‘Right of Reply’ Response to K. Krishnapillai’s article on ITAK

By C. Ratnavadivel

The article by a hitherto unknown writer, Krishnapillai, contains several serious factual errors regarding the matters raised by columnist DBS Jeyaraj. First of all, the writer knowingly or unknowingly fails to acknowledge that S.J.V. Chelvanayakam and other senior party stalwarts broke away from the Tamil Congress Party due to the party’s support for government policies, notably that disenfranchising Tamil communities living in the upcountry. That historical context is critical, and its omission is misleading.

Annual Convention of ITAK and Ongoing Legal Proceedings

The internal dispute within Ilankai Thamil Arasu Kachchi (ITAK) began when Sumanthiran and Shritharan vied for the party’s presidency, a contest for the first time in the 75-year history of the party. Despite concerns about the electoral process, Sumanthiran endorsed Shritharan’s victory and pledged his fullest support on the first day itself. However, turmoil ensued at the subsequent General Council meeting held on January 27 to elect the General Secretary and other party officials.

Earlier that day, the outgoing Central Committee—including both candidates—engaged in an extensive discussion and unanimously agreed upon a proposed list of office bearers, including the General Secretary and recommended it to the General Council. Shockingly, when this list was presented by no other than Shritharan at the General Council, certain members—ironically, supporters of Shritharan, including those who approved the list earlier at the Central Committee meeting—opposed the list and called for a division. The council agreed and held an election, confirming the list presented by majority vote, and an announcement was made to that effect. The meeting was adjourned for a lunch break.

During the lunch break, in a controversial and unconstitutional move, Mavai Senathirajah, with Shritharan still present on stage, illegally and immorally declared the properly and constitutionally conducted election invalid and postponed the Annual Convention. This marked a bleak chapter for the party, causing all the trouble that ensued. Subsequent rounds of talks failed, leaving members no choice but to seek legal remedy—not to challenge the presidential election, but to primarily contest the nullification of elected office bearers and the illegal postponement. Naturally and unavoidably, the President’s election also came into focus as part of the wider dispute.

Senathirajah and Shritharan brushed aside calls from members to accept the election results. Two members, rightly seeking institutional clarity, took the matter to court. At the first Central Committee meeting after the legal filing, I personally pleaded with the party to honour the General Council’s verdict, which would have resolved the entire chaos. This was the meeting convened only to DISCUSS how to face the legal suit. But Shritharan insisted on proceeding with trial preparations, as he and Mavai Senathirajah already sought legal advice from two senior lawyers who are President’s Counsel. This premeditated decision of theirs rendered the meeting redundant—an opportunity missed. Unfortunately, Sumanthiran could not attend this meeting. Again, let me emphasise: the legal action primarily concerns the invalidation of the Council’s decisions on 27th January—not the presidential election, which, however, formed part of the wider dispute.

ITAK and the people’s mandate in the National Elections: 

The columnist also misrepresents ITAK’s decision to back Sajith Premadasa. Contrary to his claims, the Central Committee overwhelmingly supported this decision after a thorough debate. The electoral outcome proved its resonance, with Premadasa securing the highest vote share in the North and East, despite subtle opposition from Senathirajah, Shritharan, and a handful of dissenting ITAK members along with all the other Tamil political parties in the North and the East. This was another instance where Shritharan flouted the party’s decision.

In the ensuing general elections, ITAK emerged as the leading Tamil political party in the region—even after Senathirajah’s resignation and endorsement of a splinter faction at the crucial moment. Sumanthiran led a dynamic and vigorous campaign across the North and East, while Shritharan focused his attention solely on Kilinochchi and parts of Jaffna. ITAK contested independently without any alliance, winning eight seats—an improvement over the previous term, which gave only 6 seats in parliament, that too with a grand political alliance known as TNA.

During the local government elections, the party’s strength was reaffirmed. With active campaigning from Sumanthiran, Party President C.V.K. Sivagnanam, and other senior members, ITAK achieved a significant victory. Shritharan once again confined his political campaign only to Kilinochchi, bolstering the JVP instead. The outcome reflected continued Tamil support for ITAK and strong trust in its leadership.

Mavai Senathirajah’s funeral and political bankruptcy

Without any hesitation, one would admit that the funeral of Senathirajah was, regrettably, not conducted with the dignity he deserved. As the person overseeing the funeral arrangements, Shritharan permitted and tacitly encouraged speeches from individuals who made disgraceful criticisms of the party and its leadership. Astonishingly, not a single speaker paid a tribute to Senathirajah himself. Besides, his supporters displayed banners labelling the prominent leaders of the party as persona non grata, preventing them from paying their last respects to the late leader. This was a brazen and indecorous act, drawing unanimous condemnation from all sections of the Tamil community.

Concluding Note

The allegations made by Krishnapillai in response to D.B.S. Jeyaraj are either false or deliberately misleading. I have chosen to focus my rebuttal on the party’s convention, the election of office bearers, and the legal dispute, which is the main cause of all the chaos. Responding to every misstatement would require several pages and impose on the publisher. But the truth, the writer should understand, will not be so easily concealed—and in an age of digital transparency, false propaganda struggles to find a foothold.

The writer is the Senior Central Committee Member and the President of the Colombo Branch, ITAK