Media has reported that Lt Gen VK Singh, GOC-in-C, Eastern Command, based on the findings of a Court of Inquiry, has recommended the dismissal of Lt Gen Avdesh Prakash, Military Secretary, one of the seven Principal Staff Officers (PSO) at Army Headquarters, from service for his role in the alleged "bending of rules to favour a private company near Siliguri"
According to the Indian Express, the C of I had also recommended the court martial of another senior general - Lt Gen PK Rath, whose appointment as Deputy Chief of Army Staff was earlier cancelled by the Ministry of Defence. The newspaper further said: "The inquiry found that Gen Prakash was in constant touch with a Siliguri real estate developer, Dilip Agarwal, who brokered a controversial land deal in Darjeeling. Through phone records, the inquiry established, that Agarwal, who inked a memorandum of understanding (MoU) to obtain no-objection certificates (NOCs) from the Army to purchase nearly 70 acres near the 33 Corps HQ in Sukna, was in constant touch with Gen Prakash while the deal was being sealed. The NOCs were given after an institution claimed it was an affiliate of the Mayo College in Ajmer and would establish a branch in Sukna. Mayo College denied it had any affiliate." Gen Rath, as the then GOC 33 Corps, had issued the NOCs.
The army commander has recommended similar action against Lt Gen P Sen. Lastly, administrative action has been suggested against a fourth officer, Lt Gen Ramesh Halgali, GOC 11 Corps for “administrative lapses.”
Army Chief General Deepak Kapoor will now be required to act on the Eastern Army Commander's recommendations. Usually such recommendations are overruled only if there are sound legal grounds.
It seems corruption, usually considered as a malady of politicians and bureaucrats, is now reaching the top echelons of the armed forces. Is it a case of do as the Romans do? I hope not.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Sri Lanka: Selling a Soured Dream to the Disillusioned
The overseas supporters of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) have been in disarray ever since the founder leader Prabhakaran and the entire insurgent leadership were eliminated in May 2009. The expatriates who had unquestioningly followed Prabhakaran's orders are now trying to come to terms with the reality of decision making on their own.
They appear to have a major dilemma in deciding the future course of action, particularly as they do not want to carry out an impartial analysis of the LTTE’s course of action in the past. If they had done it, by now its positives and negatives could have provided useful pointers to the direction for taking the struggle back to Sri Lanka. But that would be a sacrilege as Prabhakaran and his leadership continue to be treated as holy cows beyond the pale of public scrutiny.
In the absence of a united leadership to lead them, the pro-LTTE expatriate Tamils appear to have pitched upon ‘referendum’ as the democratic method to find out popular opinion on the future course of struggle. Had they adopted this method earlier, when the war was nearing the point of no return, lives of thousands of youth who perished in the war could have been saved. But unfortunately, that was never an option open to them in the LTTE lexicon.
They held a series of “referendum” first in European countries. The organisers probably knew that if they had carried out a referendum on continuing the LTTE's armed struggle for Tamil Eelam, not many might have voted as it would be inconvenient to remain in their adopted land.. So they appear to have pitched upon the Vaddukoddai Resolution adopted in May 14, 1976. It holds a nostalgic appeal for expatriate Tamils as it represented the united and assertive Tamil political opinion of that time calling for the creation of independent Tamil Eelam. It formed the basis for the Tamil United Liberation Front (TULF)’s overwhelming electoral victory in the general election that followed. It is an irony of fate that expatriate Tamils have to fall back on this resolution after the LTTE had systematically hunted down TULF leaders out of existence. The fact that this resolution was dusted up shows the pro- LTTE expatriate elements have indirectly acknowledged the failure of the way the LTTE conducted the struggle. Of course Vaddukoddai Reslution has been made irrelevant in the course of subsequent history of blood and gore.
The recently conducted “referendum” in Canada was also a part of this exercise. According to Tamil expatriate media (which have turned their colours from the bright red of LTTE to Sri Lanka blue immediately after ‘thalaivar’s death) most of the 48,000 plus people who turned up (out of an estimated 300,000-350,000 Sri Lanka Tamils) voted for the Vaddukkoddai Resolution. Some of the media have dubbed it as a minority vote and hence of no consequence.
It would be incorrect to look at it only from the point of view of total expatriate population. The organisers of the referendum, by and large, were pro-LTTE elements or its fellow travellers. Referendum is important because it provides a barometer of existing potential support for the revival of LTTE. It should come as a relief to the organisers that 13 to 15 % of the Canadian expatriates voted and still subscribed to the notion of an independent Tamil Eelam. This comes even after the LTTE itself had given up hope of an independent Eelam and accepted Tamil autonomy within a federal Sri Lanka when it opted to negotiate the peace process 2002. Of course, the referendum also helps in establishing the legitimacy of organisers as inheritors of the Tamil leadership that fell vacant after the demise of LTTE leadership in Sri Lanka.
However, the referendum would have been more meaningful if there had been an honest soul searching among expatriate Tamils who had supported Prabhakaran.That would have revealed glaring short comings in the way he operated which has now left the Tamil community in Sri Lanka disunited and weak. As this had not been done, the purpose of the referendum would appear to be only to garner expatriate help to revive the old cry of an armed struggle for Tamil Eelam. And that may not come through in the near term as there are neither any takers nor a foothold in Sri Lanka. So it will continue to be in the realms of emotion for sometime unless the revival is helped by Sinhala obscurantists in Sri Lanka.
While tasking the army in the north and east after the war ended, the Sri Lanka government and the security forces appear to have gone on the premise that the revival of the LTTE was possible. So the process of eliminating the LTTE from its internal and overseas roots is going on rigorously. This is evidenced by the Sri Lanka navy’s recent seizure of MV Christina, said to be the largest ship of LTTE’s tramp fleet. Of course chances for LTTE’s revival diminishes as more of its caches of arms and military equipment are recovered and cadres eluding arrest are rounded up and identified. Already 12,000 LTTE cadres of various kinds are in custody.
Tragically the war also displaced around 280,000 Tamils living in areas under the LTTE control. They had to undergo a grim process of screening at the hands of Sri Lanka army. They now face a bleak future as they have lost their livelihood and homes. This is more so in the absence of charismatic and assertive leadership of Prabhakaran.
In a recent interview to the Daily Mirror, Colombo, Dr Rohan Gunaratne, Head of the International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research at Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Singapore, had said the LTTE has been “dismantled” in Sri Lanka. This is probably correct as no worthwhile leader is in the horizon to collect the remnants, marshal the assets, unite supporters and coordinate their activities to rebuild the organisation either at home or abroad. Given this internal environment, the revival of the LTTE within the island does not appear feasible in the near future.
In this context, a recent report of The Times, London, about the formation of a new Tamil militant outfit - the Makkal Viduthalai Ranuvam (People’s Liberation Army) – is interesting but not credible. In an interview of a self styled commander Kones (pseudonym) of the new Tamil militant group claimed the PLA comprised mostly of ex-militants with Marxist ideology and opposed to the LTTE brand of militancy was formed four months back. At present it was 300-strong and it hoped to raise a force of 5000. Sri Lankan Tamil media considers this as a Sri Lankan intelligence ploy politically motivated to keep the Tamil militant threat in the public eye. This may well be true.
However, as Dr Gunaratne said in the same Daily Mirror interview, the LTTE international presents “a challenge to Sri Lanka progress, ethnic harmony, and unity. Future peace in Sri Lanka can only be sustained, if the LTTE is dismantled comprehensively, both at home and overseas.” There is no doubt about it.
The LTTE’s international elements appear to be split into two factions. The “militant faction” led by Norwy-based Nediyawan that continues to advocate an armed struggle to pursue the goal of an independent Tamil Eelam. It would like to keep up the memory of Prabhakaran to draw strength.
The “political faction” led by Viswanathan. Rudrakumaran, New York based attorney, wants to carry o on the Tamil struggle politically. In June 2009, LTTE sympathizers and remnants overseas put together an advisory committee for the formation of a Provisional Transnational Government of Tamil Eelam (PTGTE), with V Rudrakumaran as the coordinator, in a bid to keep the quest for self determination alive. It swore to follow a fundamentally democratic path. It opened its platform for those who accepted the tenets of “Tamil Nationhood, a Tamil homeland as recognized in the 1987 Indo- Sri Lanka Agreement, ……and the Tamils’ right to self-determination” as per the 1976 Vaddukoddai Resolution, the 1985 Thimpu Declaration and the LTTE’s 2003 Interim Self-Governing Authority (ISGA) proposal.
Although Rudrakumaran has in his Heroes Day message of November 27, 2009 reiterated the PTGTE would wage “a non- violent political struggle”, it is clear that the PTGTE has close connections with the LTTE international This is evident from the display of the LTTE’s Heroes Day message 2009 sporting images of Prabhakaran and LTTE flag in the PTGTE website. It is not clear how the PTGTE had wished away three decades of LTTE’s armed struggle which sacrificed nearly 300,000 Sri Lankan lives of all ethnicity, and decided to adopt a non-violent strategy without a critical examination of the earlier strategy. Of course there are also other political contradictions in this stand; but that only shows the dilemma faced by the political faction in trying to talk of peaceful means without disowning the history of Prabhakaran.
Apart from diehard supporters of the Eelam Cause and faithful followers of Prabhakaran, majority of expatriates probably realise that an independent Tamil Eelam would continue to remain a distant dream. So Rudrakumaran’s prescription appears to be pitched to attract support from this majority.
At present Sri Lanka Tamil political parties, including the political conglomerate of the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) are looking for financial and political support from this majority expatriate segment. The expatriate Tamils are divided into small groups with their own personal and political agenda just as the Sri Lankan Tamil parties are. So how they can be convinced to extend support for political campaigns in Sri Lanka remains to be seen.
In this context, the conference of Tamil speaking people under the theme “The role of the elected representatives of Sri Lanka’s Tamil and Muslim population in a process of national reconciliation, reconstruction and reform” jointly organized by the Tamil Information Centre (TIC), the International Working Group on Sri Lanka (IWG) and the Initiative on Conflict Prevention through Quiet Diplomacy (ICPQD) at the University of Essex from 20 to 22 November 2009 is of significance.
More importantly the Sri Lanka Muslim Congress (SLMC) and the All Ceylon Muslim Congress representing the Muslims of Sri Lanka as well as three Tamil parties representing plantation Tamils also participated in the deliberations .The conference hosted by the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs appears to be only a beginning. It had carefully treaded the common ground, recognising the difficulties in forging unity.
The conference has set the modest goal of committing “to the engagement by all segments of society towards a just and durable political solution” through a dignified, respectful and peaceful process. However whether the well intentioned effort would politically result in concerted action for the promotion of interests of Tamil speaking minorities in Sri Lanka remains a big question mark. This is going to be a long and tedious process as evident from the vertical divide among them in supporting the rival candidates in the presidential poll.
With the Tamil ethnic issue still remaining wide open, it is doubtful whether the expatriate actions as of now would help in resolving the problems of Tamil speaking people in the island. The only way they can contribute would be to strengthen the process set off in the November 2009 conference for a unified movement inclusive of all Tamil speaking people of Sri Lanka. Resurrecting separatism either politically or militarily would require selling a soured dream to the disillusioned. That would be embarking on another self defeating proposition.
Courtesy: http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cnotes6%5Cnote559.html
They appear to have a major dilemma in deciding the future course of action, particularly as they do not want to carry out an impartial analysis of the LTTE’s course of action in the past. If they had done it, by now its positives and negatives could have provided useful pointers to the direction for taking the struggle back to Sri Lanka. But that would be a sacrilege as Prabhakaran and his leadership continue to be treated as holy cows beyond the pale of public scrutiny.
In the absence of a united leadership to lead them, the pro-LTTE expatriate Tamils appear to have pitched upon ‘referendum’ as the democratic method to find out popular opinion on the future course of struggle. Had they adopted this method earlier, when the war was nearing the point of no return, lives of thousands of youth who perished in the war could have been saved. But unfortunately, that was never an option open to them in the LTTE lexicon.
They held a series of “referendum” first in European countries. The organisers probably knew that if they had carried out a referendum on continuing the LTTE's armed struggle for Tamil Eelam, not many might have voted as it would be inconvenient to remain in their adopted land.. So they appear to have pitched upon the Vaddukoddai Resolution adopted in May 14, 1976. It holds a nostalgic appeal for expatriate Tamils as it represented the united and assertive Tamil political opinion of that time calling for the creation of independent Tamil Eelam. It formed the basis for the Tamil United Liberation Front (TULF)’s overwhelming electoral victory in the general election that followed. It is an irony of fate that expatriate Tamils have to fall back on this resolution after the LTTE had systematically hunted down TULF leaders out of existence. The fact that this resolution was dusted up shows the pro- LTTE expatriate elements have indirectly acknowledged the failure of the way the LTTE conducted the struggle. Of course Vaddukoddai Reslution has been made irrelevant in the course of subsequent history of blood and gore.
The recently conducted “referendum” in Canada was also a part of this exercise. According to Tamil expatriate media (which have turned their colours from the bright red of LTTE to Sri Lanka blue immediately after ‘thalaivar’s death) most of the 48,000 plus people who turned up (out of an estimated 300,000-350,000 Sri Lanka Tamils) voted for the Vaddukkoddai Resolution. Some of the media have dubbed it as a minority vote and hence of no consequence.
It would be incorrect to look at it only from the point of view of total expatriate population. The organisers of the referendum, by and large, were pro-LTTE elements or its fellow travellers. Referendum is important because it provides a barometer of existing potential support for the revival of LTTE. It should come as a relief to the organisers that 13 to 15 % of the Canadian expatriates voted and still subscribed to the notion of an independent Tamil Eelam. This comes even after the LTTE itself had given up hope of an independent Eelam and accepted Tamil autonomy within a federal Sri Lanka when it opted to negotiate the peace process 2002. Of course, the referendum also helps in establishing the legitimacy of organisers as inheritors of the Tamil leadership that fell vacant after the demise of LTTE leadership in Sri Lanka.
However, the referendum would have been more meaningful if there had been an honest soul searching among expatriate Tamils who had supported Prabhakaran.That would have revealed glaring short comings in the way he operated which has now left the Tamil community in Sri Lanka disunited and weak. As this had not been done, the purpose of the referendum would appear to be only to garner expatriate help to revive the old cry of an armed struggle for Tamil Eelam. And that may not come through in the near term as there are neither any takers nor a foothold in Sri Lanka. So it will continue to be in the realms of emotion for sometime unless the revival is helped by Sinhala obscurantists in Sri Lanka.
While tasking the army in the north and east after the war ended, the Sri Lanka government and the security forces appear to have gone on the premise that the revival of the LTTE was possible. So the process of eliminating the LTTE from its internal and overseas roots is going on rigorously. This is evidenced by the Sri Lanka navy’s recent seizure of MV Christina, said to be the largest ship of LTTE’s tramp fleet. Of course chances for LTTE’s revival diminishes as more of its caches of arms and military equipment are recovered and cadres eluding arrest are rounded up and identified. Already 12,000 LTTE cadres of various kinds are in custody.
Tragically the war also displaced around 280,000 Tamils living in areas under the LTTE control. They had to undergo a grim process of screening at the hands of Sri Lanka army. They now face a bleak future as they have lost their livelihood and homes. This is more so in the absence of charismatic and assertive leadership of Prabhakaran.
In a recent interview to the Daily Mirror, Colombo, Dr Rohan Gunaratne, Head of the International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research at Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Singapore, had said the LTTE has been “dismantled” in Sri Lanka. This is probably correct as no worthwhile leader is in the horizon to collect the remnants, marshal the assets, unite supporters and coordinate their activities to rebuild the organisation either at home or abroad. Given this internal environment, the revival of the LTTE within the island does not appear feasible in the near future.
In this context, a recent report of The Times, London, about the formation of a new Tamil militant outfit - the Makkal Viduthalai Ranuvam (People’s Liberation Army) – is interesting but not credible. In an interview of a self styled commander Kones (pseudonym) of the new Tamil militant group claimed the PLA comprised mostly of ex-militants with Marxist ideology and opposed to the LTTE brand of militancy was formed four months back. At present it was 300-strong and it hoped to raise a force of 5000. Sri Lankan Tamil media considers this as a Sri Lankan intelligence ploy politically motivated to keep the Tamil militant threat in the public eye. This may well be true.
However, as Dr Gunaratne said in the same Daily Mirror interview, the LTTE international presents “a challenge to Sri Lanka progress, ethnic harmony, and unity. Future peace in Sri Lanka can only be sustained, if the LTTE is dismantled comprehensively, both at home and overseas.” There is no doubt about it.
The LTTE’s international elements appear to be split into two factions. The “militant faction” led by Norwy-based Nediyawan that continues to advocate an armed struggle to pursue the goal of an independent Tamil Eelam. It would like to keep up the memory of Prabhakaran to draw strength.
The “political faction” led by Viswanathan. Rudrakumaran, New York based attorney, wants to carry o on the Tamil struggle politically. In June 2009, LTTE sympathizers and remnants overseas put together an advisory committee for the formation of a Provisional Transnational Government of Tamil Eelam (PTGTE), with V Rudrakumaran as the coordinator, in a bid to keep the quest for self determination alive. It swore to follow a fundamentally democratic path. It opened its platform for those who accepted the tenets of “Tamil Nationhood, a Tamil homeland as recognized in the 1987 Indo- Sri Lanka Agreement, ……and the Tamils’ right to self-determination” as per the 1976 Vaddukoddai Resolution, the 1985 Thimpu Declaration and the LTTE’s 2003 Interim Self-Governing Authority (ISGA) proposal.
Although Rudrakumaran has in his Heroes Day message of November 27, 2009 reiterated the PTGTE would wage “a non- violent political struggle”, it is clear that the PTGTE has close connections with the LTTE international This is evident from the display of the LTTE’s Heroes Day message 2009 sporting images of Prabhakaran and LTTE flag in the PTGTE website. It is not clear how the PTGTE had wished away three decades of LTTE’s armed struggle which sacrificed nearly 300,000 Sri Lankan lives of all ethnicity, and decided to adopt a non-violent strategy without a critical examination of the earlier strategy. Of course there are also other political contradictions in this stand; but that only shows the dilemma faced by the political faction in trying to talk of peaceful means without disowning the history of Prabhakaran.
Apart from diehard supporters of the Eelam Cause and faithful followers of Prabhakaran, majority of expatriates probably realise that an independent Tamil Eelam would continue to remain a distant dream. So Rudrakumaran’s prescription appears to be pitched to attract support from this majority.
At present Sri Lanka Tamil political parties, including the political conglomerate of the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) are looking for financial and political support from this majority expatriate segment. The expatriate Tamils are divided into small groups with their own personal and political agenda just as the Sri Lankan Tamil parties are. So how they can be convinced to extend support for political campaigns in Sri Lanka remains to be seen.
In this context, the conference of Tamil speaking people under the theme “The role of the elected representatives of Sri Lanka’s Tamil and Muslim population in a process of national reconciliation, reconstruction and reform” jointly organized by the Tamil Information Centre (TIC), the International Working Group on Sri Lanka (IWG) and the Initiative on Conflict Prevention through Quiet Diplomacy (ICPQD) at the University of Essex from 20 to 22 November 2009 is of significance.
