By P. K. Balachandran Courtesy Eurasia Review

The imposition of sanctions by the UK on three retired Sri Lankan military officers—Shavendra Silva, Wasantha Karannagoda, and Jagath Jayasuriya—and a former LTTE commander, Vinayagamoorthy Muralitharan (Karuna Amman), on March 24, 2025, reflects a significant interplay between UK domestic politics and international human rights policy.

These sanctions, which include travel bans and asset freezes, were enacted under the UK’s Global Human Rights Sanctions Regime and target individuals accused of serious human rights violations during Sri Lanka’s civil war (1983–2009). 

While framed as a move to promote accountability and support reconciliation in Sri Lanka, the timing and context suggest that domestic political dynamics, particularly the influence of the Sri Lankan Tamil diaspora in the UK, played a pivotal role.

The Sri Lankan Tamil community in the UK, estimated to number between 110,000 and 300,000, is a well-organized and politically active group concentrated in key electoral constituencies such as London (Harrow, East Ham, Redbridge, Tooting), Leicester, and Surrey. This demographic concentration transforms them into a critical voting bloc in Britain’s highly competitive political landscape, where parliamentary constituencies are small, and tight margins can determine electoral outcomes. 

Unlike the smaller, less politically engaged Sinhalese community, the Tamils have leveraged their numbers, organizational strength—through groups like the British Tamils Forum (BTF)—and economic influence (with Tamil-owned businesses generating an estimated £1 billion annually) to amplify their voice.

Historically, the Tamil diaspora has leaned toward the Labour Party, which has consistently championed their calls for justice regarding alleged war crimes in Sri Lanka. This alignment became particularly evident in the lead-up to the July 2024 UK parliamentary elections. 

Labour leaders, including Keir Starmer, David Lammy, and Wes Streeting, made explicit promises to the Tamil community, such as imposing Magnitsky-style sanctions on Sri Lankan officials and pushing for a referral of Sri Lanka to the International Criminal Court (ICC). 

These pledges were reiterated at events like the Tamil Genocide Remembrance Day” in May 2024, hosted in Parliament, where Labour figures underscored their commitment to accountability as a foreign policy priority. The sanctions announced in March 2025 can thus be seen as a fulfilment of these electoral promises, aimed at consolidating Tamil support in constituencies where their votes could tip the scales.

The Labour Party’s victory in July 2024, ending 14 years of Conservative rule, brought this agenda into government policy. Foreign Secretary David Lammy, who had vowed during the campaign to deny impunity to those responsible for human rights abuses, framed the sanctions as a step toward supporting Sri Lanka’s communities.

However, the timing—15 years after the war’s end and amidst a shifting political landscape in Sri Lanka, where Tamils have recently supported the National Peoples’ Power (NPP)—suggests a domestic political calculus. The issue of Sri Lanka’s civil war had largely faded from the international spotlight, resurfacing annually at the UN Human Rights Council with little tangible progress. The UK’s sudden action thus appears less about responding to an immediate crisis in Sri Lanka and more about addressing the expectations of a key domestic constituency.

The Tamil diaspora’s influence extends beyond voting power. Their activism, exemplified by the 2009 Parliament Square protests and sustained lobbying through the BTF and the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Tamils (APPG), has kept the issue of accountability alive in British political discourse. 

Labour MPs like Siobhain McDonagh, Gareth Thomas, and John McDonnell have been vocal advocates, reflecting the community’s ability to shape policy through grassroots pressure and parliamentary engagement. 

The absence of a comparable Sinhalese lobby further tilts the political scales in favour of Tamil narratives, making their demands—such as sanctions and ICC referrals—more likely to gain traction.

Beyond electoral politics, the sanctions enhance Labour’s image as a defender of human rights, appealing to both Tamil voters and broader liberal constituencies. This aligns with the party’s historical stance and differentiates it from the Conservatives, who faced criticism for prioritizing trade over human rights in dealings with Sri Lanka. 

The lack of similar action under previous governments, despite the availability of the Magnitsky sanctions regime since 2020, underscores how Labour’s responsiveness to Tamil advocacy marks a shift driven by domestic imperatives.

In summary, UK domestic politics, particularly the electoral influence of the Sri Lankan Tamil diaspora, significantly shaped the decision to sanction Sri Lankan military figures in March 2025. The Labour Party’s need to secure Tamil votes in key constituencies, fulfil campaign promises, and project a human rights-focused image converged to revive an issue that had waned internationally. 

While presented as a principled stand, the sanctions reflect a strategic blend of diaspora politics and electoral pragmatism in a competitive British political arena.

FacebookTwitterEmailFlipboardMastodonLinkedInShare

P. K. Balachandran

P. K. Balachandran is a senior Indian journalist working in Sri Lanka for local and international media and has been writing on South Asian issues for the past 21 years.