JAFFNA, Sri Lanka — A Tamil opposition leader challenged the Sri Lankan government in Parliament on Friday to produce the studies behind a senior minister’s comparison of the north’s main airport and seaport with two costly infrastructure projects built during the rule of former President Mahinda Rajapaksa.
Bimal Rathnayake, the Leader of the House and minister of transport and highways, said at a recent news conference in Jaffna that the government would decide when and how to develop Jaffna International Airport at Palaly and Kankesanthurai Port, regardless of whether India was prepared to finance the work. He invoked Mattala Rajapaksa International Airport in southern Sri Lanka as a warning against pursuing large projects without sufficient economic justification.
“As a government, we are concerned about development,” Mr. Rathnayake said. “But it is the government that will decide what development should be undertaken and where.”
Shanakiyan Rasamanickam, the parliamentary group leader of the Ilankai Tamil Arasu Kachchi, asked the government on Friday to disclose what feasibility studies, passenger-demand forecasts, revenue projections and cost-benefit analyses supported comparing Palaly with Mattala and Kankesanthurai with Hambantota Port — and whether those assessments would be tabled in Parliament.
“If the government believes that Palaly is not viable, it should produce the evidence,” said Mr. Rasamanickam, who represents Batticaloa District.
Mr. Rathnayake, who is also the governing National People’s Power coalition’s chief coordinator for the Northern Province, made his remarks at the party’s Jaffna office after being asked why the two projects had not advanced despite Indian offers of financial assistance.
He said India had provided funding for the airport but that it was insufficient to complete the proposed development, leaving Sri Lanka to borrow the balance. He pointed to losses incurred at Mattala under previous governments as a cautionary example.
“Our government will not undertake development that results in such losses,” he said. “Regardless of who provides the funding for development, the final decision will be taken by the government.”
He gave no timetable for further development of either Palaly or Kankesanthurai.
Ramalingam Chandrasekar, the minister of fisheries, aquatic and ocean resources, who attended the Jaffna news conference with the lawmaker Karunainathan Ilankumaran, told Parliament on Friday that Mr. Rathnayake had not said development could not proceed in Jaffna or at its airport and port. Mr. Chandrasekar said work at Palaly was continuing.
Mr. Rasamanickam welcomed that clarification but said the government still needed to dispel uncertainty over its commitment to the projects. He also asked whether Mr. Rathnayake’s remarks represented official government policy, noting that Mr. Rathnayake no longer oversees ports and civil aviation.
At the heart of the dispute is whether Palaly and Kankesanthurai are economically comparable to Mattala and Hambantota — projects that became symbols of the Rajapaksa era’s debt-financed infrastructure drive — or whether their histories and geography make the comparison misleading.
Mattala airport, built in Hambantota District, Mr. Rajapaksa’s home district and political stronghold, cost about $248 million and was later named after him. Critics questioned its remote location and the passenger projections used to justify it. Sri Lanka’s auditor general found that the airport, designed to handle one million passengers annually, handled 321,577 passengers over six years and had accumulated net losses of 39.4 billion rupees by the end of 2024.
Palaly has a markedly different history. Its airfield dates to the Second World War and predates Katunayake’s emergence as Sri Lanka’s principal international civilian airport. India began assisting with its rehabilitation under an agreement dating to 2005, and scheduled flights between Jaffna and Chennai have operated since 2019, apart from an interruption during the coronavirus pandemic.
The histories of the two ports are also different.
Hambantota was developed as a new international shipping hub, financed largely through Chinese loans, and was later leased to a Chinese state-owned company under a 99-year concession after struggling commercially.
Kankesanthurai, by contrast, has operated as a commercial port since 1950. It lies about 56 nautical miles from the Indian coast and already serves a passenger ferry connection with Nagapattinam in the southern Indian state of Tamil Nadu.
The financing history of Kankesanthurai is particularly relevant to the government’s argument about the risks of borrowing.
India agreed in January 2018 to finance the final stages of the port’s rehabilitation through a $45.27 million line of credit. After revised estimates pushed the cost higher and the project stalled, India agreed in 2024 to convert the financing into grant assistance of about $65 million. The proposed work includes rehabilitation of the breakwater and existing pier, construction of a new cargo pier and installation of port infrastructure.
Indian officials have described the project as grant-funded assistance. Indian sources familiar with the project, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss it publicly, told Jaffna Monitor that New Delhi was prepared to absorb reasonable increases in costs arising from delays and revised estimates.
Mr. Rasamanickam, who put the Indian contribution at about $62 million, said officials at the Ministry of Ports had discussed the project last week. He called on the government to disclose how the money would be used and when construction would begin.
Supporters of the projects argue that northern Sri Lanka’s geography gives both facilities an economic rationale that Mattala lacked.
Much of the cargo from India destined for the north now enters through Colombo before being transported hundreds of kilometers by road along the A9 highway to Jaffna and surrounding districts. A functioning cargo port at Kankesanthurai could allow some of those goods to arrive directly from southern India.
The same argument is made for air travel. Passengers arriving at Colombo’s international airport, including members of Sri Lanka’s large Tamil diaspora, can face another six to eight hours on the road before reaching Jaffna. More direct international services through Palaly could bypass much of that journey.
Gareth Thomas, a British member of Parliament, has proposed establishing direct flights between London and Jaffna. Mr. Rasamanickam asked whether the Sri Lankan government had held discussions about the proposal with the British government, airlines or airport authorities.
The dispute also touches on one of the north’s most sensitive postwar issues: land.
Mr. Rasamanickam questioned government plans to acquire private property for an expansion of Jaffna airport. He said the current program of runway rehabilitation and terminal improvements could reportedly be carried out within the airport’s existing boundaries and asked why additional land was being sought when residents of Palaly, Myliddy and Vasavilan have waited decades for the return of land taken during the civil war.
If additional land is required, he said, the government should publish the technical justification for acquiring it.
Mr. Rathnayake’s remarks have intensified criticism from Tamil politicians and commentators in the north, where his approach to the two projects has been a source of friction for some time. Critics say he has repeatedly spoken about the airport and port in terms they regard as dismissive of the north’s development needs. Some have gone further, accusing him of racial prejudice and openly describing him as a racist.
The unease extends into his own party. JVP insiders told the Jaffna Monitor that Mr. Rathnayake’s handling of the two projects had become a point of concern within the government and said it was among the reasons he was removed from the ports and civil aviation portfolio.
