COUNTER TERRORISM -Sri Lanka at the Crossroads: Who Sponsored the Narrative Before the Smoke Cleared?

 

Sri Lanka at the Crossroads: Who Sponsored the Narrative Before the Smoke Cleared?

On 19 May 2019, less than a month after the Easter Sunday carnage that killed more than 250 people, a conference titled “Sri Lanka at Crossroads: The Time to Learn, Unlearn and Relearn” was held at the Jasmine Room of the Bandaranaike Memorial International Conference Hall (BMICH). The event reportedly ran from 4 p.m. to 7 p.m. and featured counter-terrorism commentator Rohan Gunaratna as a principal speaker.

The attack of 21 April 2019—widely attributed at the time to local extremists aligned with the so-called Islamic State and led by Zahran Hashim—had left the country traumatised and politically destabilised. Emotions were raw. Intelligence failures were under scrutiny. Institutional accountability was being demanded.

It is in that context that the BMICH conference now attracts renewed attention.

The “Three Pillars” and the Construction of Orthodoxy

At the event, Gunaratna is reported to have reiterated a framework he claims to have co-authored: the “three pillars of radicalisation” — needs, narratives, and networks. The model, often deployed in counter-terrorism literature, attempts to map pathways from grievance to mobilisation.

In principle, such academic discourse is legitimate. Post-attack societies require analytical frameworks. However, critics argue that the timing, sponsorship, and messaging of this particular event warrant scrutiny.

Why was a private educational institution—Gateway College and the Gateway Group—hosting and sponsoring a high-profile counter-radicalisation conference within weeks of the deadliest terrorist attack in Sri Lanka’s history?

Was it a purely academic intervention? A civic initiative? Or something more strategically positioned within the national narrative battle that followed Easter Sunday?

These are questions now being raised by civil society actors and legal observers who argue that the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) should at least clarify the funding, organisation, and purpose of the event.

Sponsorship, Influence, and Institutional Responsibility

The invitation to the event reportedly carried the banner of Gateway College. That raises several legitimate lines of inquiry:

1. Funding Transparency – Did Gateway College finance the event directly?

2. Honoraria or Promotional Support – Was Gunaratna paid, directly or indirectly, to present or promote his publications?

3. Institutional Due Diligence – What vetting was conducted regarding the speaker’s credentials and public claims?

There is, at present, no publicly available evidence that Gateway College engaged in wrongdoing. Hosting a public seminar does not constitute complicity in criminal activity. However, in the aftermath of a mass-casualty attack, the optics of narrative shaping become politically sensitive.

Universities and educational institutions are not neutral spaces when national security discourse is in flux. They can amplify certain explanatory frameworks while marginalising others.

The Contested Credibility Question

Gunaratna has long positioned himself internationally as a counter-terrorism specialist. Yet, critics—both domestic and international—have questioned aspects of his academic credentials and the evidentiary robustness of his claims.

More controversially, he has consistently framed the Easter Sunday attacks as a transnational Islamic State operation executed by local affiliates. That view aligned with early official briefings.

However, subsequent investigative journalism—most notably by Channel 4—introduced allegations suggesting possible links between elements within Sri Lankan intelligence structures and individuals connected to the attackers. These allegations remain highly contested and subject to legal and political dispute.

Names such as Suresh Sallay and Sivanesathurai Chandrakanthan (commonly known as Pillayan) have surfaced in various media narratives relating to pre-attack interactions and intelligence failures. It is critical to stress that allegations aired in media investigations do not equate to judicial findings.

Nevertheless, once such claims enter the public domain, they inevitably reframe how earlier events—such as the BMICH conference—are interpreted.

Narrative Pre-Emption or Academic Dialogue?

One of the more serious insinuations now circulating is whether the 19 May 2019 event served, intentionally or otherwise, to pre-empt alternative lines of inquiry by solidifying a singular explanatory narrative.

That is a heavy allegation. It requires evidence—not conjecture.

The mere fact that individuals later mentioned in media exposés may have known one another, or moved within overlapping security and political circles, does not establish coordination or conspiracy. Colombo’s national security community is relatively small; professional overlap is common.

Yet in a democracy governed by rule of law, perception matters. If there is even a reasonable public question about:

• Whether event organisers had prior knowledge of sensitive information,

• Whether funding sources were transparent,

• Or whether narrative framing intersected with undisclosed interests,

then investigative clarification is justified—not to inflame suspicion, but to extinguish it.

The CID Question

Calls for the Criminal Investigation Department to “investigate the conference” must be assessed carefully.

For CID jurisdiction to be engaged meaningfully, there must be prima facie evidence of criminal conduct—such as financing terrorism, material support, or conspiracy. At present, no such evidence has been publicly presented regarding the BMICH event.

However, a narrower and more defensible proposition exists:

The CID—or a parliamentary oversight mechanism—could review:

• Financial flows linked to the event.

• Communications between organisers and state agencies.

• Any overlap between conference participants and individuals under active investigation at that time.

Such a review would not presume guilt. It would ensure transparency.

The Dangers of Guilt by Association

A crucial analytical warning is necessary.

If every academic, journalist, or institution that hosted a speaker later criticised or implicated in controversy were treated as suspect, civic space would collapse. Democratic societies protect academic freedom precisely because uncomfortable or even flawed ideas must be debated, not criminalised.

Equally, accusations that Gateway College “funded the Easter Sunday attack through” any speaker require extraordinary proof. Without concrete financial or operational evidence, such claims risk crossing from investigative questioning into defamation.

Investigative journalism must be exacting, not incendiary.

Sri Lanka’s Crossroads—Still

The title of the conference—“Sri Lanka at Crossroads”—was apt, though perhaps not in the way its organisers intended.

The country remains at a crossroads between:

• Institutional opacity and radical transparency.

• Narrative monopolies and pluralistic inquiry.

• Politicised intelligence structures and accountable security governance.

The Easter Sunday tragedy exposed catastrophic intelligence failures. Subsequent commissions, parliamentary debates, and media investigations have not yet produced a universally accepted account.

That vacuum fuels suspicion.

Learn, Unlearn, Relearn—Applied Properly

If Sri Lanka is truly to “learn, unlearn, and relearn,” then three disciplines must guide the process:

1. Forensic Evidence Over Rhetoric – Conclusions must rest on documentary, financial, and testimonial proof.

2. Due Process Over Public Trial – Allegations aired on television are starting points, not verdicts.

3. Institutional Transparency Over Defensive Silence – Educational institutions and security agencies alike must open records where law permits.

If Gateway College funded a seminar in good faith to promote dialogue, disclosure would clear the air. If Gunaratna’s theories are academically sound, they should withstand peer review and evidentiary challenge. If media investigations have unearthed deeper structural complicity, those findings must be tested in court.

The 19 May 2019 conference at BMICH may ultimately prove to have been nothing more than an academic response to national trauma. Or it may represent an early attempt to consolidate a particular security narrative at a volatile political moment.

At present, what exists are questions—not conclusions.

Sri Lanka’s tragedy is not only the violence of Easter Sunday, but the enduring erosion of public trust that followed. Rebuilding that trust requires disciplined investigation, institutional candour, and intellectual honesty.

At a crossroads, the direction chosen matters more than the rhetoric spoken in conference halls.