Sri Lanka Faces Full-Stack Digital Sovereignty Crisis: How External Control Has Fragmented the Nation’s Infrastructure - Jihan Hameed

By Jihan Hameed — International Geopolitical Analyst & National Sovereignty Strategist, based in Sri Lanka — THE NATIONALIST 🇱🇰

Submarine cables, cloud data centers, algorithmic narrative control, and foreign AI partnerships expose Sri Lanka’s deep national security vacuum.

Sri Lanka today faces a digital sovereignty crisis far more dangerous than most policymakers and citizens realize. While the public debate remains distracted with surface-level digital reforms and scattered modernization projects, the country’s entire digital infrastructure has been systematically fragmented, externally integrated, and quietly compromised over the past decade.

The Anatomy of Fragmented Digital Control

At first glance, Sri Lanka presents the image of a modernizing digital economy. But beneath that appearance lies a fractured system where:

Submarine cable landing stations are operated under foreign carrier integrations, exposing national communications to external signal interception and routing dependencies.

Telecom switching nodes are licensed to foreign-controlled operators, with core transmission architecture partially outsourced.

Government data, including sensitive national records, is increasingly hosted on foreign-controlled cloud environments, primarily AWS, Azure, and other hyperscalers located outside Sri Lankan jurisdiction.

National AI development pipelines are heavily dependent on foreign technical support, external training datasets, and cross-border algorithmic partnerships, leaving AI sovereignty entirely unprotected.

Behavioral data of Sri Lankan citizens is harvested, profiled, and processed by offshore data brokers, creating detailed psychometric maps of the population that foreign entities now control better than the state itself.

Digital ID databases and biometric repositories operate on software frameworks with foreign developer access layers, leaving identity systems vulnerable to third-party manipulation.

Payment systems and fintech platforms increasingly expose financial transaction metadata to foreign processors, enabling economic profiling of the population.

Foreign-funded NGO programs have quietly inserted digital policy advisors into national institutions under the banner of “capacity building,” shaping internal regulatory frameworks to suit external governance models.

Sri Lanka’s Broken Digital Architecture: The Absence of Sovereign Command

The most alarming factor is the absence of any unified national command structure to consolidate oversight over this fractured system. Instead, authority is fragmented across multiple ministries, semi-autonomous commissions, donor-dependent regulators, and outsourced partnerships. No central Digital Sovereignty Command exists under executive state control.

This leaves Sri Lanka exposed to systemic multi-layered external governance:

External entities control key segments of our physical infrastructure (cables, data centers, satellites).

Foreign algorithms influence national narratives and public discourse through invisible content suppression and algorithmic weighting.

Third-party training programs have effectively written parts of our national digital policy from abroad.

Financial data flows give external actors leverage over both citizens and the economy.

What Has Been Stolen Is Not Data Alone — It Is Command

While territorial borders remain intact, the informational architecture that governs Sri Lanka’s future decision-making, economic stability, and national security is already compromised.

This is not merely data loss. This is command loss.

Sovereign digital infrastructure is not about owning hardware. It is about who controls:

Root authorization layers

Access keys

Data replication privileges

AI algorithm training models

Behavioral analytics pipelines

Cross-border data transmission nodes

Content filtering engines that shape national sentiment

Sri Lanka today does not hold master control over these layers. Instead, it operates on a hybrid multi-vendor architecture where multiple foreign entities hold partial supervisory authority over critical state functions.

The Urgency of a Full Digital Sovereignty Doctrine

What is urgently required is not another piecemeal reform, donor-funded advisory program, or regulatory reshuffle. The state must immediately assert a unified Digital Sovereignty Doctrine that includes:

A full sovereign audit of existing digital penetration across all sectors.

A Presidential-level National Digital Command to centralize control across AI, cloud, telecom, financial data, and narrative platforms.

Repatriation of all government data to domestically controlled sovereign data centers.

A Digital Sovereignty Act recognizing digital space as protected national territory.

