PART 4 – 35 Indo-Lanka Agreements – From Anti-Imperialism to Indian Alignment

Domestic Reactions and the Ideological U-Turn of the NPP-JVP Government. For decades, the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP)—and by extension, the National People’s Power (NPP)—stood as fiery critics of foreign influence, imperialism, neoliberalism, and foreign debt dependency. Their ideological framework centered around national sovereignty, anti-colonialism, and a deep suspicion of India’s regional ambitions.

Yet, in just five months since assuming power in late 2024, the NPP government led by President Anura Kumara Dissanayake has signed or exchanged 35 Indo-Lanka agreements, many of which appear to contradict the JVP’s foundational ethos. This unexpected tilt toward India has prompted widespread domestic concern, especially among NPP supporters, independent nationalists, civil society, and even former left-aligned academics.

This section analyzes the five key ideological reversals, the public reaction, and the growing backlash both within and outside the NPP’s traditional support base.

1. The Collapse of Non-Alignment

Then:
The JVP consistently rejected Sri Lanka being used as a pawn in regional rivalries. Non-alignment was a cornerstone of its foreign policy vision.

Now:

• Defence agreements with India.
• Surveillance cooperation and Indian aircraft deployed.
• No balancing with China, Russia, or ASEAN states.

Reaction:

• Former diplomats and military personnel have warned that Sri Lanka is being drawn into India’s Indo-Pacific and QUAD security architecture, against the country’s traditional position.

2. Neoliberal entry through the Back Door

Then:
JVP/NPP rejected privatization, corporate capture, and debt-driven development models.

Now:

• Indian state and private giants (Adani, ONGC, IRCON, NHPC) granted infrastructure, energy, and mining concessions.
• Resource extraction and logistics handed over via non-transparent G2G deals.
• No public bidding or environmental review.

Reaction:

• Labour unions and environmental groups call this a betrayal of the NPP manifesto.
• Accusations of “greenwashed neo-colonialism.”

3. Undermining Parliamentary Sovereignty

Then:
JVP campaigned for accountable governance and people’s sovereignty under the 1978 Constitution.

Now:

• None of the 35 agreements were tabled in Parliament.
• No public disclosure or oversight.
• RTI requests on agreements denied or delayed.

Reaction:

• Legal academics accuse the government of bypassing democratic processes.
• Calls for judicial review or constitutional challenge.

4. Cultural and Religious Dissonance

Then:
JVP/NPP promoted secular nationalism and warned against ethnic divisions and Indian soft power.

Now:

• Ramayana Trail, Indian grants to kovils, and religious relic diplomacy.
• Focused investments in North and East without equivalent programs in the South or upcountry.

Reaction:

• Buddhist clergy raise concerns over erosion of Article 9 and cultural imbalance.
• Southern nationalist groups accuse the government of feeding Tamil separatist narratives through selective foreign funding.

5. Silencing of Critics and Erosion of Dissent

Then:
The JVP was once a voice for free expression and street-level accountability.

Now:

• Activists, journalists, and trade unionists questioning Indian projects face intimidation or blacklisting.
• No public forum to scrutinize MoUs.
• Civil society largely excluded from decision-making.

Reaction:

• Civil rights organizations warn of authoritarian drift.
• Youth groups that once campaigned for the NPP feel alienated and betrayed.

Summary of Key Voices of Dissent:

Sector	Statement / Reaction
Military veterans	“India has gained what Prabhakaran sought—without a bullet fired.”
Environmentalists	“Adani in Mannar is an ecological death sentence.”
Buddhist Clergy	“Why were Indian relics given pride of place but not our Sangha?”
Trade Unions	“The JVP has handed public assets to foreign billionaires.”
Nationalists	“This is economic Eelam enabled through Indian soft power.”
Academics	“This government has contradicted every value it once claimed.”

The NPP–JVP government’s post-election foreign policy shift has created a credibility crisis.

The sudden embrace of Indian-backed deals, coupled with opacity and ideological silence, has shaken the movement’s base, sparked criticism from ideologues and moderates alike, and left a vacuum in nationalist, sovereignty-centered politics.

The question remains: is this a temporary realignment for survival—or a permanent ideological transformation?