Sri Lanka does not need a Truth & Reconciliation Commission — Terrorists need to reconcile with us, not the other way around

The recent statement by Sri Lanka’s Foreign Minister at the UN Human Rights Council outlined the government’s commitment to domestic reforms in human rights, justice, and reconciliation. While many of these initiatives — anti-corruption measures, online safety, memorialization of victims, judicial oversight, and inclusion of persons with disabilities — are commendable, the proposed establishment of a Truth & Reconciliation Commission (TRC) is unnecessary, misdirected, and potentially harmful.

https://www.facebook.com/share/v/17FrhS6Z7f/

Sri Lanka’s Conflict was with Terrorists, not an Ethnic Group

 

Sri Lanka’s 30-year conflict was fought against the LTTE, a terrorist organization. While predominantly Tamil, most Tamils were peaceful citizens and also victims of LTTE terrorism.

 

The LTTE targeted all communities indiscriminately.

For example, the Thunukkai LTTE torture camp, which the UNHRC head refused to visit despite requests, was a site where the LTTE tortured and killed over 3,000 Tamils, with families holding documentary evidence of these atrocities.

 

Historical evidence further shows that intra-Tamil discrimination, particularly along caste lines, was often more severe than alleged Sinhalese oppression.

When Prime Minister SWRD Bandaranaike introduced the Social Disabilities Act in 1957, to grant education and access to low-caste Tamils, Tamil politicians traveled to the UK to petition the Privy Council to annul the Act.

Remarkably, they did not take similar action against the Official Language Act of 1956, often cited as “Sinhalese oppression.”

This demonstrates that the Tamil elite historically prioritized maintaining caste privileges within their own community over disputes with the Sinhalese majority.

 

Highlighting these facts exposes the selective narratives of discrimination often propagated internationally and underscores why Sri Lanka’s conflict was with terrorists, not any ethnic group as a whole.

 

Normal Differences do not Justify Division

 

Disagreements exist within and between communities, but these are ordinary social differences — not divisions that require a Truth & Reconciliation Commission (TRC).

Normal differences do not justify drawing lines, creating territorial divisions, or imposing externally mandated reconciliation mechanisms.

Sri Lanka’s people live, work, and interact peacefully across communities every day.

 

Historically, there is no record of significant ethnic tensions prior to 1505 between Tamils and Sinhalese. The problems often cited today largely emerged as a result of colonial “divide and rule” policies, segregation, and preferential treatment of certain groups.

External attempts to frame ordinary disagreements as unresolvable ethnic conflict are therefore misleading and unnecessary.

 

Foreign Minister’s Statement and UNHRC Pressure

The Foreign Minister highlighted the government’s commitment to domestic reforms but also mentioned the proposed Truth & Reconciliation Commission (TRC) — a mechanism that aligns directly with UNHRC Resolution 30/1.

This is not a domestic necessity, but rather a response to international pressure.

 

While other measures in the statement — including anti-corruption drives, judicial oversight, memorialization of victims, and investigations into long-standing cases such as the Easter Sunday attacks — demonstrate proactive governance, the TRC stands out as a measure primarily driven by UNHRC mandates rather than Sri Lanka’s own domestic needs.

 

Denouncing the UNHRC report while implementing its key demands is intentionally misleading the Sri Lankan people and committing to launching UNHRC demand as a domestic initiative.

 

Global Precedent shows TRCs are Failures

 

International experience demonstrates that Truth & Reconciliation Commissions (TRCs) do not automatically deliver justice.

The UNHRC-supported TRC in South Africa highlights the risks:

 

• Duration & Cost:The South African TRC took over three years and cost hundreds of millions of dollars, much of it spent on administration and staff salaries.
• Limited Justice:Over 7,000 individuals applied for amnesty, but only 849 were granted it after full disclosures. Very few were imprisoned, and political interference prevented meaningful prosecutions.
• No Real Restitution:Most black South Africans never regained land or resources taken under apartheid, and even today, white South Africans dominate key economic sectors such as mining, finance, and land ownership.
• Symbolic Rather Than Substantive:The TRC mainly benefited bureaucrats and office staff, offering symbolic justice rather than real restitution.

