by Our Correspondent in Colombo
In a striking disclosure that has reignited discussion around the final moments of Sri Lanka’s decades-long civil war, former Army Field Marshal Sarath Fonseka has stated that he knows the exact place where Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) leader Velupillai Prabhakaran was buried, but will not reveal its location under any circumstances. Speaking in an exclusive interview with a media outlet, Fonseka said the decision to keep the site secret is deliberate and rooted in fears that it could become a rallying point for political symbolism, commemorations, or contested historical narratives.
Fonseka, who led the Sri Lankan Army during the final phase of the conflict in 2009, described how intelligence regarding Prabhakaran’s death and subsequent handling of his remains was provided to the military at the time. He said that during the last days of the war, information about the LTTE leader’s body was brought to the attention of the army through channels that were operational within the battlefield environment. According to him, this intelligence was crucial in confirming the fate of one of the most prominent insurgent leaders in modern South Asian history, whose death marked the end of a nearly 30-year armed conflict that reshaped Sri Lanka’s political and social landscape.
He further claimed that Vinayagamurthy Muralitharan, widely known as Karuna Amman and a former eastern commander of a breakaway LTTE faction, was taken to the location where Prabhakaran’s body was recovered in order to assist in identification. Fonseka said that Karuna Amman identified not only Prabhakaran but also several other senior LTTE figures, including individuals closely associated with the group’s leadership structure. This account adds another layer to the already complex final chapter of the war, which involved shifting alliances, defections, and rapidly changing battlefield dynamics in the country’s north.
Reflecting on the military strategy during the final offensive, Fonseka said that the initial intention had been to capture Prabhakaran alive rather than kill him in combat. According to him, there were plans to use the captured leader for political purposes in the post-war period, including the possibility of integrating him into a negotiated political framework and even considering him for a leadership role in the Northern Province. However, as the conflict reached its climax in the heavily contested no-fire zones, the situation escalated into intense combat operations involving heavy artillery, tanks, and rocket fire. Fonseka stated that such overwhelming firepower made it highly unlikely that any individual in the targeted areas could survive intact, adding that he had personal knowledge that Prabhakaran was wearing LTTE military attire at the time of his death.
He also addressed internal military procedures related to reporting and identification during the final operations. Fonseka said he had issued directives to ensure that soldiers did not use LTTE uniforms when submitting operational reports, noting that earlier practices had occasionally involved surrendered cadres being photographed or documented in enemy uniforms. He said this practice was discontinued under his command to maintain clearer military accountability and procedural discipline during the final phase of the conflict, when verification and reporting were critical amid rapidly evolving combat conditions.
According to Fonseka, while he did provide necessary intelligence regarding what should be done with Prabhakaran’s remains, he has never disclosed, and will never disclose, the exact location where the body was ultimately handled or buried. He emphasized that this secrecy is intentional and ongoing, rooted in concerns about the long-term consequences of revealing such a site. In his view, identifying the precise location could encourage politically motivated groups to transform it into a memorial space or pilgrimage point, potentially reviving contested narratives about the war and its outcome.
Fonseka argued that such developments could have broader implications for national security and social cohesion. He warned that memorials erected at sensitive locations linked to the end of the conflict could be used to advance divisive political agendas or reinterpret the historical record in ways that might inflame ethnic tensions. In a country where the legacy of the civil war remains deeply sensitive, he suggested that controlling symbolic sites associated with its final phase is essential to maintaining stability.
He concluded by reiterating that, despite having knowledge of the burial site, he would not disclose it publicly under any circumstances. For him, the issue extends beyond personal knowledge or historical record-keeping and into the realm of national interest. Fonseka maintained that preserving secrecy around the handling of Prabhakaran’s remains is a necessary measure to prevent future disputes, avoid the politicisation of a sensitive location, and protect what he described as Sri Lanka’s long-term ethnic harmony and sovereignty.
