The Silence That Echoes: Allegations, Ideology, and the Politics of Convenience in 1989
Imthiaz's double standards and Hypocrisy
By any measure, the late 1980s were a combustible period in Sri Lanka’s political history—an era defined by insurgency, counterinsurgency, and a desperate struggle for electoral survival. It is within this volatile backdrop that a deeply contentious allegation has resurfaced: that former President J. R. Jayewardene sought financial assistance from Mossad to secure political leverage ahead of the 1989 presidential election.
The claim, still unverified in any official archival disclosure, has nonetheless ignited a secondary controversy—one that strikes at the moral credibility of those who stood within Jayewardene’s political orbit while publicly championing causes seemingly at odds with such alleged dealings.
At the centre of this contradiction is Imithias Bakeer Markar, long regarded as a vocal advocate for Palestinian solidarity within Sri Lankan political discourse. If, as alleged, Bakeer Markar had knowledge of any covert outreach to Israeli intelligence during a period when the Palestinian struggle was a defining issue for Muslim political identity, the question becomes less about foreign policy and more about personal and political integrity.
Today, Imithias Bakeer Markar has publicly questioned why the United Nations leadership appears accommodating towards Israel—yet critics point to a glaring inconsistency. During his tenure as a working committee member of the United National Party in the late 1980s, allegations persist that the party under J. R. Jayewardene explored financial support channels linked to Mossad. While no verified documentary evidence has conclusively established this claim, the question being raised is straightforward: if such discussions were even within his knowledge, why was there no dissent, no resignation, and no transparency at the time?
This perceived contradiction is now being framed as political duplicity—projecting pro-Palestinian solidarity to Sri Lankan Muslim voters while remaining silent about alleged internal party dealings with Israel. Whether grounded in fact or amplified by political rivalry, the charge is one of selective outrage: that advocacy is being retrofitted to suit present narratives rather than reflecting a consistent moral position. In the absence of verifiable proof, the accusation remains contested—but it continues to cast a long shadow over claims of principled political conduct.
Why remain within the United National Party if such a fundamental ideological breach had occurred? Why no resignation, no dissent, no public distancing?
These are not merely rhetorical provocations. They go to the heart of how political narratives are constructed—and, more importantly, how they are selectively remembered. The late 20th-century Sri Lankan Muslim political class often positioned itself as aligned with global Islamic concerns, particularly the Palestinian cause. Yet, figures such as M. H. Mohamed and A. C. S. Hameed remained embedded within a party structure that, according to these allegations, may have entertained relationships with actors fundamentally opposed to that cause.
The implications are stark. Either these individuals were unaware—raising questions about their proximity to power—or they were aware and chose silence, suggesting a hierarchy of loyalties where political survival eclipsed ideological commitment.
Fast forward to the present, and the controversy takes on a generational dimension. The son of Bakeer Markar, Insaf Bakeer Markar
now reportedly serves in an advisory capacity at the British High Commission Colombo. His participation in pro-Palestinian advocacy events prior to assuming this role introduces a modern layer of scrutiny: how do personal political expressions intersect with diplomatic responsibilities? And more pointedly, does the legacy of political ambiguity extend into the next generation?
It is important, however, to draw a clear analytical boundary. There is, as of now, no publicly authenticated document confirming that Jayewardene solicited or received funds from Mossad. Nor is there verifiable evidence that Bakeer Markar—or any of his contemporaries—possessed direct knowledge of such actions. Without documentary substantiation, these claims remain within the realm of allegation rather than established historical fact.
Yet allegations, particularly in politically sensitive contexts, often carry their own momentum. They force uncomfortable introspection. They compel communities to re-examine the figures they have long regarded as principled representatives.
If nothing else, this episode—real or perceived—highlights a recurring pathology in South Asian politics: the coexistence of public idealism and private pragmatism. Advocacy for international causes, whether Palestine or otherwise, has frequently functioned as a performative instrument, calibrated for domestic political consumption rather than rooted in consistent policy positions.
The unresolved question, therefore, is not simply whether a request for foreign funding occurred. It is whether those who claim moral authority on global issues are prepared to subject their own political histories—and affiliations—to the same scrutiny they demand of others.
Until verifiable evidence emerges, the narrative remains incomplete. But the silence it has provoked may, in time, prove more revealing than any document.