More importantly the Sri Lanka Muslim Congress (SLMC) and the All Ceylon Muslim Congress representing the Muslims of Sri Lanka as well as three Tamil parties representing plantation Tamils also participated in the deliberations .The conference hosted by the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs appears to be only a beginning. It had carefully treaded the common ground, recognising the difficulties in forging unity.
The conference has set the modest goal of committing “to the engagement by all segments of society towards a just and durable political solution” through a dignified, respectful and peaceful process. However whether the well intentioned effort would politically result in concerted action for the promotion of interests of Tamil speaking minorities in Sri Lanka remains a big question mark. This is going to be a long and tedious process as evident from the vertical divide among them in supporting the rival candidates in the presidential poll.
With the Tamil ethnic issue still remaining wide open, it is doubtful whether the expatriate actions as of now would help in resolving the problems of Tamil speaking people in the island. The only way they can contribute would be to strengthen the process set off in the November 2009 conference for a unified movement inclusive of all Tamil speaking people of Sri Lanka. Resurrecting separatism either politically or militarily would require selling a soured dream to the disillusioned. That would be embarking on another self defeating proposition.
Courtesy: http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cnotes6%5Cnote559.html
Monday, December 14, 2009
Sri Lanka: Sarath-Mahinda ‘war’ gets dirtier
The Sunday Leader (Dec 13, 2009) interview of General Sarath Fonseka, the challenger of President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s re-election, shook the Sri Lanka government’s carefully built edifice of waging a “humanitarian war” it had built to ward off accusations of genocide and human rights violations committed by the army during the Eelam war.
The General accused the Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa of instructing a key ground commander in the north that all LTTE leaders must be killed and not allowed to surrender. The three key LTTE leaders allegedly done to death were probably Nadesan, Pulidevan and Ramesh who wanted to surrender. According to the armyTheir bodies were found on May 18 during operations on the last stronghold of the LTTE. The General’s accusation only confirms earlier suspicions on this count. There were similar accusations of Prabhakaran’s death also but few appear to believe that.
However, the General appeared to have learnt the fine art of politics in double time. Like a good politician, he quickly denied that he made the accusation, and said he was misquoted. Despite the denial, as it always happens in political misquotes, the damage was already done. And it is clear that the General has challenged the government on its weakest wicket – accusations of human rights violations and genocide – in its war against the Tamil insurgents.
The Sri Lanka government has been left red in the face because it reinforces international suspicion of the government indulging in genocide. So far the government had been calling the international outcry against its poor human rights record a foreign conspiracy of INGOs, Western nations, and LTTE moles to tarnish Sri Lanka’s reputation. In response to the General’s allegation Human Rights Minister Mahinda Samarasinghe called it a “great betrayal,” and said the ‘baseless allegation’ was made for personal gains and such allegations were ‘extremely harmful’ and provide ‘oxygen the US State Department attempt to inquire into the so called Human Rights violations during the humanitarian operation.’
In response to international community’s concerns, President Mahinda Rajapaksa has already appointed a six-member committee to look into the charges of human rights violations during the war. However, performance of such committees in the past had been shoddy and left the international community unconvinced of the govrnment’s sincerity.
Now the General had questioned the credibility of the government stand, it is unlikely to let him off easily. The government has sought the opinion of Attorney General for recording a statement from General Fonseka on his remarks to the media regarding Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa.
In an indirect response to the General’s allegation, Army Commander Lieutenant General Jagath Jayasuriya, while addressing the troops at the Army Headquarters said that the Army faced its “biggest betrayal.” He asked them to be conscious about this betrayal and face it together.
General Fonseka is believed to have a personal following of loyalists in the army. This had been worrying the Rajapaksa government and the President’s campaigners. Rumours of an impending coup d’tat by the army were in the air sometime back and quickly denied. But it is clear that army is slowly being drawn into eddy of election politics in support of the President. Already senior army officers have appeared on the TV in a bid to downgrade the role played by General Fonseka signaling the increasinglypartisan role of the army in this murky contest.
In an indirect response to the allegations of politicization the army, the Army Commander while recently addressing the Defence Services Command and Staff College had cautioned that the loyalty of the troops “should be to the organization and not individuals.” Asking them to “work with the interest of the organization and the country first” he said “individuals will come and go but the organization needs to function with equality and without a conflict in loyalties. This can make or break an organization and is very detrimental to a fighting Army and to the services.
This is something that we have to guard as advocating disloyalty to the organization amounts to subversion.” There are serious words coming from the army chief within seven months of a resounding military victory and shows how seriously the risk potential of Fonseka loyalists is being viewed by him. After General Fonseka’s latest allegations the situation could get worsen on the issue of divided loyalties.
Quickly responding to the government accusation of “betrayal” the General said today (December 14) that he would take responsibility for what happened in the hands of the army throughout the war and as the then army commander, and no field commander acted in violation of any international law.
At the heart of Rajapaksa’s problem is that General Sarath Fonseka almost matches him in national popularity. As the two “national heroes” have been claiming credit for the success in the Eelam war, both should responsible for any offences committed by the troops operating under their directions.
The General’s latest salvo is only one more episode in the dirty drama that the government has been playing ever since it became clear that Fonseka could spoil the cake-walk victory President Rajapaksa was hoping for in the presidential poll scheduled for January 26, 2010. Not to be outdone, the General has now entered the fray. Skeletons of misconduct and corruption are tumbling out everyday as mutual recriminations are exchanged by both sides. More and more salacious details of favouritism, nepotism, and corruption in a whole range of things from arms deals to rehabilitation projects are floating in the air. In a way it is good that these allegations are being aired in public; at least it will provide some hope for remedial action subsequently.
But the tragedy is instead of fighting on concrete issues and pressing national problems both sides are out with their tar buckets. Apart from brad and butter and human rights issues that affect all, the Tamil issue has now been relegated to the sidelines, much to the detriment of permanent peace that could have followed the end of war. This has been the sad story of Sri Lanka. And nothing seems to have changed.
http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cnotes6%5Cnote556.html
The General accused the Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa of instructing a key ground commander in the north that all LTTE leaders must be killed and not allowed to surrender. The three key LTTE leaders allegedly done to death were probably Nadesan, Pulidevan and Ramesh who wanted to surrender. According to the armyTheir bodies were found on May 18 during operations on the last stronghold of the LTTE. The General’s accusation only confirms earlier suspicions on this count. There were similar accusations of Prabhakaran’s death also but few appear to believe that.
However, the General appeared to have learnt the fine art of politics in double time. Like a good politician, he quickly denied that he made the accusation, and said he was misquoted. Despite the denial, as it always happens in political misquotes, the damage was already done. And it is clear that the General has challenged the government on its weakest wicket – accusations of human rights violations and genocide – in its war against the Tamil insurgents.
The Sri Lanka government has been left red in the face because it reinforces international suspicion of the government indulging in genocide. So far the government had been calling the international outcry against its poor human rights record a foreign conspiracy of INGOs, Western nations, and LTTE moles to tarnish Sri Lanka’s reputation. In response to the General’s allegation Human Rights Minister Mahinda Samarasinghe called it a “great betrayal,” and said the ‘baseless allegation’ was made for personal gains and such allegations were ‘extremely harmful’ and provide ‘oxygen the US State Department attempt to inquire into the so called Human Rights violations during the humanitarian operation.’
In response to international community’s concerns, President Mahinda Rajapaksa has already appointed a six-member committee to look into the charges of human rights violations during the war. However, performance of such committees in the past had been shoddy and left the international community unconvinced of the govrnment’s sincerity.
Now the General had questioned the credibility of the government stand, it is unlikely to let him off easily. The government has sought the opinion of Attorney General for recording a statement from General Fonseka on his remarks to the media regarding Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa.
In an indirect response to the General’s allegation, Army Commander Lieutenant General Jagath Jayasuriya, while addressing the troops at the Army Headquarters said that the Army faced its “biggest betrayal.” He asked them to be conscious about this betrayal and face it together.
General Fonseka is believed to have a personal following of loyalists in the army. This had been worrying the Rajapaksa government and the President’s campaigners. Rumours of an impending coup d’tat by the army were in the air sometime back and quickly denied. But it is clear that army is slowly being drawn into eddy of election politics in support of the President. Already senior army officers have appeared on the TV in a bid to downgrade the role played by General Fonseka signaling the increasinglypartisan role of the army in this murky contest.
In an indirect response to the allegations of politicization the army, the Army Commander while recently addressing the Defence Services Command and Staff College had cautioned that the loyalty of the troops “should be to the organization and not individuals.” Asking them to “work with the interest of the organization and the country first” he said “individuals will come and go but the organization needs to function with equality and without a conflict in loyalties. This can make or break an organization and is very detrimental to a fighting Army and to the services.
This is something that we have to guard as advocating disloyalty to the organization amounts to subversion.” There are serious words coming from the army chief within seven months of a resounding military victory and shows how seriously the risk potential of Fonseka loyalists is being viewed by him. After General Fonseka’s latest allegations the situation could get worsen on the issue of divided loyalties.
Quickly responding to the government accusation of “betrayal” the General said today (December 14) that he would take responsibility for what happened in the hands of the army throughout the war and as the then army commander, and no field commander acted in violation of any international law.
At the heart of Rajapaksa’s problem is that General Sarath Fonseka almost matches him in national popularity. As the two “national heroes” have been claiming credit for the success in the Eelam war, both should responsible for any offences committed by the troops operating under their directions.
The General’s latest salvo is only one more episode in the dirty drama that the government has been playing ever since it became clear that Fonseka could spoil the cake-walk victory President Rajapaksa was hoping for in the presidential poll scheduled for January 26, 2010. Not to be outdone, the General has now entered the fray. Skeletons of misconduct and corruption are tumbling out everyday as mutual recriminations are exchanged by both sides. More and more salacious details of favouritism, nepotism, and corruption in a whole range of things from arms deals to rehabilitation projects are floating in the air. In a way it is good that these allegations are being aired in public; at least it will provide some hope for remedial action subsequently.
But the tragedy is instead of fighting on concrete issues and pressing national problems both sides are out with their tar buckets. Apart from brad and butter and human rights issues that affect all, the Tamil issue has now been relegated to the sidelines, much to the detriment of permanent peace that could have followed the end of war. This has been the sad story of Sri Lanka. And nothing seems to have changed.
http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cnotes6%5Cnote556.html
Sunday, December 13, 2009
India Takes a Small Strategic Step
India took a small strategic step when it successfully launched Dhanush the 350 km range ship based anti-surface missile from INS Subhadra in the Bay of Bengal on Sunday, December 14. This should come as some consolation after the failure of its nuclear-capable IRBM (Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile) Agni-III in May and November 2009 test firings. Navy carried out the test firing as part of a user training exercise.
The media quoted official sources of the Defence Research & Development Organisation (DRDO) to claim the missile successfully hit the target with pin-point accuracy after covering 350 km. Two naval ships anchored near the target tracked the splash of the missile which followed a pre-designated trajectory. . The media also said radar systems of the Integrated Test Range (ITR), located along the Orissa coast, monitored the missile’s entire trajectory. The missile took eight minutes and 40 seconds to hit the target.
Dhanush is the naval version of Prithvi. The single-stage 10-metre long liquid propellent missile weighs six tones and carries 500 kg warhead.
In March 2009, India had for the third time successfully tested the ballistic missile defence shield being developed by the DRDO. A ballistic missile defence system is highly automated and comprises of radars that can detect missiles in flight, interceptors that can take out the looming threat, and control systems that coordinate the whole operation. In the test in March, the ‘enemy’ missile (fired from a naval ship 150 km from Orissa coast to simulate Pak Ghauri missile) was quickly picked up on radar and the two-stage Prithvi Air Defence missile successfully intercepted and destroyed the intruding warhead.
Defence research scientists have also been successful in developing Pinaka Multi Barrel Rocket system and BrahMos, a supersonic cruise missile for the Navy, in collaboration with Russians. While Pinaka has already been introduced in the army, DRDO hopes BrahMos to deliver 240 missiles in the next two years. Although it was developed as an anti-ship missile, DRDO claims it can also be launched from air and land.
However, DRDO’s successes do not cover up some of its multiple problems. The most notable of them has been its inability to develop an engine for the indigenous Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA). The Kaveri engine under development for two decades drew bitter criticism as it was underpowered. According to defence columnist Ajai Shukla, in its place, two alternatives were short-listed: the Eurojet EJ200, and the General Electric F-414 engines.
However, the Ministry of Defence appears to have chaged its mind and decided to go for co-development. The DRDO’s Gas Turbine and Research Establishment (GTRE), which has a design partnership with French engine-maker, Snecma, has been asked to design a more powerful successor to Kaveri. The Business Standard had quoted Minister of State for Defence, Dr Pallam Raju’s rationale for this decision. He said: “It is important for India to have indigenous capabilities in engine design. And having invested so many man-hours of work into the design of the Kaveri engine, it would be a national waste to fritter away or dilute those capabilities…. (Snecma) is willing to co-develop an engine with us; they are willing to go beyond just transfer of technology. It is a value-added offer that gives us better technology than what we would get from ToT from Eurojet or GE.”
But that was in 2008. The DRDO is notorious for its delays and well known for its non-adherence to time schedules. So presumably Tejas continues to be where it was: in the realms of development.
http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cpapers36%5Cpaper3546.html
The media quoted official sources of the Defence Research & Development Organisation (DRDO) to claim the missile successfully hit the target with pin-point accuracy after covering 350 km. Two naval ships anchored near the target tracked the splash of the missile which followed a pre-designated trajectory. . The media also said radar systems of the Integrated Test Range (ITR), located along the Orissa coast, monitored the missile’s entire trajectory. The missile took eight minutes and 40 seconds to hit the target.
Dhanush is the naval version of Prithvi. The single-stage 10-metre long liquid propellent missile weighs six tones and carries 500 kg warhead.
In March 2009, India had for the third time successfully tested the ballistic missile defence shield being developed by the DRDO. A ballistic missile defence system is highly automated and comprises of radars that can detect missiles in flight, interceptors that can take out the looming threat, and control systems that coordinate the whole operation. In the test in March, the ‘enemy’ missile (fired from a naval ship 150 km from Orissa coast to simulate Pak Ghauri missile) was quickly picked up on radar and the two-stage Prithvi Air Defence missile successfully intercepted and destroyed the intruding warhead.
Defence research scientists have also been successful in developing Pinaka Multi Barrel Rocket system and BrahMos, a supersonic cruise missile for the Navy, in collaboration with Russians. While Pinaka has already been introduced in the army, DRDO hopes BrahMos to deliver 240 missiles in the next two years. Although it was developed as an anti-ship missile, DRDO claims it can also be launched from air and land.
However, DRDO’s successes do not cover up some of its multiple problems. The most notable of them has been its inability to develop an engine for the indigenous Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA). The Kaveri engine under development for two decades drew bitter criticism as it was underpowered. According to defence columnist Ajai Shukla, in its place, two alternatives were short-listed: the Eurojet EJ200, and the General Electric F-414 engines.
However, the Ministry of Defence appears to have chaged its mind and decided to go for co-development. The DRDO’s Gas Turbine and Research Establishment (GTRE), which has a design partnership with French engine-maker, Snecma, has been asked to design a more powerful successor to Kaveri. The Business Standard had quoted Minister of State for Defence, Dr Pallam Raju’s rationale for this decision. He said: “It is important for India to have indigenous capabilities in engine design. And having invested so many man-hours of work into the design of the Kaveri engine, it would be a national waste to fritter away or dilute those capabilities…. (Snecma) is willing to co-develop an engine with us; they are willing to go beyond just transfer of technology. It is a value-added offer that gives us better technology than what we would get from ToT from Eurojet or GE.”
But that was in 2008. The DRDO is notorious for its delays and well known for its non-adherence to time schedules. So presumably Tejas continues to be where it was: in the realms of development.
http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cpapers36%5Cpaper3546.html
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Onward, Women Soldiers!
The armed forces have a golden opportunity to set an example for the rest of the nation in having empowered women join them to serve the country.
BY COL R HARIHARAN
DURING the past three decades, the traditional male orientation of the armed forces all over the world is undergoing a sex change. As more and more women don the uniform, there are visible cracks in the macho citadels of armed forces. Now they are trying to come to grips with the issue arising from this.
Historically, women have proved they are as good as men in combat. During World War II, 800,000 women served in the Soviet armed forces; nearly 70 per cent of them fought in the frontlines. But armed forces are a little reluctant to recognize this. They have been propagating “masculine values” for centuries, cultivating aggressive male persona as the essence of soldiering. So MCP attitudes are ingrained in many of their traditions. The semantic signature of the male superior attitude is visible in common military parlance. Epithets like “walking like pregnant ducks” and “bunch of school girls” continue to echo in the corridors of their hallowed chambers.
The Indian armed forces are also in the throes of this phenomenon. Recently, the Vice-Chief of the Indian Air Force, Air Marshal PK Barbora, touched off a minor controversy when he said there were financial, operational and cultural constraints in having women fighter pilots. On the other hand, for the first time in India’s naval history, two women officers are being inducted in combatant jobs in the Naval Maritime Squadron. They will be working as observers (air borne tacticians) to manage weapons, sensors, radars and navigation on board maritime patrol aircraft.
Air Marshal Barbora was only restating the armed forces’ reservations on employing women in frontline combat roles. However, the way he put it was provocative: “if a woman gets pregnant, it will not be fruitful for either the force or her…” as training a fighter pilot costs the government Rs 11.66 crore. After spending so much, “not being able to utilize women operationally would not be a prudent thing,” he added.
Women have been serving in the Indian armed forces since World War II. But their intake as officers was only in medical, dental and nursing corps. It was in 1992 that the Indian Army opened the doors of other services for women officers and the Navy and Air Force followed suit. Since then, hairline cracks in the male bastion have widened as more and more women join the forces.
Starting with an initial intake of 50 women officers in 1992, the Army now has 1100 (3.1 per cent) of them in a total strength of 35,377 officers. This is the least among all the three services because the officer-soldier ratio in the Army is less than in the naval and air forces. The Navy has the largest presence with 750 (nearly 7 per cent) women out of a total of 10,760 officers. In the Air Force, out of a total of 7,394 officers, 300 (4.1 per cent) are women.
At present, the Army has the capacity to train 350 women cadets annually in the non-technical stream. Of course their intake in the technical stream is based upon the requirements. Women cadets undergo the same 49 weeks of training as men.
However, gender parity is a little slow in coming. Women are still not treated as equals in terms of engagement, service, and employment. Unlike men, only unmarried women can apply for commission in the Army. Women are eligible for the Short Service Commission (SSC) while their male counterparts can apply for permanent commission after five years of service. This limits the women officers’ career to 14 years of service. They have to retire at the peak of their competency, after serving as Lt Col for just one year.
Similarly, while all arms and services are open to men, at present women are commissioned only in services and in selected arms like air defence, signals, engineering and intelligence. Even then they are not allowed in close combat duties. But this has more to do with the nation’s cultural conditioning and harsh operational conditions in which the Army operates.