A loyalty screening mechanism for all policy architects involved in digital governance to remove covert foreign influence networks.

Algorithmic Defense Systems to neutralize foreign narrative manipulation inside Sri Lanka’s digital discourse.

Digital Sovereignty Is the New National Defense

If Sri Lanka fails to secure its digital space, the consequences will not be felt decades from now. They are already unfolding. Once full behavioral data control, financial metadata access, and AI-driven narrative engineering are externally consolidated, the very identity of the Sri Lankan state will shift from independent governance to external management.

Sovereignty in the 21st century is no longer measured only in land, sea, and air. It is measured by who owns your data, who commands your algorithms, and who writes your national story.

The time to reclaim command is now.

Jihan Hameed
The Nationalist

About the Author

Jihan Hameed is a legal strategist, nationalist policy analyst, and civil-state investigator focusing on sovereignty, national security, and constitutional governance in Sri Lanka. She leads independent research into foreign infiltration, legal-state resistance, and geopolitical subversion across South Asia and the global order.

THE FAILURE OF GLOBAL LEADERSHIP: THE UN GAZA CEASEFIRE VOTE AND THE STRATEGIC ALIGNMENTS OF THE NEW GLOBAL ORDER

By Jihan Hameed — International Geopolitical Analyst & National Sovereignty Strategist, based in Sri Lanka — THE NATIONALIST 🇱🇰

Introduction

On June 13, 2025, the United Nations General Assembly convened to vote on a resolution demanding an immediate and permanent ceasefire in Gaza, the provision of unhindered humanitarian access, and the release of all hostages. The final vote resulted in:

• 149 nations in favor
• 12 nations opposed
• 19 nations abstaining

While these numbers reflect an overwhelming global consensus on the immediate humanitarian crisis, the voting patterns simultaneously reveal the emerging strategic alignments, ideological postures, and silent calculations shaping the global order.

The Strategic Significance of the Vote

The Gaza resolution presented no ambiguity. It was a humanitarian resolution rooted in the universally recognized principles of international law, civilian protection, and basic human rights. The overwhelming support of 149 nations signifies a continued global consensus on the principles of international humanitarian law.

However, the minority opposition bloc and the abstention group are strategically more revealing than the majority itself.

The 12 Opposing States: Controlled Isolation

The 12 countries that voted against the resolution include:

• United States
• Israel
• Argentina
• Hungary
• Paraguay
• Fiji
• Micronesia
• Nauru
• Palau
• Papua New Guinea
• Tonga
• Tuvalu

From a geopolitical lens, this list reflects:

1. The direct guardianship role of the United States in protecting Israel’s operational freedom, even under severe global criticism.
2. The alignment of certain Pacific Island states under American strategic influence structures.
3. The increasing consolidation of Israel’s protected position within a narrow but firm alliance umbrella.

This bloc demonstrates how, in certain conflicts, international legal norms become subordinate to alliance architecture and power preservation, not legal principle.

The Abstention Bloc: Strategic Ambiguity

Among the 19 abstentions, several nations hold critical weight in global power distribution. Notably:

• India
• Ecuador
• Romania
• Georgia
• Ethiopia

This group reflects states who are navigating dual alignment strategies. Their abstention indicates:

• An unwillingness to openly confront U.S. or Israeli positions.
• Simultaneous desire to avoid alienating the Global South or their domestic constituencies who are sympathetic to the Palestinian cause.
• Preservation of their long-term diplomatic flexibility.

For India in particular, the abstention is geopolitically significant. As an emerging global power with historical ties to non-alignment and developing world solidarity, India’s neutrality reflects its recalibrated foreign policy approach—prioritizing geopolitical alignments and internal political calculations over its historical posturing as a moral leader of the Global South.

The Structural Weakness of the UN System

The vote also reinforces the structural limitations of the UN system itself:

• While the General Assembly can issue broad consensus statements, enforcement remains entirely dependent on great power consent.
• The UN Security Council remains paralyzed due to veto structures which continue to protect national interests rather than universal legal principles.
• The global legal architecture is thus exposed as highly asymmetrical — effective only where the interests of dominant powers permit enforcement.

