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.

Urgent Clarification Demanded: Has MP Shritharan Betrayed Sri Lanka? Legal Experts Evaluate a Possible Sixth Amendment Violation - Jihan Hameed

A legitimate letter circulating on social media has sparked widespread concern and demands for clarity regarding MP Shritharan’s actions. The letter alleges that he sent a message endorsing foreign sanctions against Sri Lanka and accusing the state of grave human rights abuses. If true, such actions would not only undermine national sovereignty but also represent a profound betrayal of the trust bestowed upon him by the people.

Legal experts are now examining whether his actions constitute a violation of the Sixth Amendment, which explicitly prohibits any advocacy of separatism or any act that undermines the unity of the nation. This constitutional safeguard is designed to ensure that no public official jeopardizes the integrity of Sri Lanka by appealing to external forces or inciting division among its citizens.

The letter calls for an immediate explanation from Shritharan. It questions whether he truly authored the message and, if so, condemns his appeal to foreign powers at a time when unity and national stability are paramount. The allegations go beyond mere political disagreement—they challenge the fundamental principles upon which Sri Lanka stands and demand accountability from those in positions of power.

For many citizens, this issue transcends legal implications, striking at the heart of national honor and trust. Elected officials are expected to act in the nation’s best interests, and any deviation from this duty must be addressed transparently. The government and relevant authorities are urged to investigate the origins of the letter, confirm its authenticity, and take appropriate measures if any constitutional breach is found.

In these critical times, the people of Sri Lanka deserve nothing less than full accountability from their leaders. A prompt and clear response from MP Shritharan is essential to restore public confidence and ensure that the sanctity of our national unity remains uncompromised.

War winning President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s Statement on UK Sanctions Against Sri Lankan Military Commanders

The United Kingdom has imposed sanctions, including travel bans and asset freezes, on former Sri Lankan military leaders over allegations of human rights violations during the war against the LTTE. In response, Sri Lanka’s 5th Executive President, Mahinda Rajapaksa, has issued a strong statement rejecting these allegations and highlighting the historical context of the war. He defends the actions taken by the Sri Lankan government and military, refutes claims of widespread human rights abuses, and criticizes the UK’s approach as being driven by political motives rather than facts. Read his full statement below.

Admiral of the Fleet Wasantha Karannagoda Speaks Out: The Truth Behind the Unjust Sanctions

 For decades, I have served Sri Lanka with unwavering dedication, committed to protecting our sovereignty and ensuring the safety of our people. I have stood firm in the face of challenges—whether on the battlefield, in matters of national security, or in defending our country against external interference. However, today, I find myself facing unjust sanctions imposed by the United Kingdom, alongside General Jagath Jayasuriya general, Shavendra de Silva.   These sanctions are not about justice but are a direct result of international political maneuvering.

It was War Against Terrorism: A Fight for Survival

Sri Lanka did not seek war, but we had no choice when terrorism threatened to dismantle our nation. The LTTE, one of the most ruthless terrorist organizations in the world, carried out massacres, assassinations, and suicide bombings, terrorizing innocent civilians for decades. While the international community remained passive, it was the Sri Lankan Armed Forces that made the difficult decision to put an end to this brutality.

I take pride in the role I played as Commander of the Sri Lanka Navy, ensuring that the LTTE’s international supply routes were destroyed. Without weapons, ammunition, and external support, their ability to continue fighting was significantly weakened. The decisive actions of the Navy, alongside the Army and Air Force, led to the eventual defeat of terrorism and the restoration of peace in Sri Lanka.

Selective Targeting and International Hypocrisy

These sanctions are not based on any transparent investigation or legal proceedings. Instead, they reflect the selective application of international pressure, targeting those who played key roles in Sri Lanka’s military victory. The same foreign entities that now impose restrictions did nothing while Sri Lanka was under siege by terrorists. They ignored the atrocities committed by the LTTE, but now demand accountability from those who risked their lives to end a war that claimed thousands of innocent lives.

This double standard raises a critical question: Is this truly about human rights, or is it about political influence?

