Why Anna Hazare's movement is first of its kind?

I am amazed that Anna had been able to achieve what no political party or movement has ever before been able to do -- create a national focus, says Col (retd) R Hariharan [ Images ]

This is the first poser that comes to mind when we see thousands of people in whom he raised hopes rejoicing in the streets. The answer depends upon how we see Anna Hazare's campaign. We can answer the question better after understanding what he did achieve and what he did not. Here is my take.

I have been listening to cliché-ridden sanctimonious speeches of political leaders delivered in a monotonous tone that put me to sleep for nearly four decades now; the latest one of this genre was Dr Manmohan Singh's [ Images ] Independence Day address. This painful exercise coupled with watching corpulent Parliament members walking in and out of Parliament on non-issues with feigned indignation beamed on Lok Sabha TV has turned me quite cynical about our "democratic process". This cynicism had been further reinforced after watching our lawmakers in disorderly conduct on the floor of the House with increasing frequency. In fact, I advise parents not to let their kids to watch our Lok Sabha proceedings lest the young minds consider them as standard parliamentary procedure and perpetuate it.  

Justifying Corruption as Coalition 'Dharma'

I am one of the millions of Indians highly disappointed with Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh's television interaction with a clutch of handpicked high profile journalists beamed live on the TV on February 16, 2011.

At the end of the long rambling interaction, I was dismayed when the Prime Minister spoke of coalition 'dharma' and the compromises one has to make. Dharma is a sacred word for many and what the coalition in New Delhi in an increasing number of cases is total 'adharma.' And the Prime Minsiter doing a bad job of whitewashing it all and putting the blame on Raja is adharma of the worst sorts. The Prime Minister as Captain of the team shares a greater responsibility because he never set benchmarks of conduct for members of his cabinet and failed to monitor their performance when media produced strong evidence of their misconduct.

He never answered Rajdeep Sardesai's question why he accepted Raja in the cabinet for a second time when Congress came out strong in the last general election. If the Congress Party expected the Prime Minister to shore out the Party of the quagmire of its own and its Prime Minister's making, it miserably failed. 

As one who teaches business communication in management schools I had always found the Prime Minister as one of the poorest communicators among his peers. I wish our politicians and nethas undergo formal training in public speaking (even some of the best of them are rabble rousers) and voice training. I don't know whether Tony Blair, General Musharraf or Mrs Margaret Thatcher had such training; but they had the gift of making their arguments 'convincing' at least for the moment. I do not remember any of our prime ministers in the recent past could carry the country with their speeches, except Atal Bihari Vajapayee who was comfortable and eloquent in Hindi in an intellectual way. Perhaps this is one reason why Dr Manmohan Singh avoids televised interviews; he can be utterly unconvincing while speaking in public. Thank god at least he knows it. Congress Party would do well not to put him on TV if they want somebody to carry the day.   

I am reproducing here my friend B Raman's open letter to the Prime Minister carried in his blog of February 16. It eloquently analyses how the Prime Minister performed in his interview. I share his feelings.

http://ramanstrategicanalysis.blogspot.com/2011/02/what-fall-was-there-my-countrymen.html

WHAT A FALL WAS THERE, MY COUNTRYMEN

B.RAMAN

Dear Mr.Prime Minister,

Like millions of ordinary Indians, I too watched from the beginning till the end your televised interaction with selected journalists from the electronic media on February 16,2011.

You had never spoken to us, the ordinary people of India, on the various scams which have rocked the country one after another since August last year. Our only source of information has been the media.

As the citizens of this country who put your party in power, we had a right to expect that you will talk to us and explain to us what is the truth and how you intend arresting and reversing the rot that has set in and the continuing decline in the credibility and image of India as a result of the stories of these scams .

These stories---whether correct wholly or only partly--- have brought out one thing loud and clear--- the ineptitude and incompetence of your Government, the poor supervision which seems to prevail in many Ministries and offices, including the Prime Minister's Office, and the insensitivity of many senior members of your Cabinet to public concerns over these alleged scams.

Corruption is nothing new, but the magnitude of it as seen since you came to power has been highly disturbing . What is new is the ineptitude, the incompetence and the lack of supervision which seem to prevail since you came to power--- the like of which one had not seen under any other Prime Minister of India since we became independent in 1947.

You try to blame your difficulties and embarrassments on your having to run a coalition. You are not the first Prime Minister having to run the country at the head of a coalition. V.P.Singh, Chandrasekhar, Deve Gowda, Inder Gujral and Atal Behari Vajpayee headed coalitions too. Despite this, they gave us a government which worked as a team and which did not pull in different directions. I can't recall any instance under the previous coalitions where a Minister repeatedly circumvented the instructions of the Prime Minister, without fearing the consequences of his action.