The Deeper Strategic Doctrine: Leadership Elimination and Global Paralysis

What underlies this diplomatic landscape is not only political calculation but the success of a broader decapitation strategy applied indirectly across the Global South:

• Many historical leaders who previously championed collective southern sovereignty — whether in the Arab world, Africa, or Asia — have been systematically removed, neutralized, or politically contained.
• The absence of sovereign intellectual leadership at the global level has left the Global South fragmented, unable to mount unified, coordinated responses even on clear moral and legal crises such as Gaza.
• This fragmentation enables dominant powers to sustain international paralysis while protecting their strategic interests.

Sri Lanka’s Position

Sri Lanka, to its credit, voted in favor of the resolution, maintaining its historical alignment with non-aligned humanitarian positions and broad Global South sentiment. However, this vote also reinforces Sri Lanka’s delicate strategic reality:

• While Sri Lanka expresses moral clarity on humanitarian issues, its national sovereignty remains exposed to other domains of strategic capture through financial dependency, legal penetration, constitutional restructuring, and defense cooperation mechanisms.

The doctrine of intellectual warfare and strategic decapitation remains highly relevant to Sri Lanka’s own survival architecture.

Conclusion: The Silent War Over Global Sovereignty

The UN Gaza ceasefire vote is more than a humanitarian statement. It is a map of current and emerging power alignments. It exposes the operational mechanisms by which global legal structures are selectively applied, and how leadership gaps have been engineered within the Global South itself.

In this environment, true sovereignty no longer depends only on foreign policy statements. It depends on a state’s ability to protect:

• Intellectual independence
• Leadership security
• Institutional integrity
• Economic autonomy
• And internal strategic self-governance

The war for sovereign minds has already begun.

About the Author

Jihan Hameed is a Sri Lankan-based geopolitical analyst specializing in sovereignty and statecraft.

Israeli Religious Outposts Quietly Expanding in Sri Lanka: The Mushrooming of Unregulated Foreign Religious Houses

With no native Jewish community, why are multiple Israeli-linked religious centers quietly establishing a strategic footprint across Sri Lanka’s tourism belt?

A silent expansion is taking place along Sri Lanka’s Southern and Eastern coastlines. As tourists continue to flock to destinations like Weligama, Arugam Bay, Mirissa, and Ella, a parallel development is emerging quietly beneath the surface: the mushrooming of Israeli religious centers under the label of Chabad Houses and other informal worship spaces.

This expansion is not driven by domestic religious needs. Sri Lanka has no recognized native Jewish population, no registered Jewish religious institutions, and no historical Jewish community recorded in its demographic, cultural, or religious archives. What we are now witnessing is not organic religious activity, but a form of foreign religious entry that carries deeper political, security, and diplomatic implications.

Jehovah’s Witnesses Faced Legal Limits. Why Are Foreign Religious Networks Free to Expand?

Sri Lanka’s constitutional position on religious propagation was firmly clarified in 2025 by the Supreme Court in the landmark judgment SC FR 119–122/2015 involving Jehovah’s Witnesses. The Court ruled that while Article 10 protects freedom of belief, and Article 14(1)(e) permits worship and religious practice, public propagation, proselytization, and door-to-door preaching were not protected activities under Sri Lankan constitutional law.

Jehovah’s Witnesses — citizens of this country, with an established Sri Lankan base — were denied the right to engage in public conversion efforts. That ruling was not based on discrimination, but on constitutional limits protecting public order, religious harmony, and social balance.

If this standard was applied to a longstanding domestic religious minority, on what legal or constitutional basis are foreign religious networks being permitted to establish Israeli-linked Chabad Houses, fully operational worship sites, and missionary outreach centers in tourist zones, without any established local population, and without state oversight?