The problems regarding employment of women in the armed forces go well beyond the “military mindset”. They have their roots in the social and cultural environment of the country and systemic constraints of operations designed for male combatants. Assertion of gender parity is the order of the day the world over. The pill has made pregnancy optional for women. Growing consumerism is expanding the traditional role of women in the family and more women are compelled to work alongside men. The institution of marriage is no more the end-all for women and single mothers are more readily accepted in society than ever before. The Western world has come to terms with these changes more and women’s empowerment is accepted in society. And the increased presence of women in the armed forces is only a part of it. But the process is neither smooth nor complete as women are facing major problems in integrating themselves in the armed forces.
owever, these changes are yet to take place fully in our country. Despite cosmetic changes in urban India, the social and cultural environment is still loaded against women. The Indian soldier comes from rural and semi-urban areas where women are treated as second-class citizens. In many parts of the country, female foeticide and brideburning are endemic even among educated sections of society. In this environment, male chauvinism continues to retard any process which tries to bring about gender equity.
Political parties are still shy of taking up women’s issues as the centerpiece of their election campaigns. Without strong political support, women are yet to assert their rights vigorously due to lack of awareness, and caste and religious restrictions in the name of tradition. Women coming from the same social milieu opting for military service represent the small number of pioneers trying to break these barriers. So it is not surprising the armed forces are extremely cautious in handling this politically sensitive issue.
On a recent TV talk show, spirited young women, middle-aged socialites and a few men put up a strong case for allowing women soldiers to fight shoulder to shoulder with men in mixed combat units. I doubt very much whether they understood what they were saying. I am sure they would not like their daughters to be cooped up in underground shelters with a dozen or so combat soldiers at altitudes of over 14,000 ft along the borders for months at a time. There is a total lack of privacy for anyone, let alone women.
Very few countries employ a fully integrated military. Even in the US and Israel, where such integration has taken place, rape is a major menace dogging women soldiers. And it is at the hands of their male colleagues. According to Professor Helen Benedict, who has researched the subject, a survey of female veterans of the US from the Vietnam War to the first Gulf War revealed that 30 per cent were raped in the military. Another study of veterans in 2004 from Vietnam to all the subsequent wars found that 71 per cent of the women said they were sexually assaulted or raped while in the military. The results of a 1992-93 study of female veterans of the Gulf War and earlier wars were even more appalling – 90 per cent said they were sexually harassed in the military.
Can our society cope with such issues when they come up in the armed forces as more women enter their portals, when even in the national capital women are not safe from sexual harassment and rape? Society’s problems are reflected in the armed forces, although military training instils discipline. So integration of women in the armed forces is going to be a long process. Society has to be more enlightened in the way it treats women if it wants the armed forces to increase the role of women on equal terms with men. And that will not happen merely by sloganeering; it has to become the political agenda of the nation.
That does not mean the armed forces should defer introduction of structural mechanisms to employ women gainfully in a safe environment both during war and peace. The armed forces, renowned for their operational management skills, have a golden opportunity to set an example for the rest of the nation in having empowered women join them to serve the country.
Courtesy: GFiles Volume 3 Issue 9 - December 2009
http://gfilesindia.com/title.aspx?title_id=52
BY COL R HARIHARAN
DURING the past three decades, the traditional male orientation of the armed forces all over the world is undergoing a sex change. As more and more women don the uniform, there are visible cracks in the macho citadels of armed forces. Now they are trying to come to grips with the issue arising from this.
Historically, women have proved they are as good as men in combat. During World War II, 800,000 women served in the Soviet armed forces; nearly 70 per cent of them fought in the frontlines. But armed forces are a little reluctant to recognize this. They have been propagating “masculine values” for centuries, cultivating aggressive male persona as the essence of soldiering. So MCP attitudes are ingrained in many of their traditions. The semantic signature of the male superior attitude is visible in common military parlance. Epithets like “walking like pregnant ducks” and “bunch of school girls” continue to echo in the corridors of their hallowed chambers.
The Indian armed forces are also in the throes of this phenomenon. Recently, the Vice-Chief of the Indian Air Force, Air Marshal PK Barbora, touched off a minor controversy when he said there were financial, operational and cultural constraints in having women fighter pilots. On the other hand, for the first time in India’s naval history, two women officers are being inducted in combatant jobs in the Naval Maritime Squadron. They will be working as observers (air borne tacticians) to manage weapons, sensors, radars and navigation on board maritime patrol aircraft.
Air Marshal Barbora was only restating the armed forces’ reservations on employing women in frontline combat roles. However, the way he put it was provocative: “if a woman gets pregnant, it will not be fruitful for either the force or her…” as training a fighter pilot costs the government Rs 11.66 crore. After spending so much, “not being able to utilize women operationally would not be a prudent thing,” he added.
Women have been serving in the Indian armed forces since World War II. But their intake as officers was only in medical, dental and nursing corps. It was in 1992 that the Indian Army opened the doors of other services for women officers and the Navy and Air Force followed suit. Since then, hairline cracks in the male bastion have widened as more and more women join the forces.
Starting with an initial intake of 50 women officers in 1992, the Army now has 1100 (3.1 per cent) of them in a total strength of 35,377 officers. This is the least among all the three services because the officer-soldier ratio in the Army is less than in the naval and air forces. The Navy has the largest presence with 750 (nearly 7 per cent) women out of a total of 10,760 officers. In the Air Force, out of a total of 7,394 officers, 300 (4.1 per cent) are women.
At present, the Army has the capacity to train 350 women cadets annually in the non-technical stream. Of course their intake in the technical stream is based upon the requirements. Women cadets undergo the same 49 weeks of training as men.
However, gender parity is a little slow in coming. Women are still not treated as equals in terms of engagement, service, and employment. Unlike men, only unmarried women can apply for commission in the Army. Women are eligible for the Short Service Commission (SSC) while their male counterparts can apply for permanent commission after five years of service. This limits the women officers’ career to 14 years of service. They have to retire at the peak of their competency, after serving as Lt Col for just one year.
Similarly, while all arms and services are open to men, at present women are commissioned only in services and in selected arms like air defence, signals, engineering and intelligence. Even then they are not allowed in close combat duties. But this has more to do with the nation’s cultural conditioning and harsh operational conditions in which the Army operates.
The problems regarding employment of women in the armed forces go well beyond the “military mindset”. They have their roots in the social and cultural environment of the country and systemic constraints of operations designed for male combatants. Assertion of gender parity is the order of the day the world over. The pill has made pregnancy optional for women. Growing consumerism is expanding the traditional role of women in the family and more women are compelled to work alongside men. The institution of marriage is no more the end-all for women and single mothers are more readily accepted in society than ever before. The Western world has come to terms with these changes more and women’s empowerment is accepted in society. And the increased presence of women in the armed forces is only a part of it. But the process is neither smooth nor complete as women are facing major problems in integrating themselves in the armed forces.
owever, these changes are yet to take place fully in our country. Despite cosmetic changes in urban India, the social and cultural environment is still loaded against women. The Indian soldier comes from rural and semi-urban areas where women are treated as second-class citizens. In many parts of the country, female foeticide and brideburning are endemic even among educated sections of society. In this environment, male chauvinism continues to retard any process which tries to bring about gender equity.
Political parties are still shy of taking up women’s issues as the centerpiece of their election campaigns. Without strong political support, women are yet to assert their rights vigorously due to lack of awareness, and caste and religious restrictions in the name of tradition. Women coming from the same social milieu opting for military service represent the small number of pioneers trying to break these barriers. So it is not surprising the armed forces are extremely cautious in handling this politically sensitive issue.
On a recent TV talk show, spirited young women, middle-aged socialites and a few men put up a strong case for allowing women soldiers to fight shoulder to shoulder with men in mixed combat units. I doubt very much whether they understood what they were saying. I am sure they would not like their daughters to be cooped up in underground shelters with a dozen or so combat soldiers at altitudes of over 14,000 ft along the borders for months at a time. There is a total lack of privacy for anyone, let alone women.
Very few countries employ a fully integrated military. Even in the US and Israel, where such integration has taken place, rape is a major menace dogging women soldiers. And it is at the hands of their male colleagues. According to Professor Helen Benedict, who has researched the subject, a survey of female veterans of the US from the Vietnam War to the first Gulf War revealed that 30 per cent were raped in the military. Another study of veterans in 2004 from Vietnam to all the subsequent wars found that 71 per cent of the women said they were sexually assaulted or raped while in the military. The results of a 1992-93 study of female veterans of the Gulf War and earlier wars were even more appalling – 90 per cent said they were sexually harassed in the military.
Can our society cope with such issues when they come up in the armed forces as more women enter their portals, when even in the national capital women are not safe from sexual harassment and rape? Society’s problems are reflected in the armed forces, although military training instils discipline. So integration of women in the armed forces is going to be a long process. Society has to be more enlightened in the way it treats women if it wants the armed forces to increase the role of women on equal terms with men. And that will not happen merely by sloganeering; it has to become the political agenda of the nation.
That does not mean the armed forces should defer introduction of structural mechanisms to employ women gainfully in a safe environment both during war and peace. The armed forces, renowned for their operational management skills, have a golden opportunity to set an example for the rest of the nation in having empowered women join them to serve the country.
Courtesy: GFiles Volume 3 Issue 9 - December 2009
http://gfilesindia.com/title.aspx?title_id=52
Sri Lanka Perspectives – November 2009
[This summary was written on November 30,2009 and published in the December 2009 issue of the "South Asia Security Trends" Volume 3 No 10.]
Presidential election
President Mahinda Rajapaksa finally made up his mind hold the presidential election to first, two years in advance of its term, rather than conducting the parliamentary poll that is due. The election is scheduled to be held on January 26, 2010. It is clear the President, who is seeking re-election, is trying to cash in on his soaring popularity after the defeat of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) and the liquidation of its leadership. The President appears to have decided on this because under the proportional representation system Rajapaksa’s Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) would never get absolute majority in parliament.
General Sarath Fonseka, Chief of Defence Staff, resigned his post after growing acrimony with the President. The two main opposition parties – the centre-right United National Party (UNP) and the Marxist Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) – as pledged to support him as a presidential candidate to oppose Rajapaksa. The General has accepted the offer and has announced that he would be contesting as a common candidate with the symbol of swan. He is likely to prove to be a formidable opponent to the President. The ruling coalition appears to be making a systematic effort to bring down the image of General Fonseka and play down his contribution to military victory. However, the President’s singular lack of sensitivity in handling the General’s personal grievances including security and housing after retirement could affect Rajapaksa’s popularity and work in favour of the General. Fonseka still retains the ability to muster votes across the political spectrum and his candidacy should not be under estimated. However, both the UNP and JVP have internal dissensions that could affect their parties wholehearted support to Fonseka.
Though Rajapaksa has been triumphant in all the provincial council elections held after the military victory over the LTTE, in the post war period his regime has come under severe criticism for corruption, nepotism, lawlessness, lack of accountability of government officials and ministers and gross violations of human rights. Thanks to the inflation due to the war has not abated and the prices of essential goods have soared. The inept handling of the international concerns on war crimes and lack of sensitivity to humanitarian issues shown by Sri Lanka is likely to result in the ending of the GSP+ tariff concessions for export to the EU countries in 2010. Labour unrest is increasing.
Tamils as the largest minority could tilt the balance in a close presidential race and affect the chances of either candidate. Rajapaksa’s handling of Tamil minority during and after the war has not endeared him. In a bid to woo their votes, the government has announced the release of over 130,000 Tamil displaced people retained in camps. Despite this effort the Tamils would rather not vote for Rajapaksa.
However, pro-Rajapaksa Tamil parties are already falling in line to support him. Apart from plantation Tamil parties, the Eelam Peoples Democratic Party (EPDP) and the Peoples Liberation Organisation for Taml Eelam (PLOTE) have also announced their support. But a sizeable Tamil segment - the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) parties - continues to sit on the fence despite overtures from the President for their support. Their leadership appear to be divided on the issue.
For many Tamils and liberal Sri Lankans, who are unhappy with the style of Rajapaksa, General Fonseka does not provide a better option. Despite his recent statements sympathetic to the plight of war displaced Tamils and on human rights and democracy the General has image as a Sinhala hardliner.
In a bid to forge unity among all minority Tamil and Muslim parties, a convention was held in Switzerland recently. Almost all the Tamil leaders including those of EPDP and PLOTE attended the meeting in which the Sri Lanka Muslim Congress (SLMC) leaders also participated. Despite pious pronouncements on issues of devolution there appear to be no unanimity among them on presidential poll as evidenced by the EPDP and PLOTE announcements of support to Rajapaksa after the meeting. Muslim votes have always been split between the three major Muslim factions in politics. This is likely to continue.
Given this situation both the main candidates may not get the whole hearted support of Tamil community even if Tamil parties decide to support either of the candidates. Although it is too early to make an assessment, as of now the odds are in favour of Rajapaksa’s re-election.
LTTE remnants in faction fight
The Heroes Day – November 27 – this year brought out the deep fissure between two factions among remnants of LTTE, one claiming to still exist in the island nation and the other trying to retain hold over LTTE’s overseas units. Traditionally, Heroes Day was celebrated with a policy statement from V Prabhakaran, the founder leader of the insurgent group. After his death and elimination of the entire leadership in the last stages of war the only leader to survive was Kumaran Pathmanathan (KP). After he was arrested in Kuala Lumpur and taken to Sri Lanka a few months ago, the efforts of the junior leaders among the remnants to claim the leadership legitimacy have intensified. On the eve of the Heroes Day 2009, this had brought to the fore a lot of mutual accusations and recriminations between the Sri Lanka faction led by ‘Col Ram’ and the International faction led by K Arivazhagan.
The Sri Lanka Faction, still swearing loyalty to KP, claims astrength of 300 cadres operating in the island. Col Ram was the former leader of the LTTE in Batticaloa-Amparai region and had escaped capture in the aftermath of Thoppigala operation in 2007. Col Ram and his deputy Lt Col Nakulan were the rallying point for LTTE revival. In a statement Col Ram accused the International faction of embezzling “cash and property worth millions of dollars” stashed overseas by the LTTE. He cautioned Tamil Diaspora against their claims of legitimacy in order to control its overseas patrons and grab the organisations overseas assets.
On the other hand K Arivazhagan, the ovrseas claimant of leadership, in a statement denounced Col Ram and Nakulan as puppets of Sri Lanka intelligence who were trying to deceive the people. Arivazhagan said Ram was in Sri Lankan custody and it was on his information KP was taken prisoner overseas and brought to Sri Lanka.He cautioned the Tamil Diaspora about Sri Lankan intelligence efforts to divide overseas Tamil support for the Eelam cause.
According to Dr. Rohan Gunaratne, terrorism expert and Head of the International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research at Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Singapore, the LTTE set up in the island has been dismantled completely. There were two factions within the LTTE international. One was led by Perinpanayagam Sivaparan alias Nediyawan in Norway that advocated armed struggle to create Tamil Eelam. It still swears by Prabhakaran and sports the LTTE flag. The second faction is headed by V. Rudrakumaran in New York advocated a political approach to create a separate Tamil state.
This assessment appears to be more correct as Col Ram is believed to be in Sri Lankan custody and there is no organised LTTE operation within the island. K Arivazhagan belongs to the Nediyavan faction. Moreover, pro-LTTE Sri Lanka Tamil MP Chandra Nehru while addressing Sri Lankan Tamils living in Singapore has recently cautioned against those claiming to be LTTE leaders still operating in Sri Lanka.
However, LTTE operations overseas are going to be more and more difficult as many countries which had tolerated them earlier are cracking down upon them now. In France, 21 LTTE cadres have been sentenced to varying prison terms ranging from two years to seven years for extortion and intimidation to collect funds for the organisation.
Courtesy: South Asia Security Trends, www.security-risks.com
Presidential election
President Mahinda Rajapaksa finally made up his mind hold the presidential election to first, two years in advance of its term, rather than conducting the parliamentary poll that is due. The election is scheduled to be held on January 26, 2010. It is clear the President, who is seeking re-election, is trying to cash in on his soaring popularity after the defeat of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) and the liquidation of its leadership. The President appears to have decided on this because under the proportional representation system Rajapaksa’s Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) would never get absolute majority in parliament.
General Sarath Fonseka, Chief of Defence Staff, resigned his post after growing acrimony with the President. The two main opposition parties – the centre-right United National Party (UNP) and the Marxist Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) – as pledged to support him as a presidential candidate to oppose Rajapaksa. The General has accepted the offer and has announced that he would be contesting as a common candidate with the symbol of swan. He is likely to prove to be a formidable opponent to the President. The ruling coalition appears to be making a systematic effort to bring down the image of General Fonseka and play down his contribution to military victory. However, the President’s singular lack of sensitivity in handling the General’s personal grievances including security and housing after retirement could affect Rajapaksa’s popularity and work in favour of the General. Fonseka still retains the ability to muster votes across the political spectrum and his candidacy should not be under estimated. However, both the UNP and JVP have internal dissensions that could affect their parties wholehearted support to Fonseka.
Though Rajapaksa has been triumphant in all the provincial council elections held after the military victory over the LTTE, in the post war period his regime has come under severe criticism for corruption, nepotism, lawlessness, lack of accountability of government officials and ministers and gross violations of human rights. Thanks to the inflation due to the war has not abated and the prices of essential goods have soared. The inept handling of the international concerns on war crimes and lack of sensitivity to humanitarian issues shown by Sri Lanka is likely to result in the ending of the GSP+ tariff concessions for export to the EU countries in 2010. Labour unrest is increasing.
Tamils as the largest minority could tilt the balance in a close presidential race and affect the chances of either candidate. Rajapaksa’s handling of Tamil minority during and after the war has not endeared him. In a bid to woo their votes, the government has announced the release of over 130,000 Tamil displaced people retained in camps. Despite this effort the Tamils would rather not vote for Rajapaksa.
However, pro-Rajapaksa Tamil parties are already falling in line to support him. Apart from plantation Tamil parties, the Eelam Peoples Democratic Party (EPDP) and the Peoples Liberation Organisation for Taml Eelam (PLOTE) have also announced their support. But a sizeable Tamil segment - the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) parties - continues to sit on the fence despite overtures from the President for their support. Their leadership appear to be divided on the issue.
For many Tamils and liberal Sri Lankans, who are unhappy with the style of Rajapaksa, General Fonseka does not provide a better option. Despite his recent statements sympathetic to the plight of war displaced Tamils and on human rights and democracy the General has image as a Sinhala hardliner.
In a bid to forge unity among all minority Tamil and Muslim parties, a convention was held in Switzerland recently. Almost all the Tamil leaders including those of EPDP and PLOTE attended the meeting in which the Sri Lanka Muslim Congress (SLMC) leaders also participated. Despite pious pronouncements on issues of devolution there appear to be no unanimity among them on presidential poll as evidenced by the EPDP and PLOTE announcements of support to Rajapaksa after the meeting. Muslim votes have always been split between the three major Muslim factions in politics. This is likely to continue.
Given this situation both the main candidates may not get the whole hearted support of Tamil community even if Tamil parties decide to support either of the candidates. Although it is too early to make an assessment, as of now the odds are in favour of Rajapaksa’s re-election.