Sri Lanka’s challenges did not end with the defeat of terrorism. There have been numerous internal and external attempts to destabilize the country, often with foreign involvement. As someone who has always prioritized the security of this nation, I am well aware of the forces that have worked against our national interests. These include individuals who have misused their positions of power, collaborated with external actors, and sought to manipulate political outcomes for personal gain.

The events of May 9, 2022, serve as a stark reminder of how internal betrayal and foreign interference can converge to create chaos. If not for the swift and decisive actions of the Sri Lanka Navy and Air Force that night, the country’s leadership and future would have been drastically altered. While others plotted, it was the dedication of our military personnel that prevented a complete breakdown of order.

Despite these challenges, I remain committed to Sri Lanka. I have always placed my country above personal ambition, and I will continue to do so. No foreign government, no politically motivated sanction, and no internal betrayal can change my unwavering belief in this nation’s strength.

The people of Sri Lanka know the truth. They lived through the war, they witnessed the sacrifices made, and they understand who truly stood for the country in its time of need. These sanctions will not define my legacy or the legacy of those who genuinely defended this nation.

Sri Lanka has overcome greater challenges before, and we will do so again. As a nation, we must remain vigilant, united, and steadfast against all forces—both foreign and domestic—that seek to weaken us.

The UK’s Sanctions on Sri Lankan Military Leaders: A Question of Justice or Selective Accountability? -Jihan Hameed

On March 24, 2025, the United Kingdom imposed sanctions on three former Sri Lankan military commanders, citing allegations of war crimes committed during the final stages of Sri Lanka’s civil war in 2009. The individuals sanctioned include Shavendra Silva, former Chief of Staff of the Sri Lankan Armed Forces, Wasantha Karannagoda, former Commander of the Sri Lankan Navy, and Jagath Jayasuriya, former Commander of the Sri Lankan Army.

These sanctions impose travel bans and asset freezes, allegedly as part of the UK’s commitment to justice and accountability. However, the decision raises critical questions about fairness, political motives, and selective justice in international affairs.

Sri Lanka’s civil war lasted 26 years (1983–2009), making it one of the longest-running and most devastating conflicts in South Asia. The war pitted the Sri Lankan government against the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), an internationally designated terrorist organization that fought for a separate Tamil state in the North and East of Sri Lanka.

The LTTE was responsible for suicide bombings in civilian areas, assassinations of political leaders—including Rajiv Gandhi, the former Prime Minister of India—the use of child soldiers, and the ethnic cleansing of Muslims in the North and East.

By 2009, the Sri Lankan military launched a final operation to eradicate the LTTE, effectively bringing peace to the nation for the first time in decades. The Sri Lankan government has always maintained that the war was fought against terrorism—not against a particular ethnic group—and was conducted with extreme caution to minimize civilian casualties.

Unlike many military conflicts worldwide, where large-scale bombings indiscriminately destroy entire cities, the Sri Lankan armed forces engaged in one of the most complex and humanitarian military campaigns in history. Their operations safeguarded over 300,000 Tamil civilians, who were being held as human shields by the LTTE.

If Sri Lanka had truly committed systematic war crimes, why do Tamil civilians today live peacefully alongside Sinhalese and Muslims in a unified country? If war crimes were the real concern, why has the UK never taken action against the LTTE’s global financial network, which operated freely in London, Canada, and other Western capitals?

The decision to impose sanctions more than 15 years after the war ended raises concerns about political motivations rather than a genuine pursuit of justice. Sri Lanka remains a stable, democratic nation that has made significant strides in reconciliation and post-war recovery. The military has played a crucial role in demining operations, resettlement programs, and rebuilding war-torn areas.

By sanctioning these individuals now, the UK risks undermining Sri Lanka’s sovereignty and reconciliation efforts. The country has its own legal mechanisms to address any allegations of misconduct, and foreign intervention often complicates rather than resolves these issues.

If the UK is truly committed to justice, why has it never sanctioned Western military leaders responsible for civilian deaths in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya? Why has it ignored LTTE front groups that raised millions to fund terrorism? Why does it remain silent on well-documented war crimes in Palestine, Yemen, or Syria?

By selectively targeting Sri Lanka while ignoring far worse atrocities committed by Western allies, the UK damages its own credibility on human rights issues. Selective justice is not justice at all.