No Legal Infrastructure for Jewish Religious Bodies Exists in Sri Lanka

The constitutional and statutory structure of Sri Lanka recognizes four primary religious traditions: Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, and Christianity. Each is supported by religious bodies recognized by law, ministries, and Acts of Parliament. None exist for Jewish institutions.

• No Act of Parliament incorporates a Jewish religious body.
• No national registry of Jewish congregations exists under the Ministry of Buddha Sasana and Religious Affairs.
• No national religious council includes Jewish representation.
• No officially registered synagogues operate under Sri Lanka’s religious licensing framework.

The emergence of foreign Jewish religious centers is therefore not a result of domestic religious demand, but a foreign insertion of ideological infrastructure.

Chabad Houses as a Global Political and Diplomatic Network

Globally, Chabad Houses serve a dual function: religious practice and geopolitical outreach. In many nations, they operate as semi-official extensions of Israeli diplomacy and Jewish diaspora influence. These centers often serve not only the spiritual needs of travelers, but act as:

• Soft-power extensions of Israeli foreign policy
• Intelligence information points
• Platforms for dual-loyalty lobbying networks
• Backdoor political influence mechanisms

For a neutral, non-aligned country like Sri Lanka, this creates a dangerous precedent. Allowing such centers to embed themselves in our tourism belt not only exposes our religious harmony to foreign ideological conflicts, but opens the door for foreign state presence under religious cover.

The Silent Security Threat Few Are Addressing

The Israeli state’s global activities are not neutral. It remains accused before international bodies of:

• Occupation
• Apartheid practices
• Violations of international law
• War crimes against the Palestinian population

The growing expansion of Israeli-linked religious outposts, even under the innocent appearance of serving tourists, cannot be separated from the state power they represent.

Moreover, Sri Lanka’s rising visibility as a tourism destination for Israeli travelers has coincided with the arrival of ex-military personnel, some with service records linked to the Gaza conflict, creating a complex security risk embedded inside civil society space.

Risk to Muslim Demographics and Community Stability

Sri Lanka’s two million strong Muslim population has historically had no tensions with Jewish communities, precisely because no Jewish political presence ever existed on the island. Introducing Zionist-linked religious infrastructure artificially imports potential future conflict into communities that have peacefully coexisted for centuries.

If these religious outposts continue to expand without state oversight, Sri Lanka may become entangled in wider ideological conflicts that have no native origin in this country.

Immediate National Policy Actions Required

The government of Sri Lanka must urgently move beyond passive observation and take constitutional, legal, and administrative action to regulate foreign religious entry:

1. Conduct a national audit of all foreign religious institutions established since 2010.
2. Publicly disclose all legal permits, BOI approvals, visa categories, and operational licenses under which these centers operate.
3. Apply constitutional consistency by extending the same non-propagation standards applied to Jehovah’s Witnesses, to all foreign religious entities operating without legal authorization.
4. Freeze all new foreign religious registrations until a full national security review is completed.
5. Establish a National Religious Oversight Commission empowered to monitor foreign religious activity linked to political or ideological state actors.

Sovereignty Is Not a Marketplace

Sri Lanka’s religious diversity is built on organic, historical coexistence between its Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, and Christian communities. That delicate balance must not be destabilized by allowing foreign state-linked religious expansion to silently take root under the protection of tourist visas, unregulated visas, or private land use arrangements.

Sovereignty is not religious discrimination. Sovereignty is the lawful defense of national stability, constitutional order, and civilizational integrity. Foreign religious houses that represent not local faith communities, but state-backed ideological extensions, must be treated as matters of national security, not religious tolerance.

The government has a duty to act. The public has a duty to remain vigilant. This is not a religious debate. This is sovereign defense.

About the Author

Jihan Hameed is a legal strategist, nationalist policy analyst, and civil-state investigator focusing on sovereignty, national security, and constitutional governance in Sri Lanka. She leads independent research into foreign infiltration, legal-state resistance, and geopolitical subversion across South Asia and the global order.