LTTE remnants in faction fight
The Heroes Day – November 27 – this year brought out the deep fissure between two factions among remnants of LTTE, one claiming to still exist in the island nation and the other trying to retain hold over LTTE’s overseas units. Traditionally, Heroes Day was celebrated with a policy statement from V Prabhakaran, the founder leader of the insurgent group. After his death and elimination of the entire leadership in the last stages of war the only leader to survive was Kumaran Pathmanathan (KP). After he was arrested in Kuala Lumpur and taken to Sri Lanka a few months ago, the efforts of the junior leaders among the remnants to claim the leadership legitimacy have intensified. On the eve of the Heroes Day 2009, this had brought to the fore a lot of mutual accusations and recriminations between the Sri Lanka faction led by ‘Col Ram’ and the International faction led by K Arivazhagan.
The Sri Lanka Faction, still swearing loyalty to KP, claims astrength of 300 cadres operating in the island. Col Ram was the former leader of the LTTE in Batticaloa-Amparai region and had escaped capture in the aftermath of Thoppigala operation in 2007. Col Ram and his deputy Lt Col Nakulan were the rallying point for LTTE revival. In a statement Col Ram accused the International faction of embezzling “cash and property worth millions of dollars” stashed overseas by the LTTE. He cautioned Tamil Diaspora against their claims of legitimacy in order to control its overseas patrons and grab the organisations overseas assets.
On the other hand K Arivazhagan, the ovrseas claimant of leadership, in a statement denounced Col Ram and Nakulan as puppets of Sri Lanka intelligence who were trying to deceive the people. Arivazhagan said Ram was in Sri Lankan custody and it was on his information KP was taken prisoner overseas and brought to Sri Lanka.He cautioned the Tamil Diaspora about Sri Lankan intelligence efforts to divide overseas Tamil support for the Eelam cause.
According to Dr. Rohan Gunaratne, terrorism expert and Head of the International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research at Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Singapore, the LTTE set up in the island has been dismantled completely. There were two factions within the LTTE international. One was led by Perinpanayagam Sivaparan alias Nediyawan in Norway that advocated armed struggle to create Tamil Eelam. It still swears by Prabhakaran and sports the LTTE flag. The second faction is headed by V. Rudrakumaran in New York advocated a political approach to create a separate Tamil state.
This assessment appears to be more correct as Col Ram is believed to be in Sri Lankan custody and there is no organised LTTE operation within the island. K Arivazhagan belongs to the Nediyavan faction. Moreover, pro-LTTE Sri Lanka Tamil MP Chandra Nehru while addressing Sri Lankan Tamils living in Singapore has recently cautioned against those claiming to be LTTE leaders still operating in Sri Lanka.
However, LTTE operations overseas are going to be more and more difficult as many countries which had tolerated them earlier are cracking down upon them now. In France, 21 LTTE cadres have been sentenced to varying prison terms ranging from two years to seven years for extortion and intimidation to collect funds for the organisation.
Courtesy: South Asia Security Trends, www.security-risks.com
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Problem of North East is Governance not AFSP Act
Mr Ved Marwah, former governor of Manipur, and author of the book "India in Turmoil" in an article titled "Give the army a break" in the Tehelka Magazine [Vol 6, Issue 44, Dated November 07, 2009] has focused on the double speak indulged by the governments in the Northeast on the Armed Forces Special Powers Act. The general perception is that it is the fault of the army that this Act is promulgated.
Pointedly Mr Marwah says: "In the Northeast, specifically, there is hardly any rule of law and most laws remain only on paper. Everyone flouts the law with impunity. The demand for the repeal of the [Armed Forces Special Powers]Act is strongly supported by all political parties in the region. Even the ruling parties in these states do not oppose the demand for its abrogation. However, their doublespeak on the controversial law cleverly hides the fact that the extension of the Act to their state depends on their own government issuing a notification declaring the state as a disturbed area." The article (available at http://tehelka.com/story_main43.asp?filename=Ne071109proscons.asp# ) worth reading.
In fact the problem in the Northeast is governance and absence of rule of law. Politicians have misused the state apparatus for years to make money and even have working arrangements with insurgent groups. In this context, I am reproducing an article "Key to Northeast: governance" I had written for a national daily. Though it was published five years back (on October 6, 2004) it is still relevant. Unless we address this issue there is no hope for the Northeast.
Key to Northeast: governance
R. Hariharan Oct 06, 2004
We are a nation where the cow is venerated; but the army is not. The army hits the headlines regularly when jawans die, or when an armyman commits a crime. And, of course, we have the Republic Day parade when the armed forces display new uniforms and weaponry. But in terms of public respect, the army seems to be increasingly out of favour.
The army was hauled over coals for the rape and murder of Thangjam Manorama Devi in Manipur. It is a matter of irrelevant detail for the public and the media, however, that the Assam Rifles is not the army. It is a typical product of bureaucratic confusion — officered partly by the army, partly by the police and partly by the officers of the Assam Rifles. Operationally, it is under the army but administratively it comes under the ministry of home affairs. The bureaucracy loves this sort of dual control. The army, not surprisingly, hates it because when a crisis occurs, the blame is put on it. That is one reason why neither the home nor the defence ministry have given a satisfactory response to all the questions raised by the Thangjam Manorama Devi murder.
This is not to condone the alleged crimes committed by Assam Rifles personnel. The criminals who committed the rape and murder should be brought to justice. The army, if given a free hand, will do it.
One is aware that the Indian jawan is not from the heavens. He is a product of the same society that spawns the Phoolan Devis. He is probably Karuppan, a country yokel from Tamil Nadu who couldn’t land a job, or Ramcharan, a student who was part of a mob stoning shops in a Bihar town. The average jawan is in the army because it is a government job within his reach. The army feeds him, clothes him, provides healthcare and accommodation. But the army does something more: it drastically changes him. By turning this country lout or urban dropout into a disciplined soldier, the army is performing yet another unheralded national service. The change that army training brings into the lives of the Karuppans and Ramcharans is nothing short of miraculous. He begins to stand erect, learn to use fire arms with precision, become more orderly in his habits. Above all, he gets to have faith in army systems because he knows the army will take care of him for life. He understands patriotism. So he doesn’t mutiny on seeing the “drama” politicians enact to save their own skin but he becomes cynical.
Take Manipur. Time and again, the army made it clear that it is a defence force not a special police force. Yet it has been used as a glorified police force in the Northeast for the last five decades. In the remote regions here, the armed forces are the only visible representation of the government. And what are the conditions in which they operate? The then Manipur governor, Ved Marwah, a distinguished policeman in his own right, put it like this in ’02: “There are quite a few states where the so-called terrorist groups are like private armies. Their only objective is making money through extortion ...We have today some states in our country, where the criminal justice system has almost totally broken down...”
I know this to be absolutely true because I have served in Manipur. You have to go out of the way to “set up” a whole lot of things if you want to get an extremist convicted. That is why custodial killings take place. I remember investigating a custodial killing in Manipur for the army. I met the local DIG, Crime, a god-fearing man, who told me, “Why is the army wasting its time? When I was SP, I never took them into custody; I shot dead 23 of them. And, believe me, everything was at peace after that.” What more you require to call Manipur a failed state?
It is in this failed state that the army has been called upon to maintain security for the past 30 years in order to protect the cozy ambience for the politician-criminal-drug trafficker-extremist nexus to carry on their ‘normal’ activities. Who is to blame? It is a standard operative procedure that all well-to-do Manipuris send their kids to study in “India”; and they fly out and fly in on subsidised airfares. Manipur doesn’t matter to them. It is only the ordinary person who bears the brunt of the chaos. I feel sorry for Manipur, where I have served, and the beautiful people of Manipur many of whom, I know, are silently living in this abysmal situation for more than 30 years, denied their basic rights. It is a tribute to the Manipuris that they have produced Kunjurani Devis in spite of all this.
The time has come for politicians and the people — not only of the Northeast but the rest of India — to clean up the act. And not only in Manipur but in the whole of the Northeast. Give the common person, who cannot fly to Delhi or study in JNU, the basic needs to lead a normal, safe life. Insurgency in the region is big business. There are over a dozen motley groups of the criminal-minded who can always find a cause and extort money from the gullible. And many of them have their own links with the criminalised polity. Trafficking in narcotics is a big business there. There is a lot of unemployment.
The Armed Forces Powers Special Powers Act, if imposed forever, makes sense only for politicians of a failed state, because it protects them. If the Act is revoked, they will have to run to Delhi for safety. But the fact is that if normal law and order is enforced through good governance, the Manipur Rifles can round up the extremists, the army will not be required to do so. When you don’t prosecute a criminal, you don’t need special powers to take action against him.
And, for heaven’s sake, don’t rubbish the army and blame it for our national inaction. You need the army to guard the frontiers when the nights are cold and we sleep comfortably in our beds. If you rubbish soldiers, you end up demoralising them. And a demoralised army does not make a secure nation.
Pointedly Mr Marwah says: "In the Northeast, specifically, there is hardly any rule of law and most laws remain only on paper. Everyone flouts the law with impunity. The demand for the repeal of the [Armed Forces Special Powers]Act is strongly supported by all political parties in the region. Even the ruling parties in these states do not oppose the demand for its abrogation. However, their doublespeak on the controversial law cleverly hides the fact that the extension of the Act to their state depends on their own government issuing a notification declaring the state as a disturbed area." The article (available at http://tehelka.com/story_main43.asp?filename=Ne071109proscons.asp# ) worth reading.
In fact the problem in the Northeast is governance and absence of rule of law. Politicians have misused the state apparatus for years to make money and even have working arrangements with insurgent groups. In this context, I am reproducing an article "Key to Northeast: governance" I had written for a national daily. Though it was published five years back (on October 6, 2004) it is still relevant. Unless we address this issue there is no hope for the Northeast.
Key to Northeast: governance
R. Hariharan Oct 06, 2004
We are a nation where the cow is venerated; but the army is not. The army hits the headlines regularly when jawans die, or when an armyman commits a crime. And, of course, we have the Republic Day parade when the armed forces display new uniforms and weaponry. But in terms of public respect, the army seems to be increasingly out of favour.
The army was hauled over coals for the rape and murder of Thangjam Manorama Devi in Manipur. It is a matter of irrelevant detail for the public and the media, however, that the Assam Rifles is not the army. It is a typical product of bureaucratic confusion — officered partly by the army, partly by the police and partly by the officers of the Assam Rifles. Operationally, it is under the army but administratively it comes under the ministry of home affairs. The bureaucracy loves this sort of dual control. The army, not surprisingly, hates it because when a crisis occurs, the blame is put on it. That is one reason why neither the home nor the defence ministry have given a satisfactory response to all the questions raised by the Thangjam Manorama Devi murder.
This is not to condone the alleged crimes committed by Assam Rifles personnel. The criminals who committed the rape and murder should be brought to justice. The army, if given a free hand, will do it.
One is aware that the Indian jawan is not from the heavens. He is a product of the same society that spawns the Phoolan Devis. He is probably Karuppan, a country yokel from Tamil Nadu who couldn’t land a job, or Ramcharan, a student who was part of a mob stoning shops in a Bihar town. The average jawan is in the army because it is a government job within his reach. The army feeds him, clothes him, provides healthcare and accommodation. But the army does something more: it drastically changes him. By turning this country lout or urban dropout into a disciplined soldier, the army is performing yet another unheralded national service. The change that army training brings into the lives of the Karuppans and Ramcharans is nothing short of miraculous. He begins to stand erect, learn to use fire arms with precision, become more orderly in his habits. Above all, he gets to have faith in army systems because he knows the army will take care of him for life. He understands patriotism. So he doesn’t mutiny on seeing the “drama” politicians enact to save their own skin but he becomes cynical.
Take Manipur. Time and again, the army made it clear that it is a defence force not a special police force. Yet it has been used as a glorified police force in the Northeast for the last five decades. In the remote regions here, the armed forces are the only visible representation of the government. And what are the conditions in which they operate? The then Manipur governor, Ved Marwah, a distinguished policeman in his own right, put it like this in ’02: “There are quite a few states where the so-called terrorist groups are like private armies. Their only objective is making money through extortion ...We have today some states in our country, where the criminal justice system has almost totally broken down...”
I know this to be absolutely true because I have served in Manipur. You have to go out of the way to “set up” a whole lot of things if you want to get an extremist convicted. That is why custodial killings take place. I remember investigating a custodial killing in Manipur for the army. I met the local DIG, Crime, a god-fearing man, who told me, “Why is the army wasting its time? When I was SP, I never took them into custody; I shot dead 23 of them. And, believe me, everything was at peace after that.” What more you require to call Manipur a failed state?
It is in this failed state that the army has been called upon to maintain security for the past 30 years in order to protect the cozy ambience for the politician-criminal-drug trafficker-extremist nexus to carry on their ‘normal’ activities. Who is to blame? It is a standard operative procedure that all well-to-do Manipuris send their kids to study in “India”; and they fly out and fly in on subsidised airfares. Manipur doesn’t matter to them. It is only the ordinary person who bears the brunt of the chaos. I feel sorry for Manipur, where I have served, and the beautiful people of Manipur many of whom, I know, are silently living in this abysmal situation for more than 30 years, denied their basic rights. It is a tribute to the Manipuris that they have produced Kunjurani Devis in spite of all this.
The time has come for politicians and the people — not only of the Northeast but the rest of India — to clean up the act. And not only in Manipur but in the whole of the Northeast. Give the common person, who cannot fly to Delhi or study in JNU, the basic needs to lead a normal, safe life. Insurgency in the region is big business. There are over a dozen motley groups of the criminal-minded who can always find a cause and extort money from the gullible. And many of them have their own links with the criminalised polity. Trafficking in narcotics is a big business there. There is a lot of unemployment.
The Armed Forces Powers Special Powers Act, if imposed forever, makes sense only for politicians of a failed state, because it protects them. If the Act is revoked, they will have to run to Delhi for safety. But the fact is that if normal law and order is enforced through good governance, the Manipur Rifles can round up the extremists, the army will not be required to do so. When you don’t prosecute a criminal, you don’t need special powers to take action against him.
And, for heaven’s sake, don’t rubbish the army and blame it for our national inaction. You need the army to guard the frontiers when the nights are cold and we sleep comfortably in our beds. If you rubbish soldiers, you end up demoralising them. And a demoralised army does not make a secure nation.
Monday, November 30, 2009
The Indian Community in Myanmar
By Dr. V. Suryanarayan
The Indian Community in Myanmar is one of those forgotten children of Mother India. The tragic status of the community has not been sufficiently brought to light by any institution in India
The Singhvi Committee Report:
According to the Singhvi Committee Report, the total Indian population in Myanmar is estimated to be 2.9 million, of which 2,500,00 are People of Indian Origin (PIO), 2,000 are Indian citizens, and 400,000 are stateless.[1] Regarding the Stateless category, it must be mentioned that all of them are born in Myanmar, they belong to the third or fourth generation. But since they do not have any documents to prove their citizenship under the Burmese citizenship law of 1982 they are deemed to be "stateless."[2] As T. P. Sreenivasan, former Indian Ambassador to Myanmar has pointed out "they had no rights either in the land of their origin or in their land of adoption, and neither the two governments seemed concerned."[3] In fact, of the Indian diaspora, Myanmar has the largest number of "stateless" people.
History:
Historically, like other parts of Southeast Asia, Burma came under the spell of Indian cultural influences. Thanks to priests, princes, poets, and artists, the Indian culture spread into Burma in a big way; the spread of Buddhism directly from India and indirectly through Ceylon profoundly influenced all aspects of Burmese life.
If one leaves aside this glorious chapter in the history of India, the contacts with the outside world, especially during the colonial period, had been accompanied by sorrow, misery, and impoverishment. Imperialist domination made India the pivot of the British Empire and the vast reservoir of manpower were exploited to serve the colonial interests of Britain. Large armies of labourers, soldiers, clerks, and traders migrated to different parts of the Empire to serve the politico-economic interests of Britain. Few money lenders and educated people also went to those countries on their own initiative.
Indigenous and Alien Minorities
An important clue to the understanding of modern Burmese history is to keep in mind the demographic and ethnic diversity in the country. With more than 100 ethnic groups, languages, and dialects, no other country in Southeast Asia displays such a diversity. It is a veritable kaleidoscope. Historically Burma had been the buffer among the neighbouring countries of China, India, and Thailand.
More than 2,000 years of cultural interaction among various races and ethnic groups has resulted in the development of diverse ethnic settlements, residing both in the mountainous frontier zones and lowland plains. Burma has a population of 56 million, the majority Burman number nearly two-thirds. The largest minorities are Shan - 9 per cent and Karen - 7 per cent. Other indigenous minority groups include Mon, Rakhine, Chin, Kachin, Kayan, Danu, Akha, Kokang, Lahu, Rohingyia, Tavoyan, and Wa peoples. They constitute nearly 5 per cent of the population.
Until the annexation of Burma as an integral part of the Indian Empire in 1886, the country had never existed as a unified State. What is more, the British permitted many indigenous groups living in the frontier areas to have their own administrative set up. It was only after independence that the Government made attempts to integrate the various ethnic groups into one nation. The nation-building experiment was based on the language, culture, and religion of the majority Burmans. This policy was resisted by the minority groups, many of them belonging to the Christian faith. The post-independence history of Burma is full of struggles by the minority groups for autonomy and self-determination.
The Chinese and the Indians who migrated to Burma under the protective umbrella of the British rule are considered to be alien minorities, unlike the ethnic groups mentioned before, who are indigenous minorities. It may also be pointed out that the history of Myanmar is riddled with two types of struggles, one fight against the military junta for restoration of democracy and the struggle by the minorities for autonomy and self-determination. The problems of the alien minority groups Indians and the Chinese for citizenship and fair treatment have not attracted the attention that they richly deserve.
The Chinese have one advantage, compared to the Indians, though their number is less than that of the Indians, they have far greater economic clout and they own a disproportionate share of the Burmese economy. The good relations between the Peoples Republic of China (PRC) and the military junta have also led to a situation where their problems are attended to with greater sensitivity by the military rulers. According to media reports, the number of Chinese has been increasing in the country with many of them settling down in the Burmese side of the Sino-Burma border.
Indians not Homogenous
The geographical contiguity, with India sharing both land and maritime boundaries with Burma, facilitated large-scale migration of Indians into Burma. Though the term Indians encompassed all sections of people who migrated from British India, which today consists of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Nepal, the Indians were not a homogenous group. In terms of religion, there were Hindus, Moslems, Sikhs, and Christians. In terms of language, there were Bengalis, Hindi-speaking people from Bihar and Uttar Pradesh, Tamil, Telugu, and Malayalam speaking people from the former Madras Presidency and Punjabi-speaking people from Punjab. They belonged to various caste groups and were also economically stratified, the rich Chettiars, the poor Tamils, and Hindi-speaking people, and the English educated middle classes from all parts of the country.
What must be remembered is that the Burmese perception of Indians depended upon which strata of society various Indian groups occupied in the Burmese society. The Burmese had contempt for the poor Indians, who monopolised jobs such as scavenging, rickshaw pulling, and other menial jobs, which the Burmans themselves were reluctant to do. They hated the Chettiars, who lent money at exorbitant rates and gradually became absentee landlords in Lower Burma.
