Oxford, Cambridge, and the Missed Test of Accountability — Mano on Namal’s Forum Controversy
Senior Sri Lankan MP and leader of the Tamil Progressive Alliance (TPA), Mano Ganesan, has stated that Namal Rajapaksa should have been permitted to speak at the Oxford and Cambridge Unions, arguing that preventing such an engagement has undermined genuine accountability.
Ganesan emphasized that a public forum would have forced Rajapaksa—son of former President Mahinda Rajapaksa and a prominent figure in the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP)—to directly address substantive questions.
“The world would have observed both the questions and the answers, as well as whether he was prepared to face them,” Ganesan wrote. “That is accountability in action.”
The comments come amid recent developments at the prestigious UK universities.
The Cambridge Union cancelled a scheduled address by Rajapaksa following significant protests and pressure from British Tamil student organisations and diaspora groups, who condemned the invitation over allegations linked to the Rajapaksa family’s role during Sri Lanka’s civil war. Rajapaksa was still scheduled to speak at the Oxford Union, though protests were also planned there.
Ganesan described the cancellation as turning the matter into a “non-event” dominated by “performative gallery politics.”
He argued that while it may earn applause in some circles, it provides “no tangible value to Tamil communities back home.”
The TPA leader called for broader accountability, noting that if war crimes allegations are central, discussions must also address the lack of a credible political solution involving meaningful power-sharing for Tamils.
He asserted that responsibility is not exclusive to the Rajapaksas, pointing out that the current ruling Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) “cannot claim moral distance,” as it resisted structural power-sharing and supported the war effort.
“Accountability cannot be selective. It must be systemic,” Ganesan stressed.
He concluded that overseas protests and cancellations cannot replace domestic structural reforms, urging engagement with all stakeholders to confront difficult truths rather than relying on “curated debates and gallery applause.”
Ganesan’s position highlights a call for open dialogue as a path to progress in Sri Lanka’s post-war reconciliation efforts.