The Ilankai Tamil Arasu Kachchi (ITAK), long regarded as the principal vehicle of democratic Tamil politics in Sri Lanka, has issued a verbal directive barring members from publicly criticising internal party decisions — a move that has raised serious concerns about the party’s commitment to democratic norms.
Jaffna Monitor has learned, through multiple independent sources within the party hierarchy, that senior figures recently communicated through internal channels that disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against members who openly challenged party resolutions. No written circular has been issued. Instead, the message was conveyed verbally to Members of Parliament, local council chairpersons, and grassroots office-bearers — an approach critics say lacks transparency and institutional clarity.
The party’s acting General Secretary, M. A. Sumanthiran, is understood to have informed members that public criticism of party decisions would not be tolerated and that further violations could trigger disciplinary consequences. The communication is believed to have followed consultations with party leader C. V. K. Sivagnanam, though neither leader has publicly detailed the scope or legal basis of the directive.
According to party insiders, the move is aimed at discouraging a planned support meeting for ITAK MP S. Sritharan following his removal as leader of the party’s parliamentary group and the appointment of Batticaloa MP Shanakiyan Rasamanickam, widely viewed as politically aligned with Mr. Sumanthiran. The meeting is scheduled to take place in Kilinochchi on Saturday, February 14.
Local-level leaders, insiders say, were instructed to inform members that action had already been taken against individuals deemed to have breached party discipline and that further complaints would be reviewed.
The Democratic Question
The development has drawn measured but pointed criticism from political analysts and civil society figures, several of whom argue that the directive risks undermining the democratic ethos ITAK has historically claimed to embody.
A political economist at the University of Jaffna, who has written extensively on post-war Tamil governance, said intra-party debate is central to political legitimacy.
“Intra-party debate is not a liability; it is the lifeblood of democratic culture,” he said. “A party that positions itself as the defender of minority rights must hold itself to the highest standards of internal democracy.”
He added that the absence of a formal written directive compounds concern. “When disciplinary warnings are conveyed verbally and selectively, they create a chilling effect without institutional accountability. Members cannot challenge or appeal a directive that has never been formally articulated.”
Within Tamil political circles, critics argue that key decisions in ITAK are increasingly perceived as being shaped by a narrow circle of influential figures — often described by detractors as aligned closely with Sumanthiran — rather than through broad-based consultation with the party's elected bodies or membership.
Another observer offered a structural critique. “The issue is not simply one of messaging discipline. It is about whether ITAK has functioning democratic institutions internally — elected working committees, transparent decision-making processes and regular internal elections. If those structures existed and operated credibly, there would be less need to police what members say publicly, because members would have meaningful channels for dissent within the party.”
Another commentator drew controversial parallels to the rigid command structures associated with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), where internal dissent or questioning was never tolerated. Party insiders strongly rejected such comparisons.
The Sumanthiran–Sritharan Divide
The current tensions cannot be separated from the prolonged leadership struggle between Sumanthiran and Jaffna District parliamentarian S. Sritharan — a rivalry that has shaped ITAK’s internal politics for several years.
Disagreements over organisational control, candidate selection, coalition strategy, and the party’s posture toward the government of President Anura Kumara Dissanayake have repeatedly spilled into public view, including duelling press conferences and contradictory statements.
For many supporters, the visible factionalism has eroded confidence in the party’s coherence.
A Loyal Voter’s Disillusionment
At the grassroots level, frustration is increasingly palpable.
Sivakumar Rajaratnam, 57, a retired schoolteacher from Nallur and a lifelong TNA/ITAK voter, said years of loyalty had given way to disappointment.
“I voted for them because I believed they represented the Tamil people’s aspirations,” he said. “But in recent years, the internal struggles have overshadowed everything else.”
He questioned the party’s authority to silence dissent amid unresolved internal divisions.
“When leaders themselves are publicly divided, how can ordinary members be told not to speak?” he asked.
Rajaratnam also pointed to the party’s electoral setbacks.
“If ITAK had functioned in a united and credible manner, would a Sinhala-majority formation like the National People’s Power have won three seats in Jaffna?” he asked. “That was not an ideological shift. It was a message.”
Protest Vote or Structural Shift?
The gains made by the ruling National People's Power (NPP) in the 2024 general election — including three parliamentary seats in Jaffna — were among the most closely analysed outcomes of the poll.
Political scientists have largely interpreted the results as protest votes rather than ideological realignment.
Dr. Thisaranee Gunasekara, a political commentator, described the shift as “an instrument of punishment” directed at established Tamil parties rather than an endorsement of the Janatha Vimukti Peramuna (JVP)’s historical positions on ethnic politics.
For ITAK, the implications are significant. If sections of its traditional base are willing to cast protest votes outside the Tamil political fold, the erosion is not merely electoral but structural.
“When people feel unheard, they look elsewhere,” Rajaratnam said. “You cannot suppress dissent within the party when the electorate is already delivering its verdict.”