Social tensions began to build up when the Moslems from Bengal began to marry Burmese women, exploiting the simple traditions of the Burmese. Since Islamic law permitted polygamy, intermarriages became a common practice among the Indian Moslems. What added fuel to the fire was the fact that many of them deserted their wives when they returned to their native villages. The educated Indians, who became doctors, lawyers, teachers, and political leaders, were an object of envy and admiration and there was friendly interaction between the Indian and Burmese intelligentsia. The Burmese nationalist leaders had great admiration for leaders like Gandhiji and Nehru and the educated Indian middle classes represented the best of Indian nationalist traditions.
Indian Influx into Burma
Condemned and despised in their native villages, whether in Bengal, Bihar, United Provinces, and Madras Presidency, the Indian working classes braved the seas, provided the much needed labour to clear the swamps in Lower Burma and malaria-infested jungles and in that process also became the most exploited and vulnerable section of the Indian population. The laissez-faire policies of the British Raj and the xenophobic and ultra-nationalist policies of the governments in independent Burma have contributed to this unprecedented saga of human misery.
As the nationalist movement in Burma began to gather momentum, it also took an anti-Indian dimension. The alienation of vast tracts of agricultural land to Indian Chettiars, the Burmese entry into the labour markets following the depression of the 1930s, which was hitherto an exclusive Indian domain; the opening of the University of Rangoon and consequent turning out of Burmese graduates searching for clerical jobs; all these provided the fertilizer for the growth of anti-Indian sentiments. There were large scale riots against the Indians in the 1930s, due to social, economic, and cultural reasons. The Burmese nationalists wanted freedom not only from the British political domination but they were also equally keen to throw out the yoke of Indian economic stranglehold.
Japanese Occupation
The period of Japanese Occupation, 1942-45, was the darkest period in the history of the Indian community in Burma. The war entirely destroyed the pre-war economy and the commanding position which the Indian community enjoyed. Some Chettiars saw the writing on the wall and even before the war began they repatriated their vast wealth from the country. The majority of Indians suffered untold misery and hardship. Nearly 500,000 Indians left the country and out of these nearly half of them died on the way. Those who were left in Rangoon joined the Indian National Army in large numbers. At a later period, they also supported the Burmese demand for independence.
Introduction Of Citizenship Rules and Land Reforms
The independent Government of Burma introduced large number of progressive measures to give the land back to the tiller. These measures naturally hit the interests of Chettiars very badly. The Standard Rent Act, Tenancy Disposal Act, Agricultural Debt Relief Act, Land Nationalisation Act, Agricultural Bank Act, and Burma Foreigners Act; all these had the cumulative effect of depriving the Chettiars of their enormous wealth. No one, with a tinge of social conscience, could protest against these progressive measures. At the same time, the compensation paid to the landlords was meagre; what is more, the Chettiars found it difficult to repatriate their money into India due to stringent foreign exchange restrictions.
When the new Constitution was promulgated, it was stipulated that those who had been in continuous residence in Burma for eight out of the past ten years immediately preceding war years were eligible for citizenship. But the immediate prospects of stability in the country were so uncertain that most Indians preferred to sit on the fence and did not apply for citizenship.
Adding to the political uncertainty was the assassination of Aung San, who was generally considered to be a great friend of India and the Indian community. Only 400,000 applications were received for citizenship and out of these only 10,000 were granted Burmese citizenship. The rest were treated as aliens. When the Government introduced Burmanisation of public services in the 1950s large number of Indians employed in the railways, water transport, customs, post and telegraph, and public works and other departments were retrenched. In the 1960s under the Burmese Socialist Programme, the government even nationalized petty trade. These measures sounded the death knell of the poorer sections of the Indian community in Burma. To add insult to injury, they were not even allowed to bring back their savings to India. Women were not even allowed to take back their Mangalyasutra. The repatriates also complained of demonetization of currency notes, expropriation of properties, confiscation of valuables, and unimaginable humiliations. According to the Policy Note issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu, from June 1963 onwards, 1,44,353 Burmese repatriates have returned to India.4 What is more tragic, even after the lapse of forty-five years, the compensations due to these people have not been settled.
Annadurai's Initiative to Settle Compensation
C.N. Annadurai, who became the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu when the DMK was voted to power in the 1967 elections, was very concerned about the developments in Burma and was keen to resolve the issue of compensation expeditiously. In a conversation with the author, Thomas Abraham, then Minister Counsellor in the Indian Embassy in Rangoon, recalled his meeting with Annadurai in the Chief Minister's residence in Mambalam. The meeting was arranged through the good offices of common friends. After discussing the pros and cons of the matter, Annadurai wrote a letter to the central government suggesting that India should enter into a long term agreement with Burma for the import of rice and the compensation due to Burmese repatriates could be adjusted in the proposed deal. It may be recalled that during 1967 India was facing an acute crisis in food grains. On his return to Rangoon, Thomas Abraham also made a similar proposal to the Ministry of External Affairs. It is unfortunate, but true, that these concrete proposals did not elicit any favourable response from New Delhi.
New Delhi's Hands off Policy Towards The Indian Community in Myanmar
The author had discussions with several Indian diplomats based in Rangoon as to why the issue of the status of the "stateless people" of Indian origin in Myanmar never figured in the bilateral discussions between the two countries. Ambassador Parthsarathy, who along with J.N. Dixit, played a big role in re-establishing cordial relations with the military junta, informed the author that after establishing good rapport with the military junta, he wanted to take up the question of stateless people and arrive at an amicable solution.
Attempts made by Ambassador T.P. Sreenivasan to kindle interest in the subject turned out to be a futile exercise. In his recently published memoirs, Words, Words, Words: Adventures in Indian Diplomacy, T.P. Sreenivasan has described the consequences of New Delhi's "hands off policy" with regard to the Indian community in Myanmar. Though the Ne Win government expelled the Indian petty traders, the authorities wanted the Indian farmers to stay back to provide continuity in rice cultivation. When Sreenivasan visited them, he found the farmers had become "totally impoverished." Their quality of life was "extremely poor." Ironically they did not have even "rice to eat" as the procurement authorities "lifted their produce wholly." They had to consume low-quality rice, which the State did not want to procure for export.[5]
Future of Indian Community in Myanmar
Two contrasting views about the prospects of the Indian community in Myanmar are given below, one by a Burmese bureaucrat and the other from the Singhvi Committee Report. Thet Lwin, who is a member of the Myanmar Academy of Arts and Science, Ministry of Education, Government of Myanmar, in a recent essay on Indians in Myanmar has presented an optimistic view. To quote Thet Lwin, "Indian presence in Burma is a historical legacy; a section of Myanmar's Indian community is engaged in business while a majority is in agriculture or in menial labour." The younger generation through education is moving fast towards integration into the mainstream Myanmar society. The rise of India has a profound impact on the image-building attempts of overseas Indians. For Myanmar Buddhists, India is the place for pilgrimage, and for those of Indian stock, it is the country of their forefathers. Culture and religious links could be strengthened by promoting tourism.[6]
Unlike the above statement, which is couched in the best diplomatic parlance, but which hides the actual reality, the comments made in the Singhvi Committee Report reflects the reality. To quote the Singhvi Committee Report, the Indians are "fairly impoverished in Myanmar," the more prosperous elements having left, following waves of nationalization and other measures which hurt their livelihood. The educational scene is pathetic. At one time, the faculty and alumni of the University of Rangoon comprised mainly of Indians. Today, "there are hardly any Indian students in the Universities," and results in a virtual extinction of a professional class. The main reason was that "between 1964 and 1988, Indians were denied admission to the Universities and professional courses."[7]
Conclusion
In early January 2010, the Pravasi Bharatiya Divas will be celebrated with great pomp and splendour. The ministers of the Central Government, the concerned government officials, and the assembled delegates will harp on the necessity to speed up the administrative procedures relating to Overseas Indian citizenship. In June 2010, the DMK government in Tamil Nadu will be organizing another equally important conference in Coimbatore on Tamil as a classical language. True to Dravidian traditions, Chief Minister Karunanidhi and his loyal lieutenants will sing paeans of praise about the greatness of Tamil Language and how Tamil culture has spread and enriched the traditions of several countries in the world. Will the delegates in these two conferences have the time to discuss about the abject living conditions of the Indian community in Myanmar, many of them Tamil-speaking people of Indian Origin? Unlikely, because New Delhi and Tamil Nadu are more keen to provide legitimacy to the authoritarian government in Myanmar. Naturally they will not like to focus on embarrassing issues, which impinge upon bilateral relations such as the plight of the unfortunate children of Mother India.
(Dr. V. Suryanarayan is Senior Professor (Retd), Centre for South and Southeast Asian Studies, University of Madras. He can be reached at e-mail suryageeth@sify.com)
Courtesy: South Asia Anaylysis Group, November 26, 2009
NOTES
1. Singhvi Committee Report, pp. xvii-xx.
2. T.P. Sreenivasan, Words, Words, Words: Adventures in Indian Diplomacy (New Delhi: Pearson Longman, 2008), p. 198.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. Sreenivasan, Words, Words, Words, pp. 195-202.
6. Thet Lwin, "Indians in Myanmar," K. Kesavapani, A. Mani, and P. Ramasamy, Eds., Rising India and Indian Communities in East Asia (Singapore: ISEAS, 2008), pp. 485-98.
7. Singhvi Committee Report, pp. 259-62.
The Indian Community in Myanmar is one of those forgotten children of Mother India. The tragic status of the community has not been sufficiently brought to light by any institution in India
The Singhvi Committee Report:
According to the Singhvi Committee Report, the total Indian population in Myanmar is estimated to be 2.9 million, of which 2,500,00 are People of Indian Origin (PIO), 2,000 are Indian citizens, and 400,000 are stateless.[1] Regarding the Stateless category, it must be mentioned that all of them are born in Myanmar, they belong to the third or fourth generation. But since they do not have any documents to prove their citizenship under the Burmese citizenship law of 1982 they are deemed to be "stateless."[2] As T. P. Sreenivasan, former Indian Ambassador to Myanmar has pointed out "they had no rights either in the land of their origin or in their land of adoption, and neither the two governments seemed concerned."[3] In fact, of the Indian diaspora, Myanmar has the largest number of "stateless" people.
History:
Historically, like other parts of Southeast Asia, Burma came under the spell of Indian cultural influences. Thanks to priests, princes, poets, and artists, the Indian culture spread into Burma in a big way; the spread of Buddhism directly from India and indirectly through Ceylon profoundly influenced all aspects of Burmese life.
If one leaves aside this glorious chapter in the history of India, the contacts with the outside world, especially during the colonial period, had been accompanied by sorrow, misery, and impoverishment. Imperialist domination made India the pivot of the British Empire and the vast reservoir of manpower were exploited to serve the colonial interests of Britain. Large armies of labourers, soldiers, clerks, and traders migrated to different parts of the Empire to serve the politico-economic interests of Britain. Few money lenders and educated people also went to those countries on their own initiative.
Indigenous and Alien Minorities
An important clue to the understanding of modern Burmese history is to keep in mind the demographic and ethnic diversity in the country. With more than 100 ethnic groups, languages, and dialects, no other country in Southeast Asia displays such a diversity. It is a veritable kaleidoscope. Historically Burma had been the buffer among the neighbouring countries of China, India, and Thailand.
More than 2,000 years of cultural interaction among various races and ethnic groups has resulted in the development of diverse ethnic settlements, residing both in the mountainous frontier zones and lowland plains. Burma has a population of 56 million, the majority Burman number nearly two-thirds. The largest minorities are Shan - 9 per cent and Karen - 7 per cent. Other indigenous minority groups include Mon, Rakhine, Chin, Kachin, Kayan, Danu, Akha, Kokang, Lahu, Rohingyia, Tavoyan, and Wa peoples. They constitute nearly 5 per cent of the population.
Until the annexation of Burma as an integral part of the Indian Empire in 1886, the country had never existed as a unified State. What is more, the British permitted many indigenous groups living in the frontier areas to have their own administrative set up. It was only after independence that the Government made attempts to integrate the various ethnic groups into one nation. The nation-building experiment was based on the language, culture, and religion of the majority Burmans. This policy was resisted by the minority groups, many of them belonging to the Christian faith. The post-independence history of Burma is full of struggles by the minority groups for autonomy and self-determination.
The Chinese and the Indians who migrated to Burma under the protective umbrella of the British rule are considered to be alien minorities, unlike the ethnic groups mentioned before, who are indigenous minorities. It may also be pointed out that the history of Myanmar is riddled with two types of struggles, one fight against the military junta for restoration of democracy and the struggle by the minorities for autonomy and self-determination. The problems of the alien minority groups Indians and the Chinese for citizenship and fair treatment have not attracted the attention that they richly deserve.
The Chinese have one advantage, compared to the Indians, though their number is less than that of the Indians, they have far greater economic clout and they own a disproportionate share of the Burmese economy. The good relations between the Peoples Republic of China (PRC) and the military junta have also led to a situation where their problems are attended to with greater sensitivity by the military rulers. According to media reports, the number of Chinese has been increasing in the country with many of them settling down in the Burmese side of the Sino-Burma border.
Indians not Homogenous
The geographical contiguity, with India sharing both land and maritime boundaries with Burma, facilitated large-scale migration of Indians into Burma. Though the term Indians encompassed all sections of people who migrated from British India, which today consists of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Nepal, the Indians were not a homogenous group. In terms of religion, there were Hindus, Moslems, Sikhs, and Christians. In terms of language, there were Bengalis, Hindi-speaking people from Bihar and Uttar Pradesh, Tamil, Telugu, and Malayalam speaking people from the former Madras Presidency and Punjabi-speaking people from Punjab. They belonged to various caste groups and were also economically stratified, the rich Chettiars, the poor Tamils, and Hindi-speaking people, and the English educated middle classes from all parts of the country.
What must be remembered is that the Burmese perception of Indians depended upon which strata of society various Indian groups occupied in the Burmese society. The Burmese had contempt for the poor Indians, who monopolised jobs such as scavenging, rickshaw pulling, and other menial jobs, which the Burmans themselves were reluctant to do. They hated the Chettiars, who lent money at exorbitant rates and gradually became absentee landlords in Lower Burma.
Social tensions began to build up when the Moslems from Bengal began to marry Burmese women, exploiting the simple traditions of the Burmese. Since Islamic law permitted polygamy, intermarriages became a common practice among the Indian Moslems. What added fuel to the fire was the fact that many of them deserted their wives when they returned to their native villages. The educated Indians, who became doctors, lawyers, teachers, and political leaders, were an object of envy and admiration and there was friendly interaction between the Indian and Burmese intelligentsia. The Burmese nationalist leaders had great admiration for leaders like Gandhiji and Nehru and the educated Indian middle classes represented the best of Indian nationalist traditions.
Indian Influx into Burma
Condemned and despised in their native villages, whether in Bengal, Bihar, United Provinces, and Madras Presidency, the Indian working classes braved the seas, provided the much needed labour to clear the swamps in Lower Burma and malaria-infested jungles and in that process also became the most exploited and vulnerable section of the Indian population. The laissez-faire policies of the British Raj and the xenophobic and ultra-nationalist policies of the governments in independent Burma have contributed to this unprecedented saga of human misery.
As the nationalist movement in Burma began to gather momentum, it also took an anti-Indian dimension. The alienation of vast tracts of agricultural land to Indian Chettiars, the Burmese entry into the labour markets following the depression of the 1930s, which was hitherto an exclusive Indian domain; the opening of the University of Rangoon and consequent turning out of Burmese graduates searching for clerical jobs; all these provided the fertilizer for the growth of anti-Indian sentiments. There were large scale riots against the Indians in the 1930s, due to social, economic, and cultural reasons. The Burmese nationalists wanted freedom not only from the British political domination but they were also equally keen to throw out the yoke of Indian economic stranglehold.
Japanese Occupation
The period of Japanese Occupation, 1942-45, was the darkest period in the history of the Indian community in Burma. The war entirely destroyed the pre-war economy and the commanding position which the Indian community enjoyed. Some Chettiars saw the writing on the wall and even before the war began they repatriated their vast wealth from the country. The majority of Indians suffered untold misery and hardship. Nearly 500,000 Indians left the country and out of these nearly half of them died on the way. Those who were left in Rangoon joined the Indian National Army in large numbers. At a later period, they also supported the Burmese demand for independence.
Introduction Of Citizenship Rules and Land Reforms
The independent Government of Burma introduced large number of progressive measures to give the land back to the tiller. These measures naturally hit the interests of Chettiars very badly. The Standard Rent Act, Tenancy Disposal Act, Agricultural Debt Relief Act, Land Nationalisation Act, Agricultural Bank Act, and Burma Foreigners Act; all these had the cumulative effect of depriving the Chettiars of their enormous wealth. No one, with a tinge of social conscience, could protest against these progressive measures. At the same time, the compensation paid to the landlords was meagre; what is more, the Chettiars found it difficult to repatriate their money into India due to stringent foreign exchange restrictions.
When the new Constitution was promulgated, it was stipulated that those who had been in continuous residence in Burma for eight out of the past ten years immediately preceding war years were eligible for citizenship. But the immediate prospects of stability in the country were so uncertain that most Indians preferred to sit on the fence and did not apply for citizenship.
Adding to the political uncertainty was the assassination of Aung San, who was generally considered to be a great friend of India and the Indian community. Only 400,000 applications were received for citizenship and out of these only 10,000 were granted Burmese citizenship. The rest were treated as aliens. When the Government introduced Burmanisation of public services in the 1950s large number of Indians employed in the railways, water transport, customs, post and telegraph, and public works and other departments were retrenched. In the 1960s under the Burmese Socialist Programme, the government even nationalized petty trade. These measures sounded the death knell of the poorer sections of the Indian community in Burma. To add insult to injury, they were not even allowed to bring back their savings to India. Women were not even allowed to take back their Mangalyasutra. The repatriates also complained of demonetization of currency notes, expropriation of properties, confiscation of valuables, and unimaginable humiliations. According to the Policy Note issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu, from June 1963 onwards, 1,44,353 Burmese repatriates have returned to India.4 What is more tragic, even after the lapse of forty-five years, the compensations due to these people have not been settled.
Annadurai's Initiative to Settle Compensation
C.N. Annadurai, who became the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu when the DMK was voted to power in the 1967 elections, was very concerned about the developments in Burma and was keen to resolve the issue of compensation expeditiously. In a conversation with the author, Thomas Abraham, then Minister Counsellor in the Indian Embassy in Rangoon, recalled his meeting with Annadurai in the Chief Minister's residence in Mambalam. The meeting was arranged through the good offices of common friends. After discussing the pros and cons of the matter, Annadurai wrote a letter to the central government suggesting that India should enter into a long term agreement with Burma for the import of rice and the compensation due to Burmese repatriates could be adjusted in the proposed deal. It may be recalled that during 1967 India was facing an acute crisis in food grains. On his return to Rangoon, Thomas Abraham also made a similar proposal to the Ministry of External Affairs. It is unfortunate, but true, that these concrete proposals did not elicit any favourable response from New Delhi.
New Delhi's Hands off Policy Towards The Indian Community in Myanmar
The author had discussions with several Indian diplomats based in Rangoon as to why the issue of the status of the "stateless people" of Indian origin in Myanmar never figured in the bilateral discussions between the two countries. Ambassador Parthsarathy, who along with J.N. Dixit, played a big role in re-establishing cordial relations with the military junta, informed the author that after establishing good rapport with the military junta, he wanted to take up the question of stateless people and arrive at an amicable solution.