 

Key Takeaway: Externally imposed TRCs can be extremely costly, bureaucratic, and largely ineffective, serving symbolic purposes instead of delivering tangible justice — a cautionary lesson for Sri Lanka.

 

Why Sri Lanka’s situation Is different

Sri Lanka’s conflict was not between ethnic groups, but between citizens and terrorists.

The LTTE targeted all communities indiscriminately. Sinhalese, Muslims, Burghers and Tamils were all victims of LTTE terror.

 

Unlike South Africa, there is no systemic ethnic hierarchy or institutionalized oppression in Sri Lanka comparable to apartheid. Ordinary disagreements within and between communities are social differences, not unresolvable ethnic conflicts.

Imposing a TRC would misrepresent the nature of the conflict, equate terrorists with ordinary citizens, and replicate a costly, ineffective model like South Africa’s TRC — failing to deliver real justice while undermining national sovereignty.

 

The UNHRC’s Real Agenda

 

The UNHRC’s push for a Truth & Reconciliation Commission in Sri Lanka is less about justice and more about influence.

By insisting on an externally mandated TRC, the Council seeks to:

• Intervene in domestic affairs, framing Sri Lanka’s post-conflict policies as “inadequate.”
• Exert political leverageover the government while bypassing sovereignty.
• Shape the narrative, portraying the conflict as ethnic rather than against terrorists.
• Set a global precedent, asserting UNHRC authority in post-conflict reconciliation.

 

In short, the TRC primarily serves external agendas rather than Sri Lanka’s domestic needs, risking misrepresentation of the conflict and undermining national sovereignty.

 

Terrorists need to Reconcile with us — not the other way around

 

True reconciliation in Sri Lanka is with communities, not terrorists.

Citizens across ethnic groups live, work, and interact peacefully every day, upholding the rule of law. There is no reconciliation required for citizens.

Rehabilitated terrorists who wish to live peacefully and reintegrate into society are welcomed and supported through domestic programs. Sri Lanka has successfully managed post-conflict rehabilitation and reintegration without compromising sovereignty or security.

 

The country’s homegrown post-conflict initiatives, including development projects in the North and East since 2010, have restored livelihoods and normalcy for those affected by LTTE terrorism.

 

Imposing a TRC under external pressure risks equating terrorists with ordinary citizens, undermining historical truth, and setting a dangerous precedent for national sovereignty. The LTTE were unequivocally terrorists, not representatives of any community, and reconciliation must reflect that reality.

Seize the Opportunity, avoid Past Mistakes

 

Sri Lanka’s government now has a golden opportunity to assert its sovereignty, uphold justice, and preserve the truth of the nation’s struggle against terrorism. It should not repeat the mistakes of the 2015 government, which co-sponsored UNHRC Resolution 30/1, implemented 7 out of 9 of its demands, by slowly rolling out the remaining measures domestically — all while misleading the public by superficially rejecting the UNHRC report.

 

By refusing an externally mandated TRC, emphasizing domestic mechanisms, and highlighting the lessons from global TRC failures, Sri Lanka can demonstrate that justice, reconciliation, and development can be achieved on its own terms — protecting citizens, preserving sovereignty, and ensuring that history is neither misrepresented nor politicized.

 

Only a government that fails to understand the true context of Sri Lanka’s conflict would agree to a Truth & Reconciliation Commission.

 

Sri Lanka does not need a Truth & Reconciliation Commission.

The people of Sri Lanka — Sinhala, Tamil, Muslim, and Burgher — have already moved forward, rebuilding lives and living in peaceful coexistence after decades of terrorism.

The only ones refusing to move on are the remnants of the LTTE living overseas, who continue to fuel division for political and financial gain.

 

Reconciliation is needed for those living overseas who drum separatism & racism

 

Instead of insisting on costly and externally driven TRCs in Sri Lanka, the UNHRC should focus its reconciliation efforts on these diaspora groups who glorify terrorism, fund separatism, and obstruct unity from abroad. Sri Lanka’s resources should not be wasted duplicating mechanisms that have failed globally, particularly when our own domestic processes have already delivered rehabilitation, reintegration, and development.

 

A TRC here would only serve external agendas — not the needs of the Sri Lankan people who have already chosen peace and want closure.

 

 

 

Shenail D Waduge