All the previous Prime Ministers, who headed coalition Cabinets, made it clear to their political associates who the boss was and who would take important decisions. They never tolerated anyone who sought to circumvent their instructions. They never let their political allies dictate terms to them.

This is the first time we are seeing a Prime Minister, who tries to earn not the confidence of the people by projecting himself as a strong leader who will not tolerate any nonsense from his coalition partners, but the pity of the people by projecting himself as a helpless leader, who has nothing but to do what his coalition partners ask him to do.

We watched in utter amazement for one hour on February 16 not the rallying cry of a leader, who has realised the magnitude of the rot and who is determined to set it right whatever be the consequences to his position as the Prime Minister, but an exercise in self-pity of a leader who is at the mercy of his coalition partners and does not have the courage to call them to order.

This was the first time we had an opportunity of listening to you on the State of the country in the light of these scams. We were looking forward not to excuses and pretexts to explain away the sins of commission and omission of your government, but to a bold re-assertion of your leadership as the Prime Minister of this great country, who has the courage to face the people of this country in their eyes and reassure them: Thus far and no further.

I have no doubt in my mind that many right-thinking people of India, like me, must have felt ashamed and enraged as they saw the Prime Minister of this country giving out one excuse after another for not being able to govern effectively and for not being able to prevent blatantly wrong decisions and corruption.

You let us down badly, Mr.Prime Minister. You let us down badly.

Warm regards,

Yours sincerely,

B.Raman, Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi

Sri Lanka: The Rajapaksa juggernaut rolls on

By Col R Hariharan

Sri Lanka parliament voted to end the two-term limit imposed on the president by more than the required two thirds majority in the 225-member house on September 8. With the passing the 18th amendment of the constitution, the parliament has removed the constitutional bar and paved the way for President Mahinda Rajapaksa to get elected president a third term.

The ruling United Peoples Front Alliance (UPFA) with 144 seats was short of two thirds majority required to push through the constitutional amendment. Despite this, thanks to the President’s adroit advance political manoeuvres, the amendment had a smooth passage with 161 members voting in favour, and only 17 voting against.

The voting pattern showed deep divisions within opposition ranks in handling the relentless onslaught of Mahinda Rajapaksa’s political juggernaut. The opposition members appear to feel helpless; a remark attributed to one of the members aptly described it: “what to do, he will be in power for the next 12 years”.

The main opposition party - the United National Party (UNP) – wracked by internal dissension boycotted the debate as well as the voting on the bill. Instead, it chose to demonstrate outside the parliament. It had to suffer the ignominy of seeing six of its members cross voting in favour of the bill. In the wake of the voting, the UNP-led opposition coalition is in tatters as four smaller constituent parties switched their loyalty to Rajapaksa. The after shock has left UNP left in disarray with 28 out of 43 MPs members raising the flag of dissent against Ranil Wickremesinghe’s party leadership.

Even before the bill came up in parliament, the Sri Lanka Muslim Congress (SLMC) parted with the UNP alliance and announced its eight members would vote for the 18th amendment. Even the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) rank was depleted when its lone Sinhala member C.H. Piyasena voted for the bill.

The executive president enjoys enormous powers under the 1978 constitution. He can dissolve the parliament and declare emergency. In a state of emergency, the president can even promulgate regulations to override laws enacted by the parliament. Sri Lanka has had long spells of emergency. The state of emergency continues to be in force even now though the war ended in May 2009. He also appoints judges, heads of armed forces and police, election commissioners and secretaries to the government etc.

Both the opposition parties and the civil society had been demanding the curbing president’s powers by amending the constitution for quite sometime now. President Rajapaksa appears to have used their desire to his advantage with the18th amendment. The opposition parties and civil society have expressed serious concern over not only its form and content of the amendment but the unseemly haste with which it was being pushed through without adequate public debate.

In particular, they are concerned with two aspects of the amendment - the lifting of the two-term restriction on the president and the discarding of the 17th amendment to the Constitution. This amendment was adopted in 2001 to ensure some form of control over President’s powers in making appointments to high office.

