Reassessing the Need for Anti-Terror Legislation in Sri Lanka – A Redundant Security Apparatus – Part I

President Nila
Jun 2
3 min read

Abstract

This section critically examines Sri Lanka’s persistent reliance on counter-terrorism legislation, notably the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) and its proposed successor, the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA). It argues that these legal instruments are not grounded in current national security needs but instead serve the ideological and structural interests of a centralized Sinhala-Buddhist state, facilitating ethnic subjugation, digital authoritarianism, and post-war militarization under the guise of national protection.

1. Strategic Geography and Military Oversaturation

Sri Lanka is an island nation spanning approximately 65,610 km², surrounded by natural maritime boundaries of nearly 1,340 km of coastline. Its geographic insularity, coupled with advancements in coastal and aerial surveillance, inherently limits the risk of transnational militant infiltration.

Despite a population of approximately 22 million, Sri Lanka maintains over 345,000 active defense personnel, including the Army, Navy, Air Force, Special Task Force (STF), Police, and Civil Defence Force—making it one of the highest military-to-population ratios in Asia, even in peacetime. This density is particularly pronounced in the Northern and Eastern Provinces, where Tamil and Muslim populations reside, long after the civil war concluded in 2009.

2. Manufactured Threats in a Post-War Context

Since the official end of the civil war, Sri Lanka has witnessed no organized armed insurgency. Yet the state continues to construct new “threats” through ambiguous definitions of extremism, extending its gaze to encompass digital activism, journalistic expression, religious gatherings, and even peaceful dissent.

The proposed ATA—far from a corrective to the PTA—expands the scope of state power. It authorizes prolonged detention without charge, surveillance of online behavior, and the criminalization of non-violent resistance. Freedom of expression and association, guaranteed under international human rights law, are thus subordinated to a security logic tailored to suppress opposition.

3. Legal Infrastructure of Ethno-Majoritarianism

These laws disproportionately target Eelam Tamils and Muslims, reinforcing what scholars describe as the “unitary state project.” Through mechanisms like land acquisition, cultural erasure, mass surveillance, and extrajudicial detention, the legislation functions as an extension of wartime policies—rebranded for a post-war legal context.

Rather than protecting citizens, these laws institutionalize a racialized national security regime, preserving Sinhala-Buddhist dominance and weakening minority political agency.

4. PTA to ATA: Reform as Rebranding

Following international pressure—notably from the EU GSP+ conditions, UNHRC resolutions, and civil society critiques—the Sri Lankan government promised to repeal the PTA. However, the draft ATA demonstrates continuity, not reform. It simply bureaucratizes authoritarianism by embedding its practices into “legal” structures.

This is a classic post-colonial continuity, where the aesthetics of legal reform mask the preservation of coercive power. Language is softened, but intent remains hard.

5. Comparative Analysis of Military Expenditure

Sri Lanka's military expenditure in 2023 was approximately $1.38 billion, accounting for 1.64% of its GDP and $63 per capita. In contrast, the Maldives, another island nation with a significantly smaller population and land area, allocated about $5.52 million to defense, reflecting a per capita expenditure of approximately $10. Among South Asian countries, India's defense spending stood at $83.6 billion (approximately $60 per capita), while Pakistan's was around $10.2 billion (approximately $44 per capita). Despite lacking significant external threats, Sri Lanka's per capita military spending surpasses that of its larger neighbors, indicating a disproportionate allocation of resources toward defense—fueled more by internal ethnic control than national defense necessity.

Conclusion to Part I

Sri Lanka does not require the PTA or ATA to ensure national security. These acts are not responses to real threats but tools to discipline marginalized communities, neutralize dissent, and preserve a hegemonic state model. In peacetime, this constitutes a misuse of legal sovereignty, legitimizing structural violence under the name of law and order.

No part of this document may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form without the prior written permission of the author, except in the case of brief quotations used for academic or critical purposes.

(Disclaimer: Images are AI generated and are used for representational purposes only)

***************************************************************

SMALL DROPS