Sri Lanka's 13th Amendment at a Crossroads: Can the NPP Deliver on Minority Rights and Devolution?

Published : Jun 11, 2025 14:42 IST - 5 MINS READ
Until a new, inclusive constitution is developed, Sri Lanka should implement the provisions of the 13th Amendment to its Constitution and hold elections to the provincial councils in the island nation, an academic study has said.
The study, titled 'Divided and weakened: the collapse of minority politics in Sri Lanka', has been authored by Sri Lankan-British scholar Farah Mihlar and was released on June 11 by the Minority Rights Group, an international human rights organisation, and Oxford Brookes University.
According to the study, the need of the hour was 'constitutional reforms that strengthen minority rights and non-discrimination'. The study also wanted the Sri Lankan government to find 'a political solution to the ethnic conflict acceptable to all communities that involves devolving power to minorities beyond the Thirteenth Amendment.'
Also Read | Anura Dissanayake: The outsider with a difference
The report acknowledged the fact that the Anura Kumara Dissanayake-led National People's Power (NPP) government, with its two-thirds majority, has a unique opportunity to transform the national narrative.
Historic opportunity for NPP
It said: 'The NPP has...the historic opportunity to produce a constitution that represents all communities in Sri Lanka. Considering the many rights and justice claims that have a long history and were causes of the conflict, earnestly resolving them should be a priority for all political parties, mainstream national and ethnic minority ones alike, to ensure a just and lasting peace in Sri Lanka.'
The 13th Amendment to the Sri Lankan Constitution devolves powers to the Tamil-dominated Northern and Eastern provinces, and was part of an accord signed by Sri Lankan President J.R. Jayawardene and Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi in 1987. That accord still remains the only hope for some autonomy for the Tamils of Sri Lanka.
Rajiv Gandhi's defeat in the 1989 general election and the subsequent instability in India's polity for the next few years gave Sri Lanka the escape route it was looking for. The killing of Rajiv Gandhi in 1991 and the lack of interest in the Sri Lankan solution during Narasimha Rao's tenure as Prime Minister (1991-96) ensured that India did not push forward the implementation of the accord.
However, many Sri Lankan politicians, across the ethnic divide, find the 13th Amendment unacceptable. Sinhala politicians consider it Indian interference in Sri Lankan affairs, while Tamil politicians say that the amendment will be of no effective consequence because power will only be transferred from the Sinhala majoritarian government in Colombo to the Governors appointed by the same federal government to the provinces.
The NPP government, which was propelled to power because of people's disenchantment with the established political parties, has held elections to the local bodies. But so far, it has not announced a firm date for elections to the provincial councils.
In the local body elections, NPP won a huge majority, winning over 250 of the 339 local body councils, but its vote share dropped by an alarming 34 per cent compared to the 2024 parliamentary election. In April 2025, when Dissanayake met Prime Minister Narendra Modi in New Delhi, Modi urged him to hold provincial elections.
Collapse of minority politics
The Farah Mihlar study noted that 'ethnic minority parties from all three minority communities [Tamils, Muslims and plantation Tamils] have splintered into several factions, and the larger, more popular ones are internally deeply divided. These divides have been caused in part as a consequence of majoritarian nationalism, but also due to weak leadership and allegations of corruption within parties.'
The study concluded that minorities in the country have 'lost almost all space in the big political parties in Sri Lanka'. These parties cater to Sinhala nationalism and view this as the one and only route to political power. Minority politics in the nation is collapsing because of a host of factors ranging from corruption to minority political parties taking extreme positions.
Since the end of the civil war in 2009, prominent minority parties, including the largest party, the Ilankai Tamil Arasu Kachchi (ITAK), have struggled to define their political path, given the prevalence of Tamil ultranationalism in the areas formerly affected by the civil war.
The study said: 'Ethnic minority parties from among the second largest minority, Muslims, and the smaller Malaiyaga Tamil community (of recent Indian origin), present a story of disarray, division and lost credibility. These parties have erratically switched allegiances with nationalist mainstream parties trying to capitalise on shifting alliances and coalition formation, which eventually damaged them deeply. Their own lack of openness to new leadership and progressive reforms, amidst allegations of corruption, has not helped their cause.'
Change in strategy
At the national level, the study noted that there has been a change in strategy on minority representation: instead of fielding minority candidates, these parties are forming alliances and coalitions with ethnic minority parties while offering less space inside their own parties for both minority representatives and minority issues.
Also Read | Is Sri Lanka witnessing a shift in its ethnic politics?
It added: 'Minority representatives who have been elected from the former two major parties, the United National Party (UNP) and the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP), and their various fronts have felt isolated, with little opportunity to take up minority issues in national party agendas.'
It is in this context that recent NPP actions in many councils need to be seen. In Batticaloa, for instance, ITAK joined hands with the main opposition party, the Samagi Jana Balawegaya. to win the post of Mayor. The NPP, which stands for clean politics, joined hands with Tamil Makkal Viduthalai Puligal, whose leader, Pillayan, is in jail on a kidnapping and killing charge. He is also accused of aiding and abetting those behind the April 2019 Easter attacks. Shanakiyan Rasamanickam, MP and ITAK leader, said: 'Given that Pillayan remains in custody over multiple serious allegations, the NPP's willingness to align with such a figure in pursuit of power has raised serious concerns.'
As of today, with 159 MPs NPP's dominance in parliament is absolute. But it is increasingly under attack for its policies and what is seen as a lack of competence in governance. Despite the setbacks in governance, NPP has the unique opportunity to go beyond what other ruling combines have attempted on the political reconciliation front so far.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Time of India