The Indo-Lanka Accord: Peace on Paper, War in Reality

By Jihan Hameed
The Nationalist 

From Black July to the Indo-Lanka Trap

How Sri Lanka Was Betrayed from Within and Invaded from Outside 1983 to 1987

Act I – The Internal Collapse JR’s Calculated Gamble

In July 1983 President J R Jayewardene was under pressure Economic frustration youth unrest and declining Sinhala middle-class support were rising fast His open market policies had deepened inequality and anger was bubbling

Then came the LTTE ambush that killed 13 soldiers Instead of calming tensions JR let it explode He delayed curfews allowed the police and army to stand back and let the mobs burn Colombo What followed was Black July A pogrom against Tamil civilians over 3000 people killed homes and businesses torched and the whole country shaken

But this was no accident JR used it as a political tool To distract from economic collapse To silence Tamil separatism To rally Sinhala-Buddhist sentiment around him It was a gamble And it backfired

Act II – India’s Strategic Invasion Under the Guise of Protection

India saw the chaos as an opportunity Rajiv Gandhi under pressure from Tamil Nadu politicians presented India as the saviour of Tamils But it was all for leverage

Between 1983 and 1987 India didn’t just sympathise India trained and armed Tamil militants on its own soil India hosted LTTE camps in Tamil Nadu and poured weapons into the north While Sri Lanka bled India smiled as the so-called neutral peacebroker

They came claiming love for Sri Lankan Tamils Talking of Tamil aspirations and coexistence But this was crocodile love A mask to hide the real aim Power over Sri Lanka

By 1987 the LTTE was no longer a scattered rebel group It had grown into a full-blown insurgency backed by Indian money arms and protection JR had lost the north and with it his grip on the country

Act III – The Indo-Lanka Accord Blackmail Signed in Blood

By mid 1987 JR was trapped Losing battles losing legitimacy and under threat of Indian military action He gave in and signed the Indo-Lanka Accord on 29 July 1987

The deal was not a peace agreement It was constitutional blackmail It imposed the 13th Amendment It merged the North and East It introduced Provincial Councils It brought Indian troops onto our soil through the IPKF

JR signed it out of fear and guilt Guilt for Black July Fear of Indian invasion And desperation to restore order to a country he had pushed into flames India in return used humanitarian language to rewrite our internal system from the outside

Act IV – The Double Betrayal

Even the Tamil people were betrayed The LTTE rejected the Accord seeing it as Indian interference They turned on India and fought the IPKF in a brutal war Civilians were once again the victims caught between militants and foreign soldiers

Moderate Tamil politics had already died after Black July With the LTTE in full control the Tamil population had no voice of their own They were used by India and used by the LTTE

So while JR lost sovereignty and India gained strategic control the Tamil people were left stateless voiceless and pulled into a war they never voted for

Act V – The Long Shadow

From 1983 to 1987 JR engineered communal violence to save his rule and ended up losing the state

India armed the conflict then presented itself as the solution

The LTTE grew under Indian support then turned into a force that prolonged the war for decades

And the Tamil people were used by both sides as pawns in a foreign game

The Indo-Lanka Accord was never peace It was a foreign trap signed in desperation It brought constitutional damage created structural division and triggered thirty years of war

The Verdict

What began as a riot became a foreign takeover What began as state failure became national surrender

This was not just a mistake It was betrayal layered on betrayal

Sri Lanka still suffers from the 13th Amendment the broken Provincial Council system the division seeded in 1987 and the memory of a government that chose power over protection

It is time to say it clearly The 13th Amendment was imposed under threat and must be repealed It was rejected by the Tamil people and never accepted by the Sinhala majority

It is time to take our sovereignty back

– Jihan Hameed

The Nationalist 🇱🇰

Hijacked Grid, Compromised Nation: How India’s Energy Web and Sri Lanka’s Ministers Undermined Our Sovereignty

The betrayal is no longer a suspicion. It is now documented, calculated, and publicly exposed thanks to a leaked letter from the Public Utilities Commission of Sri Lanka (PUCSL), dated April 3rd, 2025. The letter reveals that while Sri Lankan solar developers were offering clean energy at Rs. 27 per unit, the government approved a diesel-based deal at Rs. 72.11 per unit  a staggering difference that can only be explained by one thing: design.

This is not a miscalculation. This is engineered dependency, where domestic options are destroyed to justify foreign intervention and the foreign hand in this case is becoming unmistakably clear: India.

For decades, India has advanced its transnational energy strategy under the banner of One Sun One World One Grid (OSOWOG) a vision to control regional electricity flow through a centralized grid spanning South Asia, with India as the hub. Sri Lanka has been eyed not as a partner, but as a plug-in extension. Proposals for interconnection with the Indian grid date back to the early 2000s, but the real push has gained momentum in the last five years. It is no coincidence that as India’s ambitions surged, Sri Lanka’s domestic renewable bids were buried, stalled, or rejected clearing the path for geopolitical capture disguised as cooperation.

The leaked PUCSL letter confirmed that the Cabinet was presented with manipulated figures gas prices, diesel prices, and exchange rates from 2021, all used in 2025 to push through a decision that locks Sri Lanka into long-term fossil fuel dependency, bleeding out our foreign reserves in exchange for imported energy and imported influence.

But let us be brutally honest: this hijacking could not have happened without local collaborators. Since 2000, Sri Lanka’s Power and Energy Ministry has rotated through a dozen names each one complicit, whether through action or silence, in building a system that has increasingly disempowered the nation’s energy autonomy:

• Anuruddha Ratwatte (2000–2001)
• Karunasena Kodituwakku (2001–2004)
• Susil Premajayantha (2004–2005)
• John Seneviratne (2005–2007)
• Mahindananda Aluthgamage (2007–2010)
• Champika Ranawaka (2010–2015)
• Ranjith Siyambalapitiya (2015–2018)
• Ravi Karunanayake (2018–2019)
• Mahinda Amaraweera (2019–2020)
• Dullas Alahapperuma (2020–2022)
• Kanchana Wijesekera (2022–2024)
• Anura Kumara Dissanayake (2024–Present)

Under each of these tenures, the public has been sold the language of “progress,” “development,” and “regional cooperation.” Yet the result is the same: our national grid has become vulnerable, our pricing manipulated, and our long-term energy planning handed over to external actors with strategic interests  not humanitarian ones.

So we now ask: How far has the damage gone? And more importantly, can it still be reversed?

The damage is deep  but not irreversible.

What Must Be Done — Now

1. Halt All Foreign-Controlled Grid Integration Talks

Sri Lanka must immediately suspend any discussions related to grid interconnection with India or any foreign government until a comprehensive national audit of energy security and sovereignty is conducted.

2. Declassify All Power Purchase Agreements

Every deal including the Rs. 72 diesel contract must be made public. If clean solar proposals were rejected, the responsible officials must be named and held accountable.

3. Reopen Rejected Renewable Proposals

Every solar and wind bid rejected in the last five years must be re-evaluated on public record, not in boardrooms closed to scrutiny.

4. National Renewable Energy Commission

Create an independent, non-political commission to oversee Sri Lanka’s energy transition — one that reports to Parliament, not private corporations.

5. Public Inquiry on Ministerial Accountability

Establish a formal inquiry into the role of former Power and Energy Ministers in suppressing domestic renewables and advancing suspicious foreign agreements.

6. Introduce the Energy Sovereignty Act

A new law must be passed to prohibit any foreign government or private entity from owning critical infrastructure in Sri Lanka’s energy transmission or generation network.

Final Word: We Are Not Powerless

We are being told there is no choice that Sri Lanka must be plugged into regional grids and fossil fuel dependencies because we are too small to stand alone.

That is a lie.

We have sunlight. We have engineers. We have land. What we lack is political will and national backbone.

This is not just an energy issue. This is about our freedom to decide our future, unit by unit, watt by watt. The Nationalist will not allow this betrayal to pass in silence. Nor should you.

The people of Sri Lanka were not consulted. But we are wide awake now.

Written By Guest Writer 

Six Years Later, Sri Lanka Is Still “Searching”

It has been six years since Sri Lanka endured one of the deadliest terror attacks in its modern history. On April 21, 2019 Easter Sunday suicide bombers targeted churches and hotels in Colombo, Negombo, and Batticaloa, killing over 260 people and injuring hundreds more. The scale of the violence was unprecedented. The shock was national. The grief, immeasurable.

And yet, six years on, no formal charges have been filed in Sri Lanka against those believed to be responsible.

What makes this even more disturbing is that significant evidence already exists. A criminal complaint filed by the United States Department of Justice in 2020 names three Sri Lankan nationals Mohamed Naufar, Mohamed Riskan, and Ahamed Milhan as key operatives involved in planning, training, and facilitating the Easter Sunday bombings. The 72 page affidavit by an FBI special agent outlines how this ISIS-affiliated group formed in Sri Lanka, conducted weapons and explosives training, and swore allegiance to the Islamic State’s leadership.

Despite this detailed account based on physical evidence, witness testimonies, forensic findings, and direct admissions Sri Lankan authorities have yet to prosecute any of the key suspects named. They remain in custody, uncharged, untouched by the local judicial system.

This inexplicable delay has given rise to serious concerns.

What explains Sri Lanka’s silence? Why has there been no transparent legal process? The issue is not a lack of information. It is not the absence of suspects. It is a failure of will and possibly, a suppression of accountability.

Instead of decisive legal action, there have been commissions, inquiries, and classified reports. Various government officials have made conflicting statements. At times, fingers have been pointed at internal political factions. At other times, vague references are made to “foreign influences” or “extremist networks.” But what has consistently been avoided is the initiation of a transparent criminal trial against the individuals identified in both local and international investigations.

The United States, operating on behalf of its own citizens killed in the attacks, saw enough evidence to file formal charges. That a foreign government has done more to pursue justice than the country where the attacks occurred is not only embarrassing it is a damning reflection of state inertia.

At this point, Sri Lanka’s delay risks undermining public confidence in the rule of law. It has transformed a national tragedy into an unresolved controversy. It has led to growing skepticism about whether vested interests are obstructing justice, whether sensitive alliances are being protected, or whether the full truth would expose politically inconvenient realities.

The Easter Sunday attacks were not simply a moment of violence. They were a defining moment in Sri Lanka’s post-war history a test of how the country would respond to organized terror. Six years later, that test remains failed. The victims’ families are still waiting. The public is still questioning. And the international community is still watching.

Justice delayed is justice denied. But justice deliberately avoided is something far worse.

Written by Guest Writer

Jihan Hameed Slams Deals as Modi Concludes Sri Lanka Visit

 
A Nationalist’s Perspective

Sri Lanka has just witnessed what can only be described as an alarming giveaway of our national sovereignty. As Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi wraps up his 2025 state visit to Colombo, the Sri Lankan government is celebrating seven new agreements with India – but true nationalists see only seven new threats. These deals, signed with much fanfare, hand over critical sectors of our country to Indian influence under the guise of “cooperation.” From defense and energy to digital identity and pharmaceuticals, no past administration has ever surrendered so much, so quickly. For Sri Lankans who cherish independence, Modi’s visit does not signify friendship – it marks a betrayal of Sri Lanka’s hard-won sovereignty.

Seven Deals, One Surrendered Nation

Let’s be clear about what was signed away. The government inked seven Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs) with India during this visit:

• Power Grid Connection: Connecting our electricity grid with India’s, inviting dependency on a foreign power for energy security.
• Digital Government & Identity: Allowing India’s digital systems to be implanted into Sri Lanka’s governance – a clear breach of sovereignty and privacy.
• Trincomalee Energy Hub: Handing strategic energy assets and land over to foreign powers under the guise of development.
• Defense Cooperation Agreement: A serious threat to military neutrality, placing our forces under foreign influence.
• Eastern Province Development: Politically sensitive aid with strategic strings attached, threatening internal unity.
• Healthcare and Medicine: Setting the stage for pharmaceutical dependency.
• Drug Standards MoU: Risking regulatory capture by India’s pharmaceutical industry.
  
  

Each of these MoUs represents a national compromise. Taken together, they signal an unprecedented surrender of Sri Lanka’s independence to Indian interests.

National Security in Jeopardy

Among the gravest threats is the Defense Cooperation Pact. It is a bitter irony that a president who emerged from the JVP – a movement that once took up arms against Indian intervention in 1987 – has now formalized military cooperation with the very power they resisted.

India now gains influence over training, intelligence, and perhaps even strategic planning. True nationalists must ask: whose security are we defending – Sri Lanka’s or India’s?

Have we forgotten the bloodshed of 1987, when tens of thousands of nationalist youth gave their lives resisting Indian dominance under the Indo-Lanka Accord? Today’s pact is no different in spirit – only more subtle in form.

Energy Dependency: Lights Out for Sovereignty

The power grid interconnection is presented as a path to prosperity, but it’s a leash around Sri Lanka’s neck. One disagreement with India, and they could cut the supply. That is not cooperation – that is energy blackmail in waiting.

Even more disturbing is the Trincomalee agreement – a strategic betrayal. Trinco is not just a port; it is our geopolitical heart. And now, it is being handed to India and the UAE, behind closed doors, without public consent. The last time this happened, it sparked rebellion. It will again.

Digital Identity: A Foreign Fingerprint on Every Citizen

By bringing Indian technology into Sri Lanka’s Unique Digital Identity system, the government has placed every Sri Lankan citizen’s data at risk. This is a backdoor into the lives of 22 million people – a cyber colonization masquerading as innovation.

Would any nationalist tolerate a foreign power building and controlling the framework of national identity? The answer is no.

Healthcare and Drug Control: Dependency in White Coats

Healthcare is being framed as “cooperation,” but it’s nothing short of regulatory surrender. India now has a role in deciding which medicines we buy, from whom, and on what terms. If their companies dominate our drug market, what happens when we lose price control or supply diversity?

No nationalist would allow a nation’s health to be outsourced.

Eastern Province: The Trojan Horse

Why the Eastern Province? Because it has long been a strategic obsession for India. By earmarking aid for it alone, India is embedding itself where it can later exert political influence.

This is not generosity – it’s strategic groundwork. As nationalists, we must reject any deal that divides the island into foreign-managed regions.

History Repeats: 1987 All Over Again

We’ve been here before. In 1987, Indian pressure brought the Indo-Lanka Accord. It brought war, occupation, and death. More than 60,000 nationalists died to resist it. And now, we’re being led into the same trap – without protest, without a gun to our leaders’ heads.

At least then, our leaders were cornered. Today’s betrayal is voluntary – and therefore, even more dangerous.

This Must Not Stand

As a Sri Lankan nationalist, I sound this alarm for one reason: because I will not be silent as my country is carved up, sold off, and surrendered in piecemeal agreements dressed up as diplomacy.

This is not a rejection of India or any nation – it is a rejection of dependency. We must be self-reliant, sovereign, and strong. Our security must be our own. Our data must be our own. Our ports, our energy, our medicine – all must be ours, not theirs.

We must oppose these agreements. We must demand Parliament debate them. We must make our voices heard in every media, every platform, every street.

In 1956, a nationalist wave restored the voice of the people. In 2025, we must rise again.

Sri Lanka is Not for Sale

We can cooperate without capitulating. We can trade without being trapped. But this government has chosen surrender over strength. It is up to us – the nationalists, the defenders of this land – to draw the line.

This is the line. We must not cross it.

Jihan Hameed is a Sri Lankan nationalist, expressing the concerns of many who put country above all else.