By Roshan Pussewela –

Professor S.D. Muni’s recent remarks on Sri Lankan politics, delivered at a university in India, have raised eyebrows and stirred debate. In his speech, he claimed that Anura Kumara Dissanayake (AKD), leader of the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) and the National People’s Power (NPP), owes his rise to the United States. Additionally, he credited former President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga with reshaping the JVP’s ideology, steering it toward democracy. Both claims not only misrepresent the historical and political reality of Sri Lanka but also downplay the organic, people-driven nature of AKD’s ascent to leadership.

The Fallacy of U.S. Influence on AKD’s Rise

Muni’s assertion that AKD’s rise is orchestrated by U.S. influence is a gross misreading of the socio-political currents in Sri Lanka. Anura Kumara Dissanayake’s popularity has been cultivated through years of steadfast dedication to principles of accountability, anti-corruption, and economic justice—principles that resonate deeply with Sri Lanka’s frustrated electorate.

The 2022 economic collapse marked a turning point in the nation’s political trajectory. The collapse, triggered by decades of mismanagement, nepotism, and corruption under successive governments, led to mass protests under the banner of the Aragalaya movement. The NPP’s message of systemic change found fertile ground in this climate of disillusionment.

Anura’s reputation as an honest and capable leader grew in stark contrast to the figures in the Rajapaksa regime and other traditional parties. This grassroots support is what catapulted him to prominence, not some imagined foreign intervention.

While it is true that U.S. diplomats held meetings with NPP representatives, these interactions occurred only after it became evident that the NPP was a serious contender in the political arena. Diplomacy often involves engaging with potential future leaders, especially when they are expected to lead reforms. To frame these routine diplomatic engagements as evidence of control or undue influence disregards the agency of the Sri Lankan electorate, who overwhelmingly voted for change.

Chandrika Kumaratunga and the JVP’s Democratic Evolution

Muni’s suggestion that Chandrika Kumaratunga “trained” the JVP in democratic principles is equally misleading. The JVP’s transformation from a revolutionary insurgent group to a legitimate political force was an internally driven process, borne out of the failures and lessons of their violent uprisings in 1971 and 1987-89.

By the early 1990s, the JVP had made a conscious decision to abandon violence and re-enter mainstream politics. This was not an act of external coaching but a result of introspection and the realization that sustainable change required public trust and democratic engagement.

The coalition between the JVP and Chandrika’s People’s Alliance (PA) in 1994 was born out of mutual political expediency. The JVP lent crucial support to Chandrika in the presidential elections, but it was far from a mentor-protégé relationship. In fact, the JVP candidates who contested under the PA coalition banner consistently topped the preferential vote lists, demonstrating their independent appeal.

Later, the JVP distanced itself from Chandrika’s government, signalling dissatisfaction with her administration’s policies. If anything, this fallout underscores the JVP’s ideological independence and refusal to be subsumed under another party’s agenda.

Breaking Regional and Ethnic Barriers

Perhaps the most significant aspect of AKD’s rise is the NPP’s ability to secure unprecedented support in Sri Lanka’s Northern and Eastern provinces, traditionally considered strongholds of Tamil and Muslim political parties. For decades, the North and East remained resistant to what they perceived as “southern” or Sinhalese-centric political movements.

The NPP, however, transcended these historical divides by focusing on issues that resonated universally: economic justice, good governance, and an end to corruption. This remarkable shift reflects the NPP’s success in presenting itself as a genuinely national party, capable of addressing the needs of all Sri Lankans regardless of ethnicity or region.

The victory of a “southern” party in these regions is a seismic political event that cannot be attributed to external influence. It is a testament to the NPP’s inclusive approach and the electorate’s hunger for a fresh, unifying alternative.

Addressing the True Issues

Muni’s narrative distracts from the real challenges Sri Lanka faces, including addressing the concerns of minorities, ensuring equitable development, and implementing meaningful devolution. While the 13th Amendment remains a contentious issue, the NPP’s emphasis on participatory governance offers a pragmatic way forward, one that prioritizes empowering citizens across the board.

Conclusion

Professor Muni’s remarks, while reflective of a broader geopolitical lens, fail to capture the realities on the ground in Sri Lanka. By attributing AKD’s success to foreign influence and reducing the JVP’s democratic evolution to an act of external guidance, he undermines the agency of both the leader and the people.

Sri Lanka’s political transformation is a homegrown phenomenon, fuelled by the collective will of its people to break free from a cycle of corruption and incompetence. Anura Kumara Dissanayake’s rise is a symbol of this grassroots movement, not the result of a foreign hand.

It is vital that we challenge such narratives and ensure that the story of Sri Lanka’s political evolution is told accurately and authentically. The people deserve credit for the change they have fought for—not speculative theories about external manipulation.

*Roshan Pussewela: I am a social/political observer based in Liverpool, UK.