Attempts made by Ambassador T.P. Sreenivasan to kindle interest in the subject turned out to be a futile exercise. In his recently published memoirs, Words, Words, Words: Adventures in Indian Diplomacy, T.P. Sreenivasan has described the consequences of New Delhi's "hands off policy" with regard to the Indian community in Myanmar. Though the Ne Win government expelled the Indian petty traders, the authorities wanted the Indian farmers to stay back to provide continuity in rice cultivation. When Sreenivasan visited them, he found the farmers had become "totally impoverished." Their quality of life was "extremely poor." Ironically they did not have even "rice to eat" as the procurement authorities "lifted their produce wholly." They had to consume low-quality rice, which the State did not want to procure for export.[5]
Future of Indian Community in Myanmar
Two contrasting views about the prospects of the Indian community in Myanmar are given below, one by a Burmese bureaucrat and the other from the Singhvi Committee Report. Thet Lwin, who is a member of the Myanmar Academy of Arts and Science, Ministry of Education, Government of Myanmar, in a recent essay on Indians in Myanmar has presented an optimistic view. To quote Thet Lwin, "Indian presence in Burma is a historical legacy; a section of Myanmar's Indian community is engaged in business while a majority is in agriculture or in menial labour." The younger generation through education is moving fast towards integration into the mainstream Myanmar society. The rise of India has a profound impact on the image-building attempts of overseas Indians. For Myanmar Buddhists, India is the place for pilgrimage, and for those of Indian stock, it is the country of their forefathers. Culture and religious links could be strengthened by promoting tourism.[6]
Unlike the above statement, which is couched in the best diplomatic parlance, but which hides the actual reality, the comments made in the Singhvi Committee Report reflects the reality. To quote the Singhvi Committee Report, the Indians are "fairly impoverished in Myanmar," the more prosperous elements having left, following waves of nationalization and other measures which hurt their livelihood. The educational scene is pathetic. At one time, the faculty and alumni of the University of Rangoon comprised mainly of Indians. Today, "there are hardly any Indian students in the Universities," and results in a virtual extinction of a professional class. The main reason was that "between 1964 and 1988, Indians were denied admission to the Universities and professional courses."[7]
Conclusion
In early January 2010, the Pravasi Bharatiya Divas will be celebrated with great pomp and splendour. The ministers of the Central Government, the concerned government officials, and the assembled delegates will harp on the necessity to speed up the administrative procedures relating to Overseas Indian citizenship. In June 2010, the DMK government in Tamil Nadu will be organizing another equally important conference in Coimbatore on Tamil as a classical language. True to Dravidian traditions, Chief Minister Karunanidhi and his loyal lieutenants will sing paeans of praise about the greatness of Tamil Language and how Tamil culture has spread and enriched the traditions of several countries in the world. Will the delegates in these two conferences have the time to discuss about the abject living conditions of the Indian community in Myanmar, many of them Tamil-speaking people of Indian Origin? Unlikely, because New Delhi and Tamil Nadu are more keen to provide legitimacy to the authoritarian government in Myanmar. Naturally they will not like to focus on embarrassing issues, which impinge upon bilateral relations such as the plight of the unfortunate children of Mother India.
(Dr. V. Suryanarayan is Senior Professor (Retd), Centre for South and Southeast Asian Studies, University of Madras. He can be reached at e-mail suryageeth@sify.com)
Courtesy: South Asia Anaylysis Group, November 26, 2009
NOTES
1. Singhvi Committee Report, pp. xvii-xx.
2. T.P. Sreenivasan, Words, Words, Words: Adventures in Indian Diplomacy (New Delhi: Pearson Longman, 2008), p. 198.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. Sreenivasan, Words, Words, Words, pp. 195-202.
6. Thet Lwin, "Indians in Myanmar," K. Kesavapani, A. Mani, and P. Ramasamy, Eds., Rising India and Indian Communities in East Asia (Singapore: ISEAS, 2008), pp. 485-98.
7. Singhvi Committee Report, pp. 259-62.
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Dalai Lama's visit to Tawang and its fall out
The Dalai Lama's recent visit to Tawang came at a time when Sino-Indian relations had touched a new low. The Chinese double speak on its relations with India came to a boil when it objected to Prime Minister Man Mohan Singh, visiting Arunachal Pradesh, a state of India, because the Chinese have been claiming it as part of India.
Although India tried to play down the issue, the Chinese appear to have decided to further embarrass the Indian leadership with a lot of proxy sabre rattling. But Indian leadership for a change appear to have had enough of this. The Prime Minister made it clear that the Dalai Lama was an honoured guest and spiritual leader and India would not stop him from visiting Arunachal Pradesh and Tawang.
Claude Arpi, well known friend of Tibet, and an expert familiar with the issues and the region has analysed the fall out of Dalai Lama's visit to Tawang in his own inimitable way. His article 'Sun shines in Tawang' published in the op-ed column of Pioneer on November 25, 2009 is reproduced here with the newspaper's courtesy for your reading.
Sun shines in Tawang
Claude Arpi
[The Dalai Lama’s visit to Arunachal Pradesh was a huge success, showcasing his popularity and his message of peace. India did well to ignore China’s protests by re-asserting its sovereignty over this State. Let Beijing grumble, we need not be bothered about Chinese indignation]
Despite Chinese protests, the Government of India cleared the Dalai Lama’s visit to Tawang, allowing him to travel to Arunachal Pradesh where he received a tumultuous welcome. What lessons can we draw from this event which has been extensively covered by the national media?
First, though the visit has ‘upset’ the Chinese, nothing dramatic has happened. Most of the so-called Indian experts who are regularly taken for lavish trips to China had predicted that hell would break loose if the Dalai Lama were permitted to go to Tawang. Nothing like that has happened. On the contrary, as the Times of India reported, “China tried to be deliberately subdued… The Chinese Foreign Ministry restricted itself to expressing strong dissatisfaction with India on the issue.”
For India, it has been an occasion to discover that even if the Chinese are ‘upset’ it is not the end of the world. This has apparently percolated to the Government’s psyche; the media and the people are also gradually becoming aware of it.
Till recently, if India opened an airport or had to send troops to its northern frontier or if the Prime Minister had to visit Arunachal Pradesh, the Chinese would inevitably be ‘upset’. But if India dared to say anything about infrastructure projects in Tibet or about Beijing’s plans to built huge dams on the Brahmaputra, the Chinese spokesman would immediately state, “Please, it is our internal affair, don’t interfere.”
This constant rage is not healthy; the Chinese leaders have a serious problem. Could someone suggest to them to take some lessons in vipasana and equanimity from a Buddhist teacher?
While it is good that India always maintains its proverbial calm and practices samata, usually at the end of the day the Government vacillates under Chinese pressure. This time, it remained firm; it did not budge under veiled threats or melt under sweet smiles.
Unyielding under pressure, New Delhi has reiterated its decade-old position on the border issue. It was enunciated in 1959 by Jawaharlal Nehru in a letter to Zhou Enlai, his Chinese counterpart. Nehru wrote: “Contrary to what has been reported to you, this (McMahon) Line was, in fact, drawn at a Tripartite Conference held at Simla in 1913-1914 between the Plenipotentiaries of the Governments of China, Tibet and India. At the time of acceptance of the delineation of this frontier, Lonchen Shatra, the Tibetan Plenipotentiary, in letters exchanged, stated explicitly that he had received orders from Lhasa to agree to the boundary as marked on the map appended to the Convention. The Line was drawn after full discussion and was confirmed subsequently by formal exchange of letters; and there is nothing to indicate that the Tibetan authorities were in any way dissatisfied with the agreed boundary.”
It may seem strange today, but Zhou Enlai had told Nehru in 1957 that he had no objection to the McMahon Line (he just did not like the British connotation of the name), but that the Tibetans were unhappy about it. Nehru rightly pointed out: “There is no mention of any Chinese reservation in respect of the India-Tibet frontier either during the discussions or at the time of their initialling the Convention (in 1914).”
Nehru reminded Zhou Enlai: “In our previous discussions and particularly during your visit to India in January1957, we were gratified to note that you were prepared to accept this line as representing the frontier between China and India in this region and I hope that we shall reach an understanding on this basis.”
It is much later that the Chinese, wanting a bargaining chip to legalise their occupation of Aksai Chin, decided to play the ‘Tawang card’ and started clamouring about Arunachal Pradesh. For a time, they even argued that the residents of Arunachal Pradesh did not need Chinese visas to ‘visit their own motherland’.
By allowing the Dalai Lama to visit Tawang, New Delhi has made clear its position on the border. It will be greatly helpful when Special Representatives MK Narayanan and his Chinese counterpart Dai Bingguo meet the next time.
But there is another lesson from the visit: It has demonstrated the magnitude of the popularity of the Tibetan leader among the Himalayan people. People not only from the North-East, but also from Ladakh, Lahaul, Spiti, Kinnaur and Sikkim often feel (rightly or wrongly) that they are second class citizens in India. This sentiment has been prevailing for a long time and is accentuated by Delhi-centric policies which have often ignored the feelings of these people.
By agreeing to let the Tibetan leader visit Arunachal Pradesh, the Government has offered a wonderful gift to the local people. Can you imagine the entire population of a district stopping all activities for four days to listen to a leader preaching the tenets of their own culture? The Dalai Lama’s words resonated in the ears of each person who had come to hear him speaking about their Buddhist roots.
On the last day, a friend sent me a message: “His Holiness left for Itanagar this morning; almost everyone was crying. A Monpa housewife said, ‘This could be the last time that we are getting his blessing.’ Guruji’s visit to Tawang is always made difficult. Look at the weather now; there is no sun today, how sunny and pleasant it was yesterday and the previous days when he was here!”
The Chinese leadership always speaks of the ‘masses’, but does the totalitarian regime in Beijing have the faintest idea of what the word means? To convince US President Barack Obama about China’s claim to Tibet, Beijing now compares the 1959 Communist takeover of the area to the American Civil War. The inferrence, to quote a Reuters despatch, is that “Mao freed Tibetans from slavery”.
China’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang said that Mr Obama should understand China’s Tibet policy better: “He is a Black President and he understands the slavery abolition movement. In 1959, China abolished the feudal serf system (in Tibet) just as President Lincoln freed the Black slaves.” Despite Beijing’s lame arguments, the masses have shown where their hearts turn to for solace and advice.
While the media was busy covering the Dalai Lama’s visit to Tawang, not far away, in Gangtok several Tibetan and Sikkimese NGOs organised a ‘Tibet Festival’. Incredible crowds thronged the venue. The opening ceremony was attended by no less than three Ministers of the Chamling Government and on the last day, the Chief Minister personally declared the festival closed.
While Tibetan culture is being erased in Tibet, there is a cultural renaissance in the Himalayan belt. It is mainly due to the presence of the Dalai Lama in India who for the past 50 years has been teaching tolerance and non-violence. One can imagine what would happen if the Dalai Lama were allowed to cross the McMahon Line and visit his native land.
Courtesy: http://www.dailypioneer.com/218170/Sun-shines-in-Tawang.html
Although India tried to play down the issue, the Chinese appear to have decided to further embarrass the Indian leadership with a lot of proxy sabre rattling. But Indian leadership for a change appear to have had enough of this. The Prime Minister made it clear that the Dalai Lama was an honoured guest and spiritual leader and India would not stop him from visiting Arunachal Pradesh and Tawang.
Claude Arpi, well known friend of Tibet, and an expert familiar with the issues and the region has analysed the fall out of Dalai Lama's visit to Tawang in his own inimitable way. His article 'Sun shines in Tawang' published in the op-ed column of Pioneer on November 25, 2009 is reproduced here with the newspaper's courtesy for your reading.
Sun shines in Tawang
Claude Arpi
[The Dalai Lama’s visit to Arunachal Pradesh was a huge success, showcasing his popularity and his message of peace. India did well to ignore China’s protests by re-asserting its sovereignty over this State. Let Beijing grumble, we need not be bothered about Chinese indignation]
Despite Chinese protests, the Government of India cleared the Dalai Lama’s visit to Tawang, allowing him to travel to Arunachal Pradesh where he received a tumultuous welcome. What lessons can we draw from this event which has been extensively covered by the national media?
First, though the visit has ‘upset’ the Chinese, nothing dramatic has happened. Most of the so-called Indian experts who are regularly taken for lavish trips to China had predicted that hell would break loose if the Dalai Lama were permitted to go to Tawang. Nothing like that has happened. On the contrary, as the Times of India reported, “China tried to be deliberately subdued… The Chinese Foreign Ministry restricted itself to expressing strong dissatisfaction with India on the issue.”
For India, it has been an occasion to discover that even if the Chinese are ‘upset’ it is not the end of the world. This has apparently percolated to the Government’s psyche; the media and the people are also gradually becoming aware of it.
Till recently, if India opened an airport or had to send troops to its northern frontier or if the Prime Minister had to visit Arunachal Pradesh, the Chinese would inevitably be ‘upset’. But if India dared to say anything about infrastructure projects in Tibet or about Beijing’s plans to built huge dams on the Brahmaputra, the Chinese spokesman would immediately state, “Please, it is our internal affair, don’t interfere.”
This constant rage is not healthy; the Chinese leaders have a serious problem. Could someone suggest to them to take some lessons in vipasana and equanimity from a Buddhist teacher?
While it is good that India always maintains its proverbial calm and practices samata, usually at the end of the day the Government vacillates under Chinese pressure. This time, it remained firm; it did not budge under veiled threats or melt under sweet smiles.
Unyielding under pressure, New Delhi has reiterated its decade-old position on the border issue. It was enunciated in 1959 by Jawaharlal Nehru in a letter to Zhou Enlai, his Chinese counterpart. Nehru wrote: “Contrary to what has been reported to you, this (McMahon) Line was, in fact, drawn at a Tripartite Conference held at Simla in 1913-1914 between the Plenipotentiaries of the Governments of China, Tibet and India. At the time of acceptance of the delineation of this frontier, Lonchen Shatra, the Tibetan Plenipotentiary, in letters exchanged, stated explicitly that he had received orders from Lhasa to agree to the boundary as marked on the map appended to the Convention. The Line was drawn after full discussion and was confirmed subsequently by formal exchange of letters; and there is nothing to indicate that the Tibetan authorities were in any way dissatisfied with the agreed boundary.”
It may seem strange today, but Zhou Enlai had told Nehru in 1957 that he had no objection to the McMahon Line (he just did not like the British connotation of the name), but that the Tibetans were unhappy about it. Nehru rightly pointed out: “There is no mention of any Chinese reservation in respect of the India-Tibet frontier either during the discussions or at the time of their initialling the Convention (in 1914).”
Nehru reminded Zhou Enlai: “In our previous discussions and particularly during your visit to India in January1957, we were gratified to note that you were prepared to accept this line as representing the frontier between China and India in this region and I hope that we shall reach an understanding on this basis.”
It is much later that the Chinese, wanting a bargaining chip to legalise their occupation of Aksai Chin, decided to play the ‘Tawang card’ and started clamouring about Arunachal Pradesh. For a time, they even argued that the residents of Arunachal Pradesh did not need Chinese visas to ‘visit their own motherland’.
By allowing the Dalai Lama to visit Tawang, New Delhi has made clear its position on the border. It will be greatly helpful when Special Representatives MK Narayanan and his Chinese counterpart Dai Bingguo meet the next time.
But there is another lesson from the visit: It has demonstrated the magnitude of the popularity of the Tibetan leader among the Himalayan people. People not only from the North-East, but also from Ladakh, Lahaul, Spiti, Kinnaur and Sikkim often feel (rightly or wrongly) that they are second class citizens in India. This sentiment has been prevailing for a long time and is accentuated by Delhi-centric policies which have often ignored the feelings of these people.
By agreeing to let the Tibetan leader visit Arunachal Pradesh, the Government has offered a wonderful gift to the local people. Can you imagine the entire population of a district stopping all activities for four days to listen to a leader preaching the tenets of their own culture? The Dalai Lama’s words resonated in the ears of each person who had come to hear him speaking about their Buddhist roots.
On the last day, a friend sent me a message: “His Holiness left for Itanagar this morning; almost everyone was crying. A Monpa housewife said, ‘This could be the last time that we are getting his blessing.’ Guruji’s visit to Tawang is always made difficult. Look at the weather now; there is no sun today, how sunny and pleasant it was yesterday and the previous days when he was here!”
The Chinese leadership always speaks of the ‘masses’, but does the totalitarian regime in Beijing have the faintest idea of what the word means? To convince US President Barack Obama about China’s claim to Tibet, Beijing now compares the 1959 Communist takeover of the area to the American Civil War. The inferrence, to quote a Reuters despatch, is that “Mao freed Tibetans from slavery”.
China’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang said that Mr Obama should understand China’s Tibet policy better: “He is a Black President and he understands the slavery abolition movement. In 1959, China abolished the feudal serf system (in Tibet) just as President Lincoln freed the Black slaves.” Despite Beijing’s lame arguments, the masses have shown where their hearts turn to for solace and advice.
While the media was busy covering the Dalai Lama’s visit to Tawang, not far away, in Gangtok several Tibetan and Sikkimese NGOs organised a ‘Tibet Festival’. Incredible crowds thronged the venue. The opening ceremony was attended by no less than three Ministers of the Chamling Government and on the last day, the Chief Minister personally declared the festival closed.
While Tibetan culture is being erased in Tibet, there is a cultural renaissance in the Himalayan belt. It is mainly due to the presence of the Dalai Lama in India who for the past 50 years has been teaching tolerance and non-violence. One can imagine what would happen if the Dalai Lama were allowed to cross the McMahon Line and visit his native land.
Courtesy: http://www.dailypioneer.com/218170/Sun-shines-in-Tawang.html
Indian Navy gains international recogntion for fighting piracy
The London-based UN agency, International Maritime Organisation (IMO), has awarded a special 'Certificate of Commendation' to the Indian navy in appreciation of its role in fighting pirates in the Gulf of Aden, forces.
Indian Navy had deployed 12 ships off the coast of Somalia till July 2009. Indian Naval ships have escorted about 700 merchant ships, including 600 foreign-flagged vessels from over 45 countries, during anti-piracy patrols in the Gulf of Aden since October 2008.
Commodore P K Banerjee, Naval Adviser in London and also the commanding officer of INS TABAR one of the warships that took part in international anti-piracy patrols received the award from E E Mitropoulos, IMO Secretary General at a ceremony held in London.
Nalin Surie, the High Commissioner of India to UK, Georg Boomgaarden, Ambassador of the Federal Republic of Germany and President of IMO Assembly, were among dignitaries present on the occasion.
The award ceremony coincided with the inauguration of the 26th Regular Session of the IMO Assembly in London.
Indian Navy had deployed 12 ships off the coast of Somalia till July 2009. Indian Naval ships have escorted about 700 merchant ships, including 600 foreign-flagged vessels from over 45 countries, during anti-piracy patrols in the Gulf of Aden since October 2008.
Commodore P K Banerjee, Naval Adviser in London and also the commanding officer of INS TABAR one of the warships that took part in international anti-piracy patrols received the award from E E Mitropoulos, IMO Secretary General at a ceremony held in London.
