When Sara Jasmin alian Pulasthini Mahendran fits multiple agendas.

 

In complex investigations, facts are expected to lead the narrative. But sometimes, the narrative begins to lead the facts. When that happens, certain names rise above others — not necessarily because of proven significance, but because of how they are used and manipulated and spread. Such is the name of Pulasthini Mahendran, also known as Sara Jasmine. How is it that her name became the only name flogged across media from the time of the Sainthamaruthu suicide? On the same day, Saheeda — sister of two individuals linked to the Mawanella Buddha statue vandalism — was arrested. She claimed a group of 15 women including herself pledged ‘bayat’ (allegiance) in 2018. This raises a far broader concern regarding the scale and spread of indoctrination than the number of times a DNA is done. Yet, this dimension receives little sustained attention compared to the repeated focus on a single name. Whether Saheeda remains under arrest is not known but that potentially there are 14 women suicide bombers should pose more of a concern than Sara Jasmine. Yet, her name continues to surface — in court references, media discussions, political commentary, and public speculation. Yet, a simple question remains unanswered:

Why parrot only her name — and why repeatedly and who are repeating her name?

 

Not the Only One — But the Only One Highlighted

 

At Sainthamaruthu, multiple individuals died, including close family members of Zahran Hashim:

 

• his mother
• his father
• his sister
• his brother
• his sister-in-law
• his son
• and six children

 

Yet:

• their names are rarely mentioned
• their roles are not debated
• their identities are not repeatedly revisited

Silence surrounds them.

 

Not a hum is spoken about the wife of the Ibrahim brothers who detonated her suicide vest killing her pregnant baby and 2 children.

 

Why this imbalance?

 

Sara is the favored name in Parliament even among politicized Church fathers.

Their presence was immediate, expected, and directly tied to the core network.

We are really curious – why are Zaharans mother never mentioned, or his sister or sister-in-laws – why only Sara Jasmin – why is the spotlight only on a 24-year-old Hindu convert?

 

Shifting the narrative

What is the basis for her prominence?

 

• She was married to a suicide bomber.
• But so were other suicide bombers – why are their names not mentioned or highlighted?

 

These are important facts.

But there has been nothing to prove as evidence or even common-sense logic that any of them had any operational authority, planning, or command responsibility.

Pulasthini, meeting Hashtoon (Katuwapitiya suicide bomber) in 2015 itself, being married off to him the same year and then 6 months later in January going to Abu Dhabi to be with her mother and then returning 4 months later. Sara’s mother testifying before the Presidential Commission claims after returning her daughter was taken by Zaharan’s wife to a house in Narammala where Sara’s mother received the last call from her daughter on 19 February 2019 at 1230p.m. asking her not to call.

 

Yet over time, the narrative surrounding her evolved:

She was choreographed as a wife – a witness – a key link – even the one who had answers to who was the “mastermind”.

 

This is not a progression of evidence.
It is a progression of narrative weight.

 

How one name becomes central

 

The law enforcement arrived in Sainnamaruthu

They were shot at

Those inside exploded themselves.

 

For any identification process:

• A name must exist before DNA
• A candidate must be selected before testing
• A narrative must exist before repetition

 

At which point did this name become dominant — and why only this name?

 

Therefore, who brought up the name of Sara to its prominence for the DNA to be associated with her!

 

• Who first introduced this name into the investigation?
• Were all other possible identities tested with equal rigor?
• What criteria elevated one individual above all others?
• Where is the evidence of operational involvement?

 

There are several reasons why a single name can take on disproportionate importance:

 

1. The Need for a Narrative Anchor

Complex networks are difficult to explain.

A single identifiable person becomes a convenient focal point — someone through whom the entire story can be told.

Whether they are dead – alive – fugitive makes the yarn more sensational and easier to manipulate and twist the minds of the people to the advantage of those that control the propaganda or the faces that promote propaganda.

Sara, with a traceable background and a known association, fits this role perfectly.

 

2. The Power of the Unknown

Uncertainty amplifies attention.

Unlike others who were presumed dead, Sara’s status was, for a time, unclear.

