal even pulling out ear studs with blood spurting in the ear lobes. The children were not spared. Not a watch was left. Jaffna Muslims reported later that Karikalan from Batticaloa was supervising the entire operation.

At least 35 wealthy Muslim businessmen were abducted. They were detained by the LTTE. Some Muslim jewellers were tortured for details of hidden gold. One jeweller was killed by the beatings in front of the others. Later huge sums of money were demanded for their release. Some paid up to 3 million. The abducted persons were released in stages over the years. 13 people however never returned and are presumed dead.

After expelling the Jaffna Muslims the LTTE cordoned off the area with ropes. The “Virakesari” of Nov 2nd 1990 reported that this was done to protect the property till the Muslims returned. Some of the dazed Muslims too thought that their expulsion was only temporary. It took months for them to understand the true state of affairs. As time went on some of the once rich – now pauperised – Muslims found themselves unable to adjust to the new situation. They have declined greatly over the years.

The LTTE was particularly cruel in the case of Jaffna Muslims. The Jaffna Muslims were concentrated in two or three densely populated wards of the Jaffna Municipality. Sonaka theru, Ottumadam and Bommaively etc were their areas. They were an integral part of Jaffna society. There was a time when the Jaffna new market built by Mayor Alfred Duraiappah was virtually dominated by Muslims. Two of the three blocks were monopolised by Muslims. The hardware, lorry transport, jewellery and meat trades in Jaffna were dominated by Muslims. The Muslims of Jaffna like the Jaffna Tamils had also built up a proud educational tradition. Former civil servant and Zahira Principal AMA Azeez, Supreme Court Judge Abdul Cader, Appeal Court Judge MM Jameel. Education Director Munsoor etc being some leading lights of the Jaffna Muslims. There were Municipal Councillors and two MMCs Basheer and Sultan had been deputy – mayors and acting mayors of Jaffna.

Most of the Muslims expelled from the North were temporarily re- settled in the Puttalam district. Many found their way to Vavuniya, Negombo and Colombo districts. Others relocated to the Anuradhapura, Kurunegala, Gampaha , Matale and Kandy districts. Quite a lot of Jaffna Muslims went abroad as refugees.

Kalpitiya and Pulichakulam Areas

The largest concentrations of displaced Muslims from the northern mainland are in Kalpitiya and Pulichakulam areas. The largest concentration of displaced Jaffna peninsula Muslims are in the Thillaiyaddy area of Puttalam. More than 20,000 Muslims are still languishing in camps set up for Internally displaced persons.

Meanwhile the LTTE looted almost all possessions left in the Muslim houses. Many houses were stripped of tiles, wooden frames, doors, windows, etc. Much of the looted furniture was sold to Tamils through the LTTE Shops or “Makkal Kadai”. Some Muslims returning to the North after the ceasefire recognized their possessions in other houses and businesses. Many Muslim houses,lands and vehicles were sold illegally to Tamils by the LTTE.

The regaining of Jaffna peninsula in 1995 -96 and the Wanni in 2009 after the military defeat of the LTTE in May 2009 has resulted in furthering Muslim re-settlement in the Northern Province. Despite the end of war the resettlement pace leaves much to be desired.

The total Muslim population of the Northern Province according to the 1981 census was 50,991 or 4.601%.Muslim community leaders say the Northern province Muslim population at the time of expulsion in 1990 numbered about 81,000. This consisted of about 20,000 in Jaffna ,45,000 in Mannar,7000 in Mullaitheevu,8000 in Vavuniya and around 1000 in Kilinochchi. Of these about 75,000 barring those in Vavuniya and Nainatheevu were forcibly expelled. 67,000 Muslim people were registered at IDP camps immediately after the mass expulsion. The remainder stayed outside camps with relatives and friends.

After 25 years this population is expected to have almost doubled due to natural increase.After the war ended, bout 75 % of the Northern Muslims registered their willingness to go back to the North and be resettled. But the 2012 census indicates that only a small number of Northern Muslims have returned permanently to their homelands despite consenting to do so.

The Muslim population in the Northern Province and their percentage in the respective districts according to the 2012 census is as follows. Mannar 16,087 -16.2%; Vavuniya 11,700 -6.8; Jaffna 2139 -0.4% ;Mullaitheevu 1760 – 1.9% ; and Kilinochchi 678 -0.6%. When compared to the estimates at the time of expulsion in 1990, the Muslim population has shown a marked decrease except in Vavuniya which was not totally affected then.The Muslim population in the Northern province according to the 2012 census was only 32,396 or 3.061%.

“Floating Population” Still.

Many of the displaced Muslims who returned are yet to put down firm roots in their places of origin. They remain a “floating population” still. There are many social, cultural, economic and political reasons for this poor performance in Northern Muslim resettlement. These complex reasons have to be analysed and elaborated upon in detail on a future occasion. As for now I would like to conclude by reiterating a few points made by me earlier in several articles.