Nalin Surie, the High Commissioner of India to UK, Georg Boomgaarden, Ambassador of the Federal Republic of Germany and President of IMO Assembly, were among dignitaries present on the occasion.
The award ceremony coincided with the inauguration of the 26th Regular Session of the IMO Assembly in London.
ARMISTICE DAY, POPPY DAY AND ARMED FORCES FLAG DAY
By Lt Col Sundar*
Strangely the nation seems to have forgotten that 07 Dec 2009 is the Sixtieth Anniversary of the Armed Forces Flag Day.
Strangely too the IAS babus are still talking not about `observing' the Armed Forces Flag Day but, God forbid, about `celebrating' it. They seem to be blissfully unaware of the connotation and take it as a chance to collect money from the public.
The Chennai edition of Daily Thanthi (Tamil) dated 26 Nov 2009, carries a photograph of the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Mr. M Karunanidhi contributing to the `Flag Day' with the Chennai Collector Ms. Shobana standing nearby. The caption says that the contribution is for the `national unity and religious understanding flag day'.
They seem to have forgotten the Armed Forces!! That is `their' way of denigrating `us'.
After the cessation of World War I, the miseries of innumerable deaths and incalculable destruction of properties also came to an end. Relieved of the hardships endured for years through the war, people decided to celebrate the end of the horrific war. Thus they came up with the idea of `Armistice Day' which was to be celebrated on the 11 November each year all over the word. The word Armistice, derived from Latin means truce or stoppage of war.
Legend has it that around Armistice day people noticed a large number of poppy plants with blooming flowers over the burial grounds of the soldiers who had laid down their lives during the war. Hence, the day was also called `Poppy Day'. On this day token paper poppies were sold to the public and the amount so collected was used for the welfare of the war veterans and their families.
After Independence the Defence Committee of the Cabinet took a landmark decision on 28 August 1949 to observe (instead of celebrate) Armed Forces Flag Day (instead of Poppy Day) on 07 December (instead of 11 November) each year. From then onwards 7 December is being observed as the Armed Forces Flag Day in our country. Thus Armed Forces Flag Day is supposed to be an old and honoured annual feature of our National life for the past sixty years while the Armistice Day is being celebrated as usual in many countries on 11 November.
The Cabinet Committee with far sighted vision unambiguously enunciated the three most important aspects which signified the observance of the Armed Forces Flag Day. They are:-
• To honour the valiant dead.
• To salute the veteran brave.
• To renew the pledge with all the personnel in active service of the Armed Forces of India.
The Cabinet Committee had the great vision to encompass all the three categories of Armed Forces Personnel in their enunciation viz., those who had made the Supreme Sacrifice of their lives yesterday for the sake of our today; the living veterans who had braved the inhospitable conditions of the deserts, glaciers, air and seas for 24 X 7 throughout the year so as to enable the countrymen to sleep comfortably in their homes; and the present day men and women in uniform who continue to do what their predecessors had done for years with greater grit and determination for the sake of the Nation even at the peril of their lives.
It is not known how this Armed Forces Flag Day was observed in the early period following the decision to switch from Armistice Day to the Armed Forces Flag Day. One can confidently believe that the observance of the annual feature could have been true to the letter and spirit. Especially, it must have been so after three wars in quick succession in the sixties and early seventies.
Against this backdrop, sixty years into our Independence it would be most pertinent to ponder over the following in the present day context:
• How are the valiant dead honoured?
• How are the disabled and the retired elders of the Armed Forces and their families treated by the people of our country, particularly those who have the responsibility to look after them?
• How does the nation stand by those who maintain eternal vigil to safeguard the integrity of our Nation, regardless of their personal safety?
Slowly but surely, people are becoming alive to this reality.The reality. The stark truths are no less for being unpalatable. it would require an audacious break with the immediate past or an extraordinary paradigm changing event to alter the reality of today.
Finally, it is not important who advocates particular views. What is important is to ascertain how far the views are true and relevant to the context and who stands to gain from such views, proposals and measures.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Lt Col Sundar is the President, Tamil Nadu Ex Servicemens' Movement. E-mail: crsundar@gmail.com
Strangely the nation seems to have forgotten that 07 Dec 2009 is the Sixtieth Anniversary of the Armed Forces Flag Day.
Strangely too the IAS babus are still talking not about `observing' the Armed Forces Flag Day but, God forbid, about `celebrating' it. They seem to be blissfully unaware of the connotation and take it as a chance to collect money from the public.
The Chennai edition of Daily Thanthi (Tamil) dated 26 Nov 2009, carries a photograph of the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Mr. M Karunanidhi contributing to the `Flag Day' with the Chennai Collector Ms. Shobana standing nearby. The caption says that the contribution is for the `national unity and religious understanding flag day'.
They seem to have forgotten the Armed Forces!! That is `their' way of denigrating `us'.
After the cessation of World War I, the miseries of innumerable deaths and incalculable destruction of properties also came to an end. Relieved of the hardships endured for years through the war, people decided to celebrate the end of the horrific war. Thus they came up with the idea of `Armistice Day' which was to be celebrated on the 11 November each year all over the word. The word Armistice, derived from Latin means truce or stoppage of war.
Legend has it that around Armistice day people noticed a large number of poppy plants with blooming flowers over the burial grounds of the soldiers who had laid down their lives during the war. Hence, the day was also called `Poppy Day'. On this day token paper poppies were sold to the public and the amount so collected was used for the welfare of the war veterans and their families.
After Independence the Defence Committee of the Cabinet took a landmark decision on 28 August 1949 to observe (instead of celebrate) Armed Forces Flag Day (instead of Poppy Day) on 07 December (instead of 11 November) each year. From then onwards 7 December is being observed as the Armed Forces Flag Day in our country. Thus Armed Forces Flag Day is supposed to be an old and honoured annual feature of our National life for the past sixty years while the Armistice Day is being celebrated as usual in many countries on 11 November.
The Cabinet Committee with far sighted vision unambiguously enunciated the three most important aspects which signified the observance of the Armed Forces Flag Day. They are:-
• To honour the valiant dead.
• To salute the veteran brave.
• To renew the pledge with all the personnel in active service of the Armed Forces of India.
The Cabinet Committee had the great vision to encompass all the three categories of Armed Forces Personnel in their enunciation viz., those who had made the Supreme Sacrifice of their lives yesterday for the sake of our today; the living veterans who had braved the inhospitable conditions of the deserts, glaciers, air and seas for 24 X 7 throughout the year so as to enable the countrymen to sleep comfortably in their homes; and the present day men and women in uniform who continue to do what their predecessors had done for years with greater grit and determination for the sake of the Nation even at the peril of their lives.
It is not known how this Armed Forces Flag Day was observed in the early period following the decision to switch from Armistice Day to the Armed Forces Flag Day. One can confidently believe that the observance of the annual feature could have been true to the letter and spirit. Especially, it must have been so after three wars in quick succession in the sixties and early seventies.
Against this backdrop, sixty years into our Independence it would be most pertinent to ponder over the following in the present day context:
• How are the valiant dead honoured?
• How are the disabled and the retired elders of the Armed Forces and their families treated by the people of our country, particularly those who have the responsibility to look after them?
• How does the nation stand by those who maintain eternal vigil to safeguard the integrity of our Nation, regardless of their personal safety?
Slowly but surely, people are becoming alive to this reality.The reality. The stark truths are no less for being unpalatable. it would require an audacious break with the immediate past or an extraordinary paradigm changing event to alter the reality of today.
Finally, it is not important who advocates particular views. What is important is to ascertain how far the views are true and relevant to the context and who stands to gain from such views, proposals and measures.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Lt Col Sundar is the President, Tamil Nadu Ex Servicemens' Movement. E-mail: crsundar@gmail.com
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Sri Lanka: Comments on Gen Fonseka’s Resignation
General Sarath Fonseka, Chief of Defence Staff, and national war hero submitted his resignation letter to President Mahinda Rajapaksa on November 12. Later the Information department of the government announced the President had accepted the resignation with immediate effect.
Although the General was to retire from service from 1 December 2009, his resignation before that was not unexpected. In fact it is the successful culmination of efforts of the opposition parties to put up the General as their candidate to oppose President Rajapaksa in the presidential election likely to be held in early 2010. They had been relentlessly trying cash in on his steadily deteriorating relationship with the President ever since the war ended. The confirmation of Fonseka's political ambitions would be when he files his nomination paper for the presidential poll. This is probably only a matter of detail now as his resignation has been accepted by the President.
The General’s anguish over the treatment meted out to him is brought out the resignation letter [copy of the letter published in http://www.lankatruth.com is at annexure]. It clearly lists out the reasons for his decision.
Comments
Here are my comments on his resignation in response to specific questions raised by the media:
General Fonseka has spoken about the government alerting the Government of India on its suspicion about the Sri Lank army staging a coup. What do you think of it?
Yes, this was also reported in the Colombo media. I think after the war the huge size of the army – around 200,000 –built up for the war (General Fonseka was talking of expanding it to 300,000), coupled with the President's growing differences with the General, made the government nervous. It was more a reflection on the worsening relationship of the General with the President than on the credibility of the army.
Do you think India would have positively responded to Sri Lanka’s request for troops to control a possible coup attempt?
India has always had close relations with Sri Lanka. In the past India had responded to Sri Lanka’s requests for military support to avert possible coups. When massive protest was building up in Colombo after the signing of India-Sri Lanka Agreement in 1987, President JR Jayawardane feared the possibility of an army coup to topple him. To avert this he sought Indian assistance. India promptly sent two warships to Colombo with troops stationed on board presumably to discourage such an attempt.
President Rajapaksa has built close relations with Indian leadership. Probably he made no major move that would impact India's strategic relations with his country without consulting India.
However, this is not at all unusual in view of the strong bonds of friendship that exist between the two countries, Sri Lanka leaders have always made it a point to keep India on the information loop. Definitely India would not have been happy if the armed forces toppled the elected government of Rapaksa. Though I am not privy to the decisions of India’s Ministry of Defence, in all probablility India would have responded positively to any request for assistance from the Sri Lankan President.
What do you think of Indian reaction to General Fonseka’s resignation?
I am sure the news of his resignation would have come as no surprise to the Indian government. Thre are regular briefings between the two countries on key issues. Moreover, Indian leadership was probably briefed on such a possibility by Ranil Wickremesinghe, the leader of the main opposition party the United National Party UNP), during his recent visit to New Delhi.
After his resignation, General Fonseka is likely to be pitched against President Rajapaksa in the presidential elections. What is your comment on this?
I think the development is good for the country’s democratic polity. President Rajapaksa’s is immensely popular and wields enormous political clout. He is at present in an unassailable position. Perhaps the General is the only person who can give him a run for the money when the country goes to the presidential poll. And that could make the President to critically look back at his record rather than taking people's support for granted.
Both the President and Fonseka have been responsible in their own spheres for the success in the Eelam War. So when these two powerful candidates contest for presidency vital issues (other than the military achievement) that were ignored earlier are likely to be discussed and debated. These issues include the Tamil demand for autonomy, ethnic equity, growing unemployment and high cost of living due to inflation. This is a healthy development for the growth of democracy.
There is a fear in some quarters about military commanders occupying the highest offices in the government. What is your view on this?
I think this fear is unfounded. There are generals like Eisenhower who served the country well. On the other hand we have generals in South America, who have turned their country into dictatorships after their election. So I think it depends upon the individual leader than on his military background. We should not forget a military leader brings in qualities unique to his profession like a structured way of thinking, abilities in problem solving, hard work and refusing to be browbeaten. These are great assets in any national leader.
Lastly, in our own country we have the example of Major General BC Khanduri whose excellent performance in improving national road infrastructure as a minister in Vajapayee’s government is yet to be equaled. Later he successfully headed the Uttarakhand government as chief minister.
What would be India’s preference between Rajapaksa and Fonseka as president of Sri Lanka?
I think Rajapaksa has a better equation with Indian leadership. He is a seasoned politician who has cultivated the Indian leaders over the years. On Tamil autonomy issue he has no great differences with India, although he has pushed it down in his list of priorities for political reasons.
General Fonseka has his networking more with Indian military leadership than with political leaders. His strong views smacking of Sinhala nationalism rather than Sri Lanka nationalism makes Government of India uncomfortable. On the other hand, the UNP - his main supporter in the presidential election - has good rapport with New Delhi. In particular, the UNP leader Ranil Wickremesinghe has the ear of New Delhi and that could be an advantage for the General in putting India at ease.
But there are also political compulsions of New Delhi that condition its Sri Lanka policy. The ruling coalition’s partners from Tamil Nadu, particularly the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Karunanidhi, always have a say in shaping it. Tamil Nadu political leaders will not be happy to see Fonseka as the president. That would be an advantage for Rajapaksa by default. So overall, India would probably prefer Rajapaksa to continue as president.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annexure
GENERAL FONSEKA’S LETTER OF RESIGNATION
http://www.lankatruth.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3802:general-fonsekas-letter-of-resignation&catid=35:local&Itemid=50
His Excellency the President
Through the Secretary, Ministry of Defence,
Public Security, Law and Order
Presidential Secretariat
COLOMBO
12 November 2009
Your Excellency
REQUEST TO RETIRE FROM THE REGULAR FORCE OF THE SRI LANKA ARMY
1. I, General G S C Fonseka RWP RSP VSV USP rcds psc presently serving as the Chief of Defence Staff, was enlisted to the Ceylon Army on 05th Feb 1970 and was commissioned on the 01st June 1971. On the 6th Dec 2005 due to the trust and confident placed on me, Your Excellency was kind enough to promote me to the rank of Lieutenant General and appoint me as the Commander of the Sri Lanka Army in an era when the Country was embroiled with the menace of a bloody terrorism and was in a stalemate state after having toiled for a solution politically or otherwise for over 25 years without a success.
2. During my command of 3 years and 7 months, the Sri Lanka Army managed to eradicate the terrorist movement having apprehended an unbelievable stock of arms and munitions and decisively defeating the LTTE and its murderous leadership. which Your Excellency is obviously aware of. I would not be exaggerating to state that I was instrumental in leading the Army to this historic victory, of course with Your Excellency’s political support, which helped to materialize this heroic action. Though the field commanders, men and all members of the Army worked towards this common goal, it is with my vision, command and leadership that this yeomen task was achieved.
3. I do appreciate the fact that the Country and Your Excellency did recognize my services which led to me being promoted to the first ever serving four star general to command the Army, nevertheless the courses of action which initiated subsequently greatly depressed me which I have enumerated in the Annex hereto.
4. Considering the facts mentioned in the Annex and more, which I am privy to withhold, I am compelled to believe that Your Excellency and the Government has lost your trust and faith bestowed upon me for reasons best known to Your Excellency. Hence as the senior most serving military officer in the Country with 40 years of service, such a situation does not warrant a continuation of my duties any longer, thereby I have the honour to request that I be permitted to terminate my services and retire from the Regular Force of the Army with effect from 01st December 2009.
5. Furthermore I have the honour to request that on retirement Your Excellency would be kind enough to grant me sufficient security which includes trained combat soldiers, a suitable vehicle with sufficient protection (Bullet proof) and escort vehicles for my conveyances due to the fact that I am considered as one of the highest priority targets by the LTTE, which they are yet capable of achieving. Also, I wish to bring to Your Excellency’s kind notice that over 100 men, six escort vehicles and a bullet proof vehicle have been placed at the convenience of the former Commander of the Navy, Admiral WKJ Karannagoda. I presume that such arrangements would be made available to me, considering the threat factor I am facing, which Your Excellency is well aware of.
6. I would also wish to quote an example in the case of the former Indian Chief of Army Staff General A S Vadiya, instrumental in leading the Indian Army in Operation Blue Star against the Sheiks at the Golden Temple, Amristar in 1984, was assassinated whilst on retirement in 1986 purely in revenge of his victories achieved. I do not wish to experience a similar incident as I have already sustained serious injuries after the attempt on my life by a suicide cadre of the LTTE. Thereby, I am compelled to entrust you with my security which is requested for life.
7. Furthermore, I would like to emphasis on a statement made by me during my tenure as the Commander of the Army. In that, I mentioned my dislike to be in command forever and also I would ensure that my successor would not be burden with the task of war fighting, which I abided with. Hence, as I have already overstayed my retirement date by 4 years, I wish to proceed on retirement without further delays.
8. Forwarded for Your Excellency’s kind consideration please.
I have the honour to be
Your Excellency’s
Obedient Servant
G S C FONSEKA RWP RSP VSV USP rcds psc
General
Chief of Defence Staff
CONFIDENTIAL
Annex A
12 November 2009
FACTORS AFFECTING MY RETIREMENT FROM THE REGULAR FORCE OF THE ARMY
1. Various agencies misleading Your Excellency by stating a possible coup immediately after the victory over the LTTE which obviously led to a change of command in spite of my request to be in command until the Army celebrated its 60th Anniversary. This fear psychosis of a coup is well known among the defence circle.
2. Appointing an officer pending a disciplinary inquiry who performed duties only as a holding formation commander in the final battle as my successor, disregarding my recommendations to appoint Major General G A Chandrasiri as the Commander of the Army who was the then Chief of Staff and an officer with an exemplary service as the Security Forces Commander in Jaffna for over 3 years. This has already led to a deterioration of the high standards I was capable of introducing to the Army, to my bitter disappointment.
3. Appointing me as the Chief of Defence Staff, though a senior appointment to that of a service commander, with basically no authority, except for mere coordinating responsibilities in a manner which mislead the general public of the country and most members of the Armed Forces. In that the Secretary Defence pushing me to vacate the post of the Commander in just two weeks after the victory and Your Excellency insisting me to hand over duties in less than two months depriving me of my morel obligations in revamping the welfare and providing a sound administration to the men who fought a gallant battle.
4. Further, prior to my appointment I was mislead on the authority vested with the CDS. I was made to understand that the appointment carried more command responsibilities and authority than earlier, but subsequent to my appointment a letter by the Strategic Affairs Adviser to the Secretary Defence indicated that my appointment was purely to coordinate the services and not that of overall command. The letter is attached herewith for Your Excellency’s information. Such actions clearly defines Your Excellency’s and the Governments unwillingness to grant me with command responsibilities which leads to believe in a strong mistrust in me, which is most depressing after all what was performed to achieve war victory.
5. During a subsequent Service Commanders Meeting, the Secretary Defence was bold enough to state an unethical and uncalled statement by mentioning that "if operational control of all three services is granted to the CDS it would be very dangerous", which indeed was a loss of face to me in the presences of subordinate services commanders.
6. Your Excellency, you too made a statement at the very first security council soon after the 18th of May 09 when the battled was declared over, "that no further recruitment would be necessary" and "a strong public opinion is in the making stating that the Country is in possession of a too powerful army." It was surprising to hear such a comment from Your Excellency in spite of your repeated praise and boast of the war victory. I personally felt that Your Excellency has commenced mistrusting your own loyal Army which attained the unimaginable victory just a week ago. You again repeated the same statement even after I handed over the command. Over these comments I felt disgusted as we even insulted those who made the supreme sacrifice by such comments.
7. The present Army Commander immediately on assuming duties commenced transferring senior officers who immensely contributed to the war effort during my command tenure including those junior officers working with my wife at the Seva Vanitha Army Branch which was clearly to challenge the loyalty of officers and most discouraging to the officer corps of the Army, with a wrong signal being transmitted on my authority.