34 minutes ago

• Time of India

During Janta Darshan, UP CM Yogi Adityanath helps get girl enrolled in school

CM Yogi holds Janta Darbar LUCKNOW: Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Adiyanath Yogi organised a 'Janta Darshan' in Lucknow on Monday. At the Janta Darshan, a young girl named Vashi requested the CM to help get her enrolled in school. The CM interacted with her, asking which school she wanted to go to and which class she wanted to enrol in. He later instructed the officials to get the young girl enrolled in her desired school. Vashi, who met CM Yogi Adityanath , narrated the entire interaction and said, "I met Yogi ji. I asked him to enrol me in a school. He said he would do it." "I have come from Moradabad. He gave me a biscuit and chocolate", Vashi added further. Since Yogi Adityanath became the CM of Uttar Pradesh, he frequently organises 'Janta Darshan', where he listens to the grievances of people and solves them. Earlier, CM Yogi inaugurated the 91.35 km long Gorakhpur Link Expressway built for Rs 7,283 crore, connecting several districts to Gorakhpur, including Azamgarh. The CM said that the new Uttar Pradesh of the new India is making its new identity as the "expressway state." Addressing a gathering, Chief Minister Yogi said, "The new Uttar Pradesh of the new India is making its new identity as the 'express-way state. "The inauguration of the 91.35 km long Gorakhpur Link Expressway is a historic moment for eastern Uttar Pradesh. Under the able leadership of Prime Minister Narendra Modi , Uttar Pradesh is taking new heights of development, confidence and glory with the largest expressway network in the country," said CM Yogi. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Your Finger Shape Says a Lot About Your Personality, Read Now Tips and Tricks Undo Critising the previous state government, CM Yogi Adityanath said that the work of the Agra-Lucknow Expressway was half done, but during his tenure, projects related to six expressways in the state have been completed. "The work on the Agra Lucknow Expressway was half done. Today, I am happy to tell you that we have completed six projects. You are witnessing the journey of the Purvanchal Expressway. We have been continuously building it since 2021. In 2022, the Bundelkhand Expressway was started. It is 300 km long. The 340 km long Purvanchal Expressway has already been completed, and its connectivity to Patna is about to be completed. Now remember how easy the connectivity from Patna to Lucknow and Lucknow to Delhi will become", CM Yogi said. He stated that the 340 km-long Purvanchal Expressway is about to extend its connectivity to Patna. He called freedom fighter Veer Kunwar Singh and said that if the Purvanchal Expressway had been built in 1857, India would have become independent at that time. "When Veer Kunwar Singh, the hero of the first war of independence in 1857, fought the British till Azamgarh to defeat them, there was no connectivity. If this Purvanchal Expressway had been there at that time, the people of Azamgarh would have beaten the British along with Veer Kunwar Singh, and then this country would have become independent in 1857 itself. There was no connectivity at that time", he added.