One of the greatest attributes of some expelled Muslims that I have come across is their lack of visible bitterness with Tamils. They realise that it was the LTTE which was responsible for their predicament and the reasons for it. They do not blame the ordinary Tamil for it. They also retain sympathy for the Tamil plight at the hands of both the state and the LTTE. Above all their fondness for the Tamil language, its literature and media have not decreased. Furthermore they are wistfully nostalgic about Jaffna asserting proudly that the North is their homeland too.

This magnanimity in spite of the injustice meted out to them shames the Tamil community at large. Except for a few voices there has been no powerful outcry against the LTTE for perpetrating this atrocity against the Muslims. A greater and vigorous demand has to be made by the Tamils that all expelled Muslims be resettled in their former homes with full compensation and restoration of property and awarded alternate provisions wherever necessary.

In that context what pains me greatly is the resentment and hostility shown by some sections of the Tamils in the North towards the return and re-settlement of Muslims in the North. Several Tamil religious dignitaries, bureaucrats, professionals, businessmen and politicians are guilty of harassing those who have returned and placing obstacles to prevent permanent resettlement.

One understands that psycho – social as well as socio – economic problems are likely to rise when a body of people uprooted for decades return to their original places of domicile and attempt to re-establish themselves. A new economy and order of life prevails in the places they were forced to vacate while the returnees themselves are used to a new way of life as internally displaced people. There is inevitable friction in such a situation. There is also commercial competition as the more entrepreneurial Muslims seek to establish or expand business activity in competition with their Tamil counterparts.

North is our Homeland Too

The situation is further compounded by the fact that many Muslim families which were a single family unit at the time of expulsion have now multiplied into plural family units. Those who were children or unmarried are now married with children of their own. The original homestead of “one family” is not adequate for “many families” now. So more land is needed. When action is taken to acquire more state land and re-settle the returning displaced Muslims there are protests and objections. What troubles me greatly is the lack of understanding and empathy displayed by many prominent Tamils towards the plight of the Muslims who want to return to the North. As the expelled Northern Muslims constantly reminded the Tamils “Vadakku Engalin Thaayagamum Kooda” (The North is our Homeland too)

The TNA that won the Northern provincial council elections in 2013 appointed a Muslim Bonus seat councillor to demonstrate its positive approach towards the Muslim people of the North. The TNA should stretch this extended hand of friendship further by constructing a fitting monument both expressing regret for the expulsion of Muslims as well as emphasising unity and inter-ethnic amity among all communities living in the Northern province.This would be a far better exercise for the newly elected TNA administration to embark upon than engaging in futile efforts to reconstruct war memorials for fallen tigers alone. More importantly the Northern provincial council and the Northern province Tamil parliamentarians should cooperate with and assist in the on going efforts to fully re-settle Muslims in the north

A female explains the prevailing sanitary problems at the IDP camp to HE Peter Hayes, High Commissioner of UK in Sri Lanka, visiting Puttalam in Dec, 2008-pic: UK in Sri Lanka

Northern Chief Minister CV Wigneswaran introduced a resolution early this year calling for an international investigation into alleged genocide of Tamils in Sri Lanka over the past years.It was approved unanimously by the Northern Provincial council. Against that backdrop the question posed by many is “What about the mass Muslim expulsion amounting to ethnic cleansing in the North”? Will Chief Minister Wigneswaran and his Northern provincial council pass a unanimous resolution expressing remorse over the incidents and seeking genuine Tamil – Muslim reconciliation?

In an environment where reconciliation is being talked about nationally and globally there is an imperative need for rapprochement between the Tamils and Muslims of the North. A strong sincere hand of friendship should be stretched towards the Muslims.A genuine and humble mass apology should be extended towards the Muslims by the Tamil National Alliance controlled Northern Provincial Council for the mass expulsion twenty-five years ago by the LTTE”.

This article written for the “DBS Jeyaraj Column” appears in the “Daily Mirror” of October 24, 2015, it can be reached via this link:

http://www.dailymirror.lk/dbs-jeyaraj-column

 DBS Jeyaraj can be reached at dbsjeyaraj@yahoo.com

   ***************

A NOTE from Thuppahi, 14 August 2023

I sought out an article on the expulsion of Muslims from the north because my knowledge about the events and the reasons for the LTTE action were extremely limited.  The incentive to do so has arisen tangentially from a quest relating to the Muslim Moors in the Eastern Province (one which will be given air in due course). That I should head imediaely for DBS’s column in this quest is hardly surps=ising. I had heard him deleiver a seminar at the ICEs in the 198s andknew that he was relatively independent and not in the LTTE’s good books. This does not mean that his essay exhausts our understanding of the motivations for  the LTTE decision. I encourage knowledgeable observers to comment on the several issues surrounding this awesome set of events.