8. With a pain of mind it was noted that the same Army which gained victory for the Nation was suspected of staging a coupe and thereby alerting the Government of India once again on the 15th of October 2009, unnecessarily placing the Indian Troops on high alert. This action did tarnish the image and reputation gained by the Sri Lanka Army as a competent and professional organization who was capable of defeating a terrorist group after the Malayan Emergency, in the eyes of the World. This suspicion would have been due to the loyalty of the Sri Lanka Army towards me as its past Commander who led the Army to the historic victory.
9. During my absences from the Country (23 Oct 2009 to 5 Nov 2009) being on overseas leave, the Army Headquarters was bold enough to change the security personnel deployed at the AHQ Main Entrance and the Ministry of Defence emphasizing the withdrawal of the Sinha Regiment troops who were attached to me, as you are aware is my parent regiment and supplementing them with other regimental personnel. The Sinha Regiment troops were good enough to provide security to the Ministry of Defence for 4 years and it is surprising to note how the combat efficiency of the said troops supposed to have dropped overnight as per Secretary Defence’s opinion. Further the Sinha Regiment troops numbering a mere 4, non combatants, deployed for vehicle checking duties at the AHQ Main Entrance, were replaced by 14 armed Armoured Corps personnel, whilst a further two platoons were brought in to prevent the 4 non combat Sinha Regiment personnel performing duties, creating a mockery to the general public including to some foreign missions. This clearly indicates a questionable loyalty of troops good enough for duties for over four years purely due to the fact that the troops were from my Regiment. This also indirectly reflects mistrust on me or an indication that the persons concern wish to keep a tab on my movements and visitors to my HQ/residence which is a clear display of suspicion created on me.
10. Further on instructions of the Secretary Defence, troops from the Gajaba Regiment was brought in to the MOD complex which indicated a divide loyalty within the Army and reasons to believe that the Army now being politicized. This is being encouraged by the Army Commander too who thinks that the Armoured Corp troops should over power Sinha Regiment troops.
11. Instigating malicious and detrimental news items and rumors by interested parties including several senior government politicians which led to identify me as a traitor in spite of my personal contribution of the government to change the history of our country.
12. During my absence from the Country, an acting CDS or an officer to overlook duties was not appointed which indicates that the much spoken appointment of the CDS is unimportant to the Government and the National Security Council. If the appointment was of significant important as stated by most, it should have been imperative to appoint somebody to oversee the duties and thereby I am convinced that I have being granted with an unimportant appointment in spite of all the work done.
13. It is with sadness that I note that the ordinary Army which I toiled to transform into a highly professional outfit is now loosing its way. Increased desertions, lack of enthusiasm to enlist (A drop in enlistment rate by 50% is recorded), disciplinary problems on advocating divided commands indicates an unprofessional organization in the offing. During the last two months the members deserted are higher than the recruitment.
14.The plight of the IDPs is also a point of great concern to me. Thousands of valiant soldiers sacrificed their valuable lives to liberate these unfortunate civilians from the brutality and tyranny of the LTTE in order that they could live in an environment of freedom and democracy. Yet, today many of them are continuing to live in appalling conditions due to the lack of proper planning on the part of the government and the IDPs who have friends and relatives elsewhere in the country must be given the choice to live with them until proper demining has been done in their areas.
15.Your Excellency’s government has yet to win the peace in spite of the fact that the Army under my leadership won the war. There is no clear policy to win the hearts and minds of the Tamil people, which will surely ruin the victory, attained paving the way for yet another uprising in the future.
16. The peace dividend the whole country expected at the conclusion of the war has yet to materialize. The economic hardships faced by the people have increased while waste and corruption have reached endemic proportions; media freedom and other democratic rights continue to be curtailed. The many sacrifices the army made to end the war would not have been in vain, if we can usher in a new era of peace and prosperity to our motherland.
Courtesy: http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cnotes6%5Cnote552.html
[This is the corrected version posted on Nov 15,2009.]
Although the General was to retire from service from 1 December 2009, his resignation before that was not unexpected. In fact it is the successful culmination of efforts of the opposition parties to put up the General as their candidate to oppose President Rajapaksa in the presidential election likely to be held in early 2010. They had been relentlessly trying cash in on his steadily deteriorating relationship with the President ever since the war ended. The confirmation of Fonseka's political ambitions would be when he files his nomination paper for the presidential poll. This is probably only a matter of detail now as his resignation has been accepted by the President.
The General’s anguish over the treatment meted out to him is brought out the resignation letter [copy of the letter published in http://www.lankatruth.com is at annexure]. It clearly lists out the reasons for his decision.
Comments
Here are my comments on his resignation in response to specific questions raised by the media:
General Fonseka has spoken about the government alerting the Government of India on its suspicion about the Sri Lank army staging a coup. What do you think of it?
Yes, this was also reported in the Colombo media. I think after the war the huge size of the army – around 200,000 –built up for the war (General Fonseka was talking of expanding it to 300,000), coupled with the President's growing differences with the General, made the government nervous. It was more a reflection on the worsening relationship of the General with the President than on the credibility of the army.
Do you think India would have positively responded to Sri Lanka’s request for troops to control a possible coup attempt?
India has always had close relations with Sri Lanka. In the past India had responded to Sri Lanka’s requests for military support to avert possible coups. When massive protest was building up in Colombo after the signing of India-Sri Lanka Agreement in 1987, President JR Jayawardane feared the possibility of an army coup to topple him. To avert this he sought Indian assistance. India promptly sent two warships to Colombo with troops stationed on board presumably to discourage such an attempt.
President Rajapaksa has built close relations with Indian leadership. Probably he made no major move that would impact India's strategic relations with his country without consulting India.
However, this is not at all unusual in view of the strong bonds of friendship that exist between the two countries, Sri Lanka leaders have always made it a point to keep India on the information loop. Definitely India would not have been happy if the armed forces toppled the elected government of Rapaksa. Though I am not privy to the decisions of India’s Ministry of Defence, in all probablility India would have responded positively to any request for assistance from the Sri Lankan President.
What do you think of Indian reaction to General Fonseka’s resignation?
I am sure the news of his resignation would have come as no surprise to the Indian government. Thre are regular briefings between the two countries on key issues. Moreover, Indian leadership was probably briefed on such a possibility by Ranil Wickremesinghe, the leader of the main opposition party the United National Party UNP), during his recent visit to New Delhi.
After his resignation, General Fonseka is likely to be pitched against President Rajapaksa in the presidential elections. What is your comment on this?
I think the development is good for the country’s democratic polity. President Rajapaksa’s is immensely popular and wields enormous political clout. He is at present in an unassailable position. Perhaps the General is the only person who can give him a run for the money when the country goes to the presidential poll. And that could make the President to critically look back at his record rather than taking people's support for granted.
Both the President and Fonseka have been responsible in their own spheres for the success in the Eelam War. So when these two powerful candidates contest for presidency vital issues (other than the military achievement) that were ignored earlier are likely to be discussed and debated. These issues include the Tamil demand for autonomy, ethnic equity, growing unemployment and high cost of living due to inflation. This is a healthy development for the growth of democracy.
There is a fear in some quarters about military commanders occupying the highest offices in the government. What is your view on this?
I think this fear is unfounded. There are generals like Eisenhower who served the country well. On the other hand we have generals in South America, who have turned their country into dictatorships after their election. So I think it depends upon the individual leader than on his military background. We should not forget a military leader brings in qualities unique to his profession like a structured way of thinking, abilities in problem solving, hard work and refusing to be browbeaten. These are great assets in any national leader.
Lastly, in our own country we have the example of Major General BC Khanduri whose excellent performance in improving national road infrastructure as a minister in Vajapayee’s government is yet to be equaled. Later he successfully headed the Uttarakhand government as chief minister.
What would be India’s preference between Rajapaksa and Fonseka as president of Sri Lanka?
I think Rajapaksa has a better equation with Indian leadership. He is a seasoned politician who has cultivated the Indian leaders over the years. On Tamil autonomy issue he has no great differences with India, although he has pushed it down in his list of priorities for political reasons.
General Fonseka has his networking more with Indian military leadership than with political leaders. His strong views smacking of Sinhala nationalism rather than Sri Lanka nationalism makes Government of India uncomfortable. On the other hand, the UNP - his main supporter in the presidential election - has good rapport with New Delhi. In particular, the UNP leader Ranil Wickremesinghe has the ear of New Delhi and that could be an advantage for the General in putting India at ease.
But there are also political compulsions of New Delhi that condition its Sri Lanka policy. The ruling coalition’s partners from Tamil Nadu, particularly the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Karunanidhi, always have a say in shaping it. Tamil Nadu political leaders will not be happy to see Fonseka as the president. That would be an advantage for Rajapaksa by default. So overall, India would probably prefer Rajapaksa to continue as president.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annexure
GENERAL FONSEKA’S LETTER OF RESIGNATION
http://www.lankatruth.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3802:general-fonsekas-letter-of-resignation&catid=35:local&Itemid=50
His Excellency the President
Through the Secretary, Ministry of Defence,
Public Security, Law and Order
Presidential Secretariat
COLOMBO
12 November 2009
Your Excellency
REQUEST TO RETIRE FROM THE REGULAR FORCE OF THE SRI LANKA ARMY
1. I, General G S C Fonseka RWP RSP VSV USP rcds psc presently serving as the Chief of Defence Staff, was enlisted to the Ceylon Army on 05th Feb 1970 and was commissioned on the 01st June 1971. On the 6th Dec 2005 due to the trust and confident placed on me, Your Excellency was kind enough to promote me to the rank of Lieutenant General and appoint me as the Commander of the Sri Lanka Army in an era when the Country was embroiled with the menace of a bloody terrorism and was in a stalemate state after having toiled for a solution politically or otherwise for over 25 years without a success.
2. During my command of 3 years and 7 months, the Sri Lanka Army managed to eradicate the terrorist movement having apprehended an unbelievable stock of arms and munitions and decisively defeating the LTTE and its murderous leadership. which Your Excellency is obviously aware of. I would not be exaggerating to state that I was instrumental in leading the Army to this historic victory, of course with Your Excellency’s political support, which helped to materialize this heroic action. Though the field commanders, men and all members of the Army worked towards this common goal, it is with my vision, command and leadership that this yeomen task was achieved.
3. I do appreciate the fact that the Country and Your Excellency did recognize my services which led to me being promoted to the first ever serving four star general to command the Army, nevertheless the courses of action which initiated subsequently greatly depressed me which I have enumerated in the Annex hereto.
4. Considering the facts mentioned in the Annex and more, which I am privy to withhold, I am compelled to believe that Your Excellency and the Government has lost your trust and faith bestowed upon me for reasons best known to Your Excellency. Hence as the senior most serving military officer in the Country with 40 years of service, such a situation does not warrant a continuation of my duties any longer, thereby I have the honour to request that I be permitted to terminate my services and retire from the Regular Force of the Army with effect from 01st December 2009.
5. Furthermore I have the honour to request that on retirement Your Excellency would be kind enough to grant me sufficient security which includes trained combat soldiers, a suitable vehicle with sufficient protection (Bullet proof) and escort vehicles for my conveyances due to the fact that I am considered as one of the highest priority targets by the LTTE, which they are yet capable of achieving. Also, I wish to bring to Your Excellency’s kind notice that over 100 men, six escort vehicles and a bullet proof vehicle have been placed at the convenience of the former Commander of the Navy, Admiral WKJ Karannagoda. I presume that such arrangements would be made available to me, considering the threat factor I am facing, which Your Excellency is well aware of.
6. I would also wish to quote an example in the case of the former Indian Chief of Army Staff General A S Vadiya, instrumental in leading the Indian Army in Operation Blue Star against the Sheiks at the Golden Temple, Amristar in 1984, was assassinated whilst on retirement in 1986 purely in revenge of his victories achieved. I do not wish to experience a similar incident as I have already sustained serious injuries after the attempt on my life by a suicide cadre of the LTTE. Thereby, I am compelled to entrust you with my security which is requested for life.
7. Furthermore, I would like to emphasis on a statement made by me during my tenure as the Commander of the Army. In that, I mentioned my dislike to be in command forever and also I would ensure that my successor would not be burden with the task of war fighting, which I abided with. Hence, as I have already overstayed my retirement date by 4 years, I wish to proceed on retirement without further delays.
8. Forwarded for Your Excellency’s kind consideration please.
I have the honour to be
Your Excellency’s
Obedient Servant
G S C FONSEKA RWP RSP VSV USP rcds psc
General
Chief of Defence Staff
CONFIDENTIAL
Annex A
12 November 2009
FACTORS AFFECTING MY RETIREMENT FROM THE REGULAR FORCE OF THE ARMY
1. Various agencies misleading Your Excellency by stating a possible coup immediately after the victory over the LTTE which obviously led to a change of command in spite of my request to be in command until the Army celebrated its 60th Anniversary. This fear psychosis of a coup is well known among the defence circle.
2. Appointing an officer pending a disciplinary inquiry who performed duties only as a holding formation commander in the final battle as my successor, disregarding my recommendations to appoint Major General G A Chandrasiri as the Commander of the Army who was the then Chief of Staff and an officer with an exemplary service as the Security Forces Commander in Jaffna for over 3 years. This has already led to a deterioration of the high standards I was capable of introducing to the Army, to my bitter disappointment.
3. Appointing me as the Chief of Defence Staff, though a senior appointment to that of a service commander, with basically no authority, except for mere coordinating responsibilities in a manner which mislead the general public of the country and most members of the Armed Forces. In that the Secretary Defence pushing me to vacate the post of the Commander in just two weeks after the victory and Your Excellency insisting me to hand over duties in less than two months depriving me of my morel obligations in revamping the welfare and providing a sound administration to the men who fought a gallant battle.
4. Further, prior to my appointment I was mislead on the authority vested with the CDS. I was made to understand that the appointment carried more command responsibilities and authority than earlier, but subsequent to my appointment a letter by the Strategic Affairs Adviser to the Secretary Defence indicated that my appointment was purely to coordinate the services and not that of overall command. The letter is attached herewith for Your Excellency’s information. Such actions clearly defines Your Excellency’s and the Governments unwillingness to grant me with command responsibilities which leads to believe in a strong mistrust in me, which is most depressing after all what was performed to achieve war victory.
5. During a subsequent Service Commanders Meeting, the Secretary Defence was bold enough to state an unethical and uncalled statement by mentioning that "if operational control of all three services is granted to the CDS it would be very dangerous", which indeed was a loss of face to me in the presences of subordinate services commanders.
6. Your Excellency, you too made a statement at the very first security council soon after the 18th of May 09 when the battled was declared over, "that no further recruitment would be necessary" and "a strong public opinion is in the making stating that the Country is in possession of a too powerful army." It was surprising to hear such a comment from Your Excellency in spite of your repeated praise and boast of the war victory. I personally felt that Your Excellency has commenced mistrusting your own loyal Army which attained the unimaginable victory just a week ago. You again repeated the same statement even after I handed over the command. Over these comments I felt disgusted as we even insulted those who made the supreme sacrifice by such comments.
7. The present Army Commander immediately on assuming duties commenced transferring senior officers who immensely contributed to the war effort during my command tenure including those junior officers working with my wife at the Seva Vanitha Army Branch which was clearly to challenge the loyalty of officers and most discouraging to the officer corps of the Army, with a wrong signal being transmitted on my authority.
8. With a pain of mind it was noted that the same Army which gained victory for the Nation was suspected of staging a coupe and thereby alerting the Government of India once again on the 15th of October 2009, unnecessarily placing the Indian Troops on high alert. This action did tarnish the image and reputation gained by the Sri Lanka Army as a competent and professional organization who was capable of defeating a terrorist group after the Malayan Emergency, in the eyes of the World. This suspicion would have been due to the loyalty of the Sri Lanka Army towards me as its past Commander who led the Army to the historic victory.
9. During my absences from the Country (23 Oct 2009 to 5 Nov 2009) being on overseas leave, the Army Headquarters was bold enough to change the security personnel deployed at the AHQ Main Entrance and the Ministry of Defence emphasizing the withdrawal of the Sinha Regiment troops who were attached to me, as you are aware is my parent regiment and supplementing them with other regimental personnel. The Sinha Regiment troops were good enough to provide security to the Ministry of Defence for 4 years and it is surprising to note how the combat efficiency of the said troops supposed to have dropped overnight as per Secretary Defence’s opinion. Further the Sinha Regiment troops numbering a mere 4, non combatants, deployed for vehicle checking duties at the AHQ Main Entrance, were replaced by 14 armed Armoured Corps personnel, whilst a further two platoons were brought in to prevent the 4 non combat Sinha Regiment personnel performing duties, creating a mockery to the general public including to some foreign missions. This clearly indicates a questionable loyalty of troops good enough for duties for over four years purely due to the fact that the troops were from my Regiment. This also indirectly reflects mistrust on me or an indication that the persons concern wish to keep a tab on my movements and visitors to my HQ/residence which is a clear display of suspicion created on me.
10. Further on instructions of the Secretary Defence, troops from the Gajaba Regiment was brought in to the MOD complex which indicated a divide loyalty within the Army and reasons to believe that the Army now being politicized. This is being encouraged by the Army Commander too who thinks that the Armoured Corp troops should over power Sinha Regiment troops.
11. Instigating malicious and detrimental news items and rumors by interested parties including several senior government politicians which led to identify me as a traitor in spite of my personal contribution of the government to change the history of our country.
12. During my absence from the Country, an acting CDS or an officer to overlook duties was not appointed which indicates that the much spoken appointment of the CDS is unimportant to the Government and the National Security Council. If the appointment was of significant important as stated by most, it should have been imperative to appoint somebody to oversee the duties and thereby I am convinced that I have being granted with an unimportant appointment in spite of all the work done.
13. It is with sadness that I note that the ordinary Army which I toiled to transform into a highly professional outfit is now loosing its way. Increased desertions, lack of enthusiasm to enlist (A drop in enlistment rate by 50% is recorded), disciplinary problems on advocating divided commands indicates an unprofessional organization in the offing. During the last two months the members deserted are higher than the recruitment.
14.The plight of the IDPs is also a point of great concern to me. Thousands of valiant soldiers sacrificed their valuable lives to liberate these unfortunate civilians from the brutality and tyranny of the LTTE in order that they could live in an environment of freedom and democracy. Yet, today many of them are continuing to live in appalling conditions due to the lack of proper planning on the part of the government and the IDPs who have friends and relatives elsewhere in the country must be given the choice to live with them until proper demining has been done in their areas.
15.Your Excellency’s government has yet to win the peace in spite of the fact that the Army under my leadership won the war. There is no clear policy to win the hearts and minds of the Tamil people, which will surely ruin the victory, attained paving the way for yet another uprising in the future.
16. The peace dividend the whole country expected at the conclusion of the war has yet to materialize. The economic hardships faced by the people have increased while waste and corruption have reached endemic proportions; media freedom and other democratic rights continue to be curtailed. The many sacrifices the army made to end the war would not have been in vain, if we can usher in a new era of peace and prosperity to our motherland.
Courtesy: http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cnotes6%5Cnote552.html
[This is the corrected version posted on Nov 15,2009.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)