Aragalaya Was a People’s Uprising, Not a Full Revolution – Wasantha Mudalige

National Executive Committee member of the People’s Struggle Front, Wasantha Mudalige, has stated that the “Aragalaya” movement carried out in Sri Lanka should not be defined as a complete revolution, but rather as a people’s uprising. He emphasized that removing Gotabaya Rajapaksa from the presidency was not the movement’s ultimate achievement.

Speaking during an interview with a popular media outlet yesterday (Wednesday 13), he explained that there are many definitions of “struggle” or “uprising” worldwide. According to him, even military coups and political conspiracies used to seize power are sometimes categorized as struggles.

However, he stressed that the movement in Sri Lanka was a genuine people’s protest aligned with global protest traditions, built around clear goals and organized plans.

He noted that when people first gathered at Galle Face Green on April 9, there was no unified program or strategy. Protesters raised various slogans based on their personal views, and some banners even contained inappropriate language.

Within a few weeks, however, organizers managed to transform the demonstrations into a more structured political movement through discussions and coordination. He pointed out that the slogan “Kakka Kakka” became a symbolic attack directed at Basil Rajapaksa, portraying him as a failed finance minister whose economic policies contributed heavily to the country’s collapse.

Addressing criticism that the expected political transformation did not fully materialize, Wasantha Mudalige said that if the movement had truly been a revolution, a specific class or group that seized power would have implemented all the protest demands completely.

Instead, he described Aragalaya as a mass public uprising. He stated that activists never believed sending Gotabaya Rajapaksa home alone would solve the crisis. According to him, responsibility for Sri Lanka’s economic collapse lies not only with Gotabaya Rajapaksa, but also with successive rulers since the 1970s who mishandled the open economic system.

He further explained that the movement’s broader plan was for then Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe to resign as well, after which opposition parties in Parliament should have united to form an interim government.

Alongside that, protesters had hoped to establish a people’s council involving activists and citizens to introduce reforms such as reducing executive presidential powers, implementing tax reforms, increasing funding for education and healthcare, and easing debt burdens on farmers.

He said the intention was for this interim administration to govern temporarily and hold elections within a year, allowing citizens to choose a new leadership. However, he claimed that political conspiracies and power struggles disrupted the planned agenda.

Because of this, he described the Aragalaya as only a “partial success.” He also rejected claims by some political groups that the movement was a foreign conspiracy aimed at toppling a strong leader, arguing instead that the protest movement was a necessary response to the country’s social and economic crisis.