The lifting of restriction on the number of presidential terms will provide enough time for President Rajapaksa to consolidate his power. Not only that, it could usher in dynastic rule of Rajapaksas. This is nothing unusual in South Asia; dynasties have been in power not only in the past in Sri Lanka, but also in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. But after years of internal conflict, Sri Lanka is passing through a delicate stage as the process of reconciliation and reconstruction of its democratic structure is not yet complete. At this stage the enormous powers Rajapaksa enjoys, coupled with 16 years in office (if he gets elected even once more), could neutralise the checks and balances so essential for democracy.

The removal of the 17th amendment has done away with the Constitutional Council (CC) created under of the constitution. It was mandatory for the president to act on CC’s recommendations on appointments to high office. Though partisan politics of Sri Lanka had ensured the 17th amendment was never followed both in letter and spirit, the president was obliged to follow it. As per the new amendment, the CC has been replaced by a five-member council consisting of the prime minister, speaker, leader of the opposition and a member of parliament each to be nominated by the prime minister and the leader of the opposition. This makes it purely political in character unlike the CC which provided for participation of eminent persons outside the political spectrum.

However, the catch is the president is only required only to seek the observations of the members of this parliamentary council while appointing the chairmen and members of election commission, public service commission, national police commission, human rights commission, permanent commission to investigate allegations of corruption and bribery, finance commission and delimitation commission. The president similarly consults the Council while appointing the chief justice and judges of the Supreme Court, the president and judges of the court of appeal, and members of judicial service commission other than chairman.

Almost all opposition leaders have condemned the adoption of the18th amendment saying it will lead to tyranny and dictatorship. The leader of the opposition Sarath Fonseka’s comment that the government was inviting revolutions and coups against it by creating a constitutional dictatorship through the introduction of the 18th Amendment was curious. Did have the example of rise and fall of President Fujimori of Peru in his mind?

Alberto Fujimori served as President of Peru for three terms from 1990 to 2000. During his controversial rule he eliminated the left wing Shining Path guerrillas and restored the economic stability of the country. Despite allegations of his authoritarian methods and human rights violations, he was enormously popular. In April 1995, at the height of his popularity, Fujimori was re-elected with almost two-thirds of the vote.

Though the constitution allowed only two terms for a president, he successfully contested for a third term after his party voted a law in parliament to allow him to contest. However, when a huge corruption scandal erupted, he fled to Japan in 2000. He lived in exile for five years; when he visited Chile in 2005 he was extradited to face criminal charges in Peru. He was convicted in a number of cases of bribery and corruption and human rights violations during his rule. He was sentenced to 25 years imprisonment in connection with human rights violations when death squads of the government had carried out killings and kidnappings on his orders. While the example of Fujimori looks far fetched in the context of Sri Lanka, it is a grim reminder of how public adulation can turn change when unfettered power is misused.

What does it mean to India?

Strictly speaking, the constitutional changes in Sri Lanka are an internal structural rearrangement. However, the growing power of President Rajapaksa and the likelihood of its further consolidation during a decade and a half makes are of special interest to India. President Rajapaksa is firmly in saddle and as the opposition is weak and divided than ever before, his assertive style of governance is unlikely to change in his coming term. He would also have sufficient time and freedom to plan his foreign policy on the long term to achieve his ends. This luxury is not available to the Indian Prime Minister; so India will have to evolve at least the firm contours of its Sri Lanka policy for the long term. This becomes important as China’s foot prints in South Asia and Indian Ocean region are growing.

It also makes it imperative for India to structure its security relations with Sri Lanka on a firm footing and build India-Sri Lanka trade relations by removing India's non tariff obstructions stifling the growth of free trade with Sri Lanka.

With the President calling the shots, the political package for Tamils will come only as and when he decides. He seems to be in no hurry to do this. Apparently India is not happy with this as evident from the remark of Indian Foreign Secretary for External Affairs Ms Nirupama Rao during her visit to Sri Lanka in the first week of September. She said: “He [Rajapaksa] has constantly said that he is focused on that [political solution] need. And that he plans to move on it. He has his sight set on that. And this point about the need to be more than just focused on the economic issues and the development issues and to look beyond. Everybody in the government got a sense of how we look at it. From that point of view, I think they know how India is approaching or looking at this issue.” This issue is likely to become crucial when the election fever sets in Tamil Nadu. Presumably, the issue is to be discussed when SM Krishna, India’s external affairs minister visits Sri Lanka in October.

The United States has condemned the passing of the constitutional amendment saying it undermined democracy; reactions of other western powers are also likely to be the same. So Sri Lanka can expect a renewed spell of international confrontation on allegations over human rights violations and war crimes. Frustration on this count is manifest in the statements of Sri Lanka minister of external affairs as Sri Lanka does not want to change its stand against international accountability on allegations of human rights violations.

