Black July: The Need to Tell the Whole Truth

Dear Mr. Sajith Premadasa,

We welcome your recent expression of regret and apology in Parliament concerning Black July. Such acknowledgment of historical wrongdoing is a constructive step towards reconciliation and democratic accountability.

However, an honest reckoning with history cannot begin and end with Black July. The violence of July 1983 was part of a much wider sequence of political developments, ethnic discrimination, state repression and the erosion of democratic institutions. To understand that history fully, we must examine what preceded Black July, what happened during it, and what followed.

We therefore urge you to extend your acknowledgment of historical responsibility beyond Black July and address the wider pattern of undemocratic and repressive actions under the United National Party (UNP) government led by President J. R. Jayewardene.

1. The erosion of democracy before Black July

The contraction of democratic space after the UNP came to power in 1977 must form part of this discussion. It would be historically incomplete to focus only on the violence against Tamil people in the North and East, Black July, or the proscription of the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) in 1983, while overlooking other actions that weakened democratic rights and political pluralism.

The removal of the civic rights of former Prime Minister Sirimavo Bandaranaike in 1980, which deprived her of the right to vote or stand for election for seven years, was a major example. The detention of Vijaya Kumaratunga and others in 1982 in connection with an alleged Naxalite conspiracy was another deeply troubling episode.

The violence associated with the 1981 Jaffna District Development Council election, including the burning of the Jaffna Public Library, and other abuses against Tamil civilians and young people also form part of this history. These events reflected a wider political climate in which the use of state power raised serious questions about political freedom, the rule of law and the rights of opposition parties.

2. The proscription of the JVP in 1983

The proscription of the JVP in July 1983 was another serious blow to democratic politics. At the time, the JVP was an established political party participating in electoral politics, including the 1982 presidential election. It had also taken legal action challenging the government’s decision to extend the life of Parliament through the 1982 referendum.

In the aftermath of Black July, the government proscribed the JVP and two other left-wing parties, the Nava Sama Samaja Party and the Communist Party of Sri Lanka, alleging their involvement in the communal violence. The validity of those allegations and the justification for the proscription deserve careful historical and legal scrutiny. The central issue is not whether any political organisation should be exempt from accountability, but whether the allegations were supported by credible evidence and whether the state acted in accordance with democratic principles and due process.

A government cannot legitimately suppress political opposition merely by making allegations that have not been established through a fair process. The proscription deprived the JVP of its lawful political space and had serious consequences for its members and supporters.

3. Our personal experience of repression

This is not simply a historical account based on documents or second-hand narratives; it is also a history that we experienced personally. Following the proscription, JVP members, activists and professionals, including Lionel Bopage, then the party’s General Secretary, faced arrest, detention and interrogation.

Between August and December 1983, some of us were detained and questioned on the Fourth Floor of the Criminal Investigation Department in Colombo. Those affected included doctors, engineers and other professionals. Other than the two signatories to this letter, those detained in connection with these events included Somaratna Kaluarachchi, Dr Nihal Abeysinghe, Dr Palitha Yapa, Dr Jinendra Pathinayake, Lalith Chandrasiri, Viraj Fernando, Sathyapala Wannigama and Vijitha Ranaweera. We recall these experiences so that the treatment of those affected and the evidence used to justify the proscription may be examined honestly and fairly.

4. The legal challenge to the proscription

Efforts were made to challenge the proscription through legal channels. The proceedings were brought in the name of Piyasoma Mallikarachchi, then a member of the Colombo District Development Council. Mr Mallikarachchi is no longer alive to recount the matter, but Professor Athula Sumathipala was personally involved in coordinating aspects of the legal effort.

According to the published Supreme Court judgment, the case was Mallikarachchi v. Shiva Pasupati, Attorney-General (1985) 1 Sri LR 74, Supreme Court Application No. 107/84, heard on 19–20 November 1984. Nimal Senanayake, President’s Counsel, appeared for the petitioner, together with Sanath Jayatilleke, Mrs A. B. Dissanayaka and R. Jagindran, instructed by Saliya Mathew.

Political efforts were also made to have the proscription lifted. Lionel Bopage, as the party’s General Secretary at the time, held discussions with President J. R. Jayewardene with a view to restoring the party’s lawful political status. These legal and political efforts concerned the right of a political party to exist, organise and participate in democratic life without unjustified state interference.

5. The responsibility to acknowledge the full history

Our purpose in raising these matters is not to revive old political hostilities or to assign historical blame selectively. It is to insist that the lessons of history must be learned in their entirety.

The violence against Tamil people, Black July, the proscription of the JVP, the removal of Sirimavo Bandaranaike’s civic rights and the detention of Vijaya Kumaratunga were distinct events. Yet each raises important questions about the use of state power, the protection of democratic freedoms and the treatment of political opponents. Acknowledging one injustice while remaining silent about others risks presenting an incomplete account of our past.

We therefore reiterate our call for you to extend your acknowledgment beyond Black July. This should include an honest acknowledgment of the injustices suffered by Tamil citizens, the circumstances surrounding the proscription of the JVP, and the wider curtailment of democratic rights under the UNP government after 1977.

We also believe that surviving witnesses to these events should be heard. Their testimony is an important part of Sri Lanka’s historical record and should contribute to a broader, evidence-based national conversation about accountability and democratic renewal.

An apology is meaningful only when accompanied by an honest acknowledgment of the truth, an acceptance of responsibility and a commitment to prevent similar abuses in the future. We respectfully call upon you to acknowledge the full history and to offer a sincere expression of regret and apology for the wider injustices committed during that period.

We write jointly, drawing on our experiences of that period and our conviction that Sri Lanka cannot build a genuinely democratic future by selectively remembering its past. Our aim is to help build a more just and democratic society that safeguards human dignity.

Lionel Bopage

General Secretary of the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna during the period concerned

Professor Athula Sumathipala
Frontline activist who held responsibilities within the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna during the period concerned