First Post

38 minutes ago

• First Post

Was Donald Trump's decision to bomb Iran unconstitutional?

US President Trump's airstrikes on Iran have raised questions over presidential war powers, with lawmakers across the aisle questioning whether he violated the Constitution by bypassing Congress. While some back the strikes as necessary, others call them illegal, even impeachable read more Demonstrators hold a papier-mache head depicting US President Donald Trump, as they gather to march against the upcoming Nato leaders' summit, at The Hague, Netherlands, June 22, 2025. File Image/Reuters United States President Donald Trump's recent airstrikes targeting Iranian nuclear sites have everyone asking one question: can a US president launch offensive military action without direct approval from Congress? The question has prompted a bipartisan outcry, with lawmakers examining the constitutionality of Trump's decision and the implications for war powers delegated under US law. While some have praised the strikes as strategically necessary, others have called them a dangerous breach of executive authority that potentially defies the US Constitution and the War Powers Resolution of 1973. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Did Trump act without congressional green light? The airstrikes ordered by Trump on June 21 came amid a broader escalation following Israel's bombardment of Iranian nuclear and military infrastructure. Though Trump has consistently voiced reluctance to entangle the US in further conflicts in the region, he defended the decision by saying, 'Iran can't have a nuclear weapon.' Yet the timing and unilateral nature of the strikes have raised concerns across both political aisles. US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth confirmed during a press conference that Congress was notified only after the aircraft safely exited Iranian airspace. 'They were notified after the planes were safely out. But we complied with the notification requirements of the War Powers Act,' Hegseth said. That admission did little to ease tensions among lawmakers who viewed the operation as constitutionally questionable. How have lawmakers objected to Trump's move? Some of the most vocal objections came from members of Trump's own party. US Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky, a Republican known for his strict constitutionalist views, responded to the strikes by stating bluntly, 'This is not Constitutional.' Days earlier, Massie co-authored a resolution with Democratic Representative Ro Khanna of California aimed at preventing unauthorised military action against Iran. Representative Warren Davidson of Ohio, another Republican typically aligned with Trump, added: 'While President Trump's decision may prove just, it's hard to conceive a rationale that's Constitutional.' Both Davidson and Massie put a spotlight on the requirement for congressional authorisation before initiating military hostilities against a foreign nation. On the Democratic side, US Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia reiterated his longstanding commitment to reclaiming Congress's war powers. 'We're going to have the briefing this week. We'll have a vote,' he said on Fox News Sunday. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD 'I know many Republicans will fall in line and say a president can do whatever he wants. But I hope members of the Senate and the House will take their Article I responsibilities seriously.' Kaine's resolution — privileged under Senate rules — can be fast-tracked to the floor and requires only a simple majority to pass. Other lawmakers have suggested the president's actions may warrant impeachment. US Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York posted on social media: 'The President's disastrous decision to bomb Iran without authorisation is a grave violation of the Constitution and Congressional War Powers. He has impulsively risked launching a war that may ensnare us for generations.' US Representative Sean Casten of Illinois made similar arguments: 'No president has the authority to bomb another country that does not pose an imminent threat to the US without the approval of Congress. This is an unambiguous impeachable offense.' Casten called on Speaker Mike Johnson to protect Congress's constitutional responsibilities: 'Grow a spine.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD US Senator Bernie Sanders, speaking during a campaign event in Tulsa, called the strikes 'grossly unconstitutional' and stated, 'The only entity that can take this country to war is the US Congress. The president does not have the right.' House Minority Whip Katherine Clark stated that the power to declare war 'resides solely with Congress,' calling Trump's actions 'unauthorised and unconstitutional.' House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries expressed concern that Trump 'failed to seek congressional authorisation' and warned that the move could entangle the US in a potentially 'disastrous war.' Despite the criticism, Trump also received support from some lawmakers on both sides of the aisle. US Speaker Mike Johnson said, 'The President fully respects the Article I power of Congress, and tonight's necessary, limited, and targeted strike follows the history and tradition of similar military actions under presidents of both parties.' Senate Majority Leader John Thune also backed the president's decision, signalling a likelihood of Republican congressional support. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Some Democrats also refrained from raising legal objections. Representative Steny Hoyer of Maryland and Representative Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey supported the strikes without questioning their constitutionality. US Senator John Fetterman offered full endorsement of the military action, stating: 'Iran is the world's leading sponsor of terrorism and cannot have nuclear capabilities. I'm grateful for and salute the finest military in the world.' Are Trump's strikes on Iran constitutional? At the centre of the dispute lies the US Constitution. Article I gives Congress the authority to declare war, while Article II names the president as Commander-in-Chief. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 was introduced to clarify this balance after repeated US military interventions without formal war declarations, most notably in Vietnam and Cambodia. The War Powers Act mandates that the president notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying US armed forces and limits unauthorised deployments to 60 or 90 days without further congressional approval. It also requires consultation with Congress 'in every possible instance' before initiating hostilities. Yet the law has often been sidestepped. Presidents have used various justifications — emergency threats, existing authorisations or interpretations of commander-in-chief powers — to engage militarily without a formal declaration of war. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Since World War II, the US has engaged in multiple conflicts — from Korea and Vietnam to Iraq and Afghanistan — without official war declarations. One major legal instrument enabling military operations without congressional votes is the Authorisation for Use of Military Force (AUMF). Passed in 2001 and 2002 for operations related to terrorism and Iraq, these authorisations have since been invoked for unrelated operations. For instance, Trump relied on the 2003 AUMF to justify the 2020 killing of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani. How is this legislation often side-stepped? In response to Trump's recent actions, several new legislative measures have been introduced. Kaine's resolution aims to reassert Congress's authority before further military engagement with Iran. Massie and Khanna filed a joint measure in the House based on the War Powers Act to block 'unauthorised hostilities.' Sanders introduced the No War Against Iran Act to prohibit federal funds from being used for any military force against Iran. The ongoing conflict between the legislative and executive branches over war-making powers has been a hallmark of US history. The US Supreme Court last addressed the issue in 1861 during the Civil War, when it ruled that US President Lincoln's naval blockade of southern ports was constitutional in the absence of a war declaration because the executive 'may repel sudden attacks.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Still, critics argue that the War Powers Resolution lacks real enforcement mechanisms. Resolutions to end unauthorised hostilities are often subject to presidential vetoes, which require a two-thirds majority in both chambers to override. While the law provides a framework for transparency and reporting — over 100 such notifications have been sent to Congress since 1973 — it remains a contested tool. US Representative Ro Khanna said during an appearance on MSNBC: 'This is the first true crack in the MAGA base.' With inputs from agencies