So Sri Lanka is likely to need India’s support in international forums more than ever before. With the continuing economic downturn in the West, Sri Lanka would also need more Indian economic assistance, investment and aid for economic growth apart from funds for reconstruction of infrastructure and rehabilitation. So New Delhi will have to work out a well rounded a strategy to handle the enormous clout of President Rajapaksa to its advantage.

Courtesy: South Asia Analysis Group, September 11, 2010
URL: http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cnotes7%5Cnote601.html

Sri Lanka Perspectives - August 2010

By Col R Hariharan

Constitutional amendments

The Rajapaksa government is set to carry out the much awaited amendments to the 1978 Constitution. The Supreme Court is to give its comments on the proposed amendments and the parliament is scheduled to discuss them on September 8.

The need for constitutional amendments, particularly with a view to exercise some form of parliamentary oversight on the executive presidency, had figured as a major issue in almost all elections. President Rajapaksa had been sounding leaders of most of the political parties including the opposition United National Party (UNP) on this issue ever since he was elected for a second term. However, till now he had not been able to push through the amendments as the ruling United Peoples Freedom Alliance (UPFA), with 144 seats, fell short of two thirds majority support in the 225-member house.

However, towards the end of August, the president managed to win over the support of the opposition Sri Lanka Muslim Congress (SLMC) which has 8-members in parliament. The surprise U-turn of the SLMC, which had been opposing President Rajapaksa all along, shows the declining fortunes of political opposition. The proposed amendments are likely to be passed in parliament with the committed support of 154 members in the first week of September.

The proportional representation system of voting makes it difficult for any political party or alliance to gain two thirds majority in the house Thus the amendment of the constitution will be a politically significant achievement for President Rajapaksa. One of the proposed amendments allows the election of the president for third term in office; this will enable President Rajapaksa a chance to be elected a third term. Thus consolidation of the president’s political power now appears to be almost complete.

Under the 1978 constitution, the President enjoys enormous powers including the unilateral dissolution of parliament and declaration of emergency. He also has powers to appoint judges, heads of armed forces and police, election commissioners and secretaries to the government etc. In a state of emergency, the President can even promulgate emergency regulations to override laws enacted by the parliament. Sri Lanka has a long history of emergency since 1970 mainly triggered by war against Tamil separatists. Even though the war ended in May 2009, the emergency continues to be in force. This has caused concern to civil society organisations both at home and abroad.

In a bid to ensure some form of control over President’s powers to make appointments to high office, the parliament adopted the 17th Amendment to the Constitution in 2001. This makes it mandatory for the president to act on the recommendations of a 10-member Constitutional Council (CC) while making appointments. However, so far there had been no attempt to enforce the 17th Amendment in letter and spirit. One of the amendments proposed now, aims at replacing the CC with a five-member Constitutional Advisory Committee (CAC). The name of the proposed amendment would suggest the advisory rather than mandatory nature of its role. This could defeat the fundamental purpose of the 17th Amendment.
Sri Lanka’s credibility has suffered over allegations of humanitarian and human rights excesses both during the war, particularly in its last lap. Given this background its reputation as a democracy now depends entirely upon how President Rajapaksa handles enormous powers vested in him in the next decade and a half, assuming he is elected for a third term.

Court martial of General Sarath Fonseka

The process of downsizing of the political image of former Army Commander General Sarath Fonseka made significant progress when an army court martial found him guilty of engaging in politics while in service. With President’s approval, the General has been cashiered and stripped of his medals and honours.
Those who gave evidence against the General included the Cooperatives and Internal Trade Minister Johnston Fernando, UNP MP Lakshman Seneviratne, and Major General Krishantha Silva, former Military Secretary.

Fonseka is facing one more Court Martial for his alleged involvement in shady procurement deals, which also involved his son-in-law Dhanuna Tillekeratne. In addition to this, he has also been indicted for defamation over his alleged statement in The Sunday Leader accusing the Defence Secretary Gotabhaya Rajapaksa of ordering the army not to take prisoners during the war in Vanni.

Fonseka is the leader of the opposition Democratic National Alliance (DNA) in parliament. The main opposition parties including the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) alliance partner of the DNA, and the UNP have condemned the conviction of Fonseka, as politics of persecution. Fonseka had opposed Rajapaksa’s bid for the second term as president. Whether it is true or not, the prosecution of the national hero marks the low ebb of politics in the country.

India raises its sights on Sri Lanka

As Tamil Nadu is gearing up for legislative elections, both the ruling Dravida Munnetra