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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)