Hans India

an hour ago

• Hans India

SDPI condemns Centre's denial of political clearance for Karnataka minister's US visit

Bengaluru: The Social Democratic Party of India (SDPI), Karnataka unit, has strongly criticised the Union government for reportedly denying political clearance to State Minister Priyank Kharge's proposed visit to the United States. The party termed the move as politically motivated and detrimental to the interests of the state. In a statement issued on Saturday, SDPI Karnataka State President Abdul Majeed condemned what he described as a 'vindictive step' by the Centre. He alleged that despite Karnataka's leading role in the fields of technology, entrepreneurship, and economic growth at the international level, the Union government continues to display hostility towards the state's initiatives. Kharge was scheduled to travel to Boston and San Francisco to participate in global technology summits and explore collaborations for Karnataka's thriving tech ecosystem. The denial of clearance, the SDPI said, not only amounts to a 'national embarrassment' but also hampers developmental opportunities for the state. 'This is a clear case of political arrogance and central overreach that undermines the federal spirit of the Constitution,' the statement said, adding that such actions are in violation of democratic principles. The party demanded that the Union government explain the reasons behind the denial of permission and urged it to refrain from taking similar decisions in the future. 'The Union government must acknowledge that Indian states are not colonies but constitutional entities with their own rights and autonomy,' SDPI said. The party further warned that any attempt to curtail Karnataka's autonomy would be met with strong resistance from the state.