Sri Lanka must stand firm against external pressures and defend its sovereignty. The government, along with its international allies, should push back against politically motivated actions that seek to undermine the country’s stability.

At the same time, Sri Lanka should continue its efforts toward reconciliation and economic progress, ensuring that all communities feel secure and included in the nation’s future. The focus must remain on economic recovery, strengthening international partnerships, and maintaining national unity.

The UK’s decision may complicate diplomatic relations, but Sri Lanka must navigate this challenge with confidence and clarity. The real victims of this decision are not the sanctioned individuals, but the truth and fairness that global justice should stand for. aOn March 24, 2025, the United Kingdom imposed sanctions on three former Sri Lankan military commanders, citing allegations of war crimes committed during the final stages of Sri Lanka’s civil war in 2009. The individuals sanctioned include Shavendra Silva, former Chief of Staff of the Sri Lankan Armed Forces, Wasantha Karannagoda, former Commander of the Sri Lankan Navy, and Jagath Jayasuriya, former Commander of the Sri Lankan Army.

These sanctions impose travel bans and asset freezes, allegedly as part of the UK’s commitment to justice and accountability. However, the decision raises critical questions about fairness, political motives, and selective justice in international affairs.

Sri Lanka’s civil war lasted 26 years (1983–2009), making it one of the longest-running and most devastating conflicts in South Asia. The war pitted the Sri Lankan government against the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), an internationally designated terrorist organization that fought for a separate Tamil state in the North and East of Sri Lanka.

The LTTE was responsible for suicide bombings in civilian areas, assassinations of political leaders—including Rajiv Gandhi, the former Prime Minister of India—the use of child soldiers, and the ethnic cleansing of Muslims in the North and East.

By 2009, the Sri Lankan military launched a final operation to eradicate the LTTE, effectively bringing peace to the nation for the first time in decades. The Sri Lankan government has always maintained that the war was fought against terrorism—not against a particular ethnic group—and was conducted with extreme caution to minimize civilian casualties.

Unlike many military conflicts worldwide, where large-scale bombings indiscriminately destroy entire cities, the Sri Lankan armed forces engaged in one of the most complex and humanitarian military campaigns in history. Their operations safeguarded over 300,000 Tamil civilians, who were being held as human shields by the LTTE.

If Sri Lanka had truly committed systematic war crimes, why do Tamil civilians today live peacefully alongside Sinhalese and Muslims in a unified country? If war crimes were the real concern, why has the UK never taken action against the LTTE’s global financial network, which operated freely in London, Canada, and other Western capitals?

The decision to impose sanctions more than 15 years after the war ended raises concerns about political motivations rather than a genuine pursuit of justice. Sri Lanka remains a stable, democratic nation that has made significant strides in reconciliation and post-war recovery. The military has played a crucial role in demining operations, resettlement programs, and rebuilding war-torn areas.

By sanctioning these individuals now, the UK risks undermining Sri Lanka’s sovereignty and reconciliation efforts. The country has its own legal mechanisms to address any allegations of misconduct, and foreign intervention often complicates rather than resolves these issues.

If the UK is truly committed to justice, why has it never sanctioned Western military leaders responsible for civilian deaths in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya? Why has it ignored LTTE front groups that raised millions to fund terrorism? Why does it remain silent on well-documented war crimes in Palestine, Yemen, or Syria?

By selectively targeting Sri Lanka while ignoring far worse atrocities committed by Western allies, the UK damages its own credibility on human rights issues. Selective justice is not justice at all.

Sri Lanka must stand firm against external pressures and defend its sovereignty. The government, along with its international allies, should push back against politically motivated actions that seek to undermine the country’s stability.

At the same time, Sri Lanka should continue its efforts toward reconciliation and economic progress, ensuring that all communities feel secure and included in the nation’s future. The focus must remain on economic recovery, strengthening international partnerships, and maintaining national unity.

The UK’s decision may complicate diplomatic relations, but Sri Lanka must navigate this challenge with confidence and clarity. The real victims of this decision are not the sanctioned individuals, but the truth and fairness that global justice should stand for.