That ambiguity transformed her into something more than a victim — into a question.

And questions attract repetition.

And repetitions attract doubt.

Seeds of mischief are planted

 

3. The Link Between Worlds

She was not part of the immediate family structure of the core group.

She entered it through marriage.

That alone makes her appear — at least narratively — as a bridge between different individuals and locations.

But a bridge in narrative is not the same as a central pillar in evidence.

 

4. Repetition Creates Importance

Once a name enters:

• police reports
• court documents
• media headlines
• tv debates/discussions etc

 

it begins to generate its own momentum and circulate independently

Each repetition reinforces the last, creating an impression of significance that may exceed the underlying evidence.

Over time, the question subtly shifts from:

“Who is she?”

to
“She must be important — why else is she mentioned so often?”

 

Different Actors, Different Uses

The repeated use of her name is not random — it serves different purposes:

 

• Investigatorsuse her as a link between locations and individuals.
• Legal narrativesuse her to demonstrate association within a network.
• Mediauses her as a compelling, human-centered story.
• Political voicesuse her as a symbol of unresolved questions and new breakthroughs and breaking news.
• Public discourseturns her into a focal point for speculation.

 

The result?

One name — carrying multiple meanings, depending on who is using it.

 

The Critical Distinction: Evidence vs. Emphasis

 

Here lies the most important point:

Repetition is not evidence.
Emphasis is not proof.

 

There is a difference between:

• being connected
• being present
• being central

That distinction must not be blurred.

 

The Question That Still Stands

 

The Narrative What people are repeatedly hearing / seeing	Legal / Evidentiary Record What is established in law and investigation
·     Repeated references to Sara Jasmine ·     Continued emphasis on DNA ·     Speculation about links to broader narratives ·     Frequent media and public discussion around one individual ·     Ongoing attention on a single identity	·   Over 23,000 indictments filed in relation to the Easter Sunday investigations ·   Extensive court proceedings and evidence submissions ·   Multiple accused formally identified and charged ·   No indictments naming Suresh Sallay ·   No charges established against him within those proceedings
Narrative Outcome High repetition and public focus	Evidentiary Outcome No corresponding legal linkage established

 

If one individual’s name continues to dominate discussion, a fair and necessary question arises:

Is this prominence based on proven evidentiary value — or on narrative utility?

And equally:

Were all others subjected to the same level of scrutiny, identification, and public emphasis?

 

Most importantly when the bigger questions are not being asked which returns to the main question of “who knew about an attack but didn’t prevent or warn people” it creates the impression that the loudest repetition of the ‘Sara’ narrative may be drawing attention away from more uncomfortable questions.

 

The case of Pulasthini Mahendran (Sara Jasmine) is not just about one individual. It reveals something deeper about how investigations are understood, communicated, and remembered.

 

Those calling for justice must also address the broader issue of extremism and indoctrination, including reports that individuals within these networks — including women — had pledged allegiance and were drawn into violent acts of suicide.

Equally important are the unanswered questions regarding prior warnings and whether more could have been done to prevent the loss of 269 lives.

Answers to these are far more critical than repeated focus on DNA or evolving narratives.

 

It shows how:

• a name can evolve into a symbol
• a person can become a narrative anchor
• and repetition can shape perception and merged together it can manipulate minds and divert the entire story to a different direction and more spice may be added by introducing more new faces to claim “they saw” “they heard” Suresh ….. when 23,000 indictments could not.

 

But in any serious inquiry, one principle must remain firm:

 

Facts must lead — not follow — the narrative.

Ultimately, it is evidence — not repetition — that must guide judgment.

 

Until that standard is consistently applied, the question will remain:

Why one name — and not the others?

 

When one name is repeated enough, it can begin to define the story.
The real question is — is it revealing the truth, or replacing it?

Names do not circulate on their own. They are introduced, repeated, and sustained through channels — for reasons not always made visible. It is for the public to question, not simply accept.

Let us not allow a name to divert justice on the pretext of justice.

 

 

 

 

Shenali D Waduge