It appears that President Anura Kumara Dissanayake was a reluctant participant at the 16th National War Heroes Commemoration event. The Government announced that he would attend the event after strong criticism from sections of the Opposition and social media.
The printed invitations to the event did not contain the President’s name. The Government explained that this was due to a miscommunication and that the President always intended to attend the commemoration. According to the Constitution, the President is the Commander-In-Chief of the Armed Forces and the President usually takes on the office of the Minister of Defence, with President Dissanayake also following this tradition. As the Commander-In-Chief of the Armed Forces and the Minister of Defence, his presence was both symbolic and necessary.
Apart from the criticism that his decision to attend the commemoration was a last minute one, the President’s speech on the occasion was also subjected to criticism. This was on account of his reference to the fallen soldiers not as ‘war heroes’ but rather as soldiers. Popular usage in the country has to refer to military personnel who lost their lives in the war as war heroes. On the other side of the divide is the term ‘martyr’ used by Tamil people to refer to those members of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam who lost their lives in the war. The President’s preference to use the neutral term of “soldiers” rather than ‘war heroes’ would be due to his recognition of the great divide that he presides over.
The President’s choice of language reflects a broader attempt to move away from divisive rhetoric and towards a more inclusive national identity. He faces a political challenge in this for which he needs to be supported. The nationalist Opposition and the social media have been harsh in their criticisms of the President. They claim that President Dissanayake has “reduced the war heroes to ordinary soldiers”.
However, victories in civil wars are not, and ought not to be, celebrated, because, they mark the defeat of fellow citizens, deepen national wounds, and risk glorifying violence over reconciliation, as seen in the United States and Spain, where attempts to commemorate one side's victory has prolonged division rather than fostered unity.
Healing narrative
Speaking at the commemoration ceremony, the President delivered a message in which his focus was the cost of the war. He honoured the sacrifice of the soldiers and civilians who suffered or died during the internal conflict. He also acknowledged the deep pain and loss experienced across all communities. He made the point that, “Not only in the South, but also in the North, people hold up photographs of their husbands and children on the streets and mourn their deaths. To every parent, their child is precious. So, as a country that has faced such a massive tragedy, our responsibility today is to prevent such a war from happening again in our country.” In doing so he was expressing his conviction that this was a civil war, fought within the country, by the people of the country.
By avoiding terms that could alienate minority communities, the President signaled a desire to foster a collective memory that encompasses all victims of the conflict, regardless of their background. President Dissanayake's speech signaled an attempt to shift the national discourse from one of division to one of unity and healing. In his speech, the President valued the sacrifice of the Sri Lankan security forces. He said: “Many soldiers sacrificed their lives to bring this war to a conclusion. Their names etched on this memorial stand testament to their sacrifice. Many others were left permanently disabled, while thousands of families still grieve the loss of loved ones. As a nation, we owe them an eternal debt.”
But, the President also pointed out that “war is synonymous with tragedy and devastation. Those who fought did not seek war for its own sake; they sought peace. Today, we witness the remnants of this devastation, children orphaned, parents bereaved and spouses widowed. Across our land, from the North to the South, grief knows no ethnicity.” It can be seen that President Dissanayake was attempting to create a new narrative and one that would take the country in the direction of “not merely a remembrance of the war’s conclusion but also a pledge to unite all communities, Sinhala, Tamil, Muslim, Burgher and Malay, in building a nation rooted in brotherhood and harmony, rather than allowing divisions to reignite.”
Narratives are ways of conveying messages that get entrenched in the consciousness of the people, that appeal to their sentiments, and which can be mobilised for purposes of war and destruction. This can be seen in conflicts elsewhere in the world where one-sided narratives are being used to justify acts of violence against the other. In Sri Lanka too, the narratives of ancient enmities and more recent injustices have been used to demonise the other for political benefit. The narrative of President Dissanayake’s predecessor, former President Gotabaya Rajapaksa at the Presidential Election campaign of 2019 was the annihilation of the enemy and the victory of the Sinhala nation who would henceforth be given their rightful place. On 20 May, the day after the Government’s commemoration, the Rajapaksa family led another commemoration.
New narrative
A new narrative for Sri Lanka must begin with the recognition that the island is home to multiple communities with distinct identities, histories, and aspirations. It must acknowledge the suffering caused by war and majoritarian politics, and chart a future based on power-sharing, equality before the law, and the right of all peoples to participate fully in national life. True reconciliation means accepting diversity not as a threat, but as the foundation of a united and peaceful country where every community has a voice, every identity a home, and every citizen a stake in peace.
This new narrative will open space for dialogue and reconciliation, as seen in South Africa’s post-apartheid truth-telling or Northern Ireland’s power-sharing process. In Sri Lanka too, a new narrative rooted in shared humanity could lay the foundation for lasting peace. President Dissanayake needs to add the concept of inter-ethnic power sharing and the devolution of power to become the latest in a line of enlightened national leaders who tried to reframe the ethnic conflict from one of existential threat, terrorism and war to one of coexistence and power sharing. The first such leader was Prime Minister S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike in 1957 when he negotiated the Bandaranaike-Chelvanayakam (S.J.V. Chelvanayakam) Pact which laid the framework for all succeeding efforts at a political solution, though none has succeeded so far.
Former President Ranil Wickremesinghe, when Prime Minister in 2015, was the last of the great champions of a new narrative when he led the Government to co-sponsor Resolution 30/1 of the United Nations Human Rights Council which accepted the need for both truth and accountability along with reparations and a political solution to the internal conflict. This is the fallen baton that President Dissanayake needs to pick up though he and his Government are new to power and appear to be wary of rushing to take up the emotion-generating internal conflict. His approach to the 16th National War Heroes Commemoration reflects a shift towards a more inclusive and healing national narrative.
The current political context offers a unique opportunity to implement meaningful reforms. Where the internal conflict is concerned, this is the best time for the Government to take decisive action with regard to finding solutions. The extremists and nationalists who held sway in the past are discredited due to their close involvement with the corruption and mismanagement that led to the downfall of the country’s economy in 2022. They do not have the trust of the people. The Government has a two-thirds majority in the Parliament, and the continuing trust of most people, which enables it to do what is necessary for sustainable peace and reconciliation.
(The writer is the Executive Director of the National Peace Council)
…………………………………………………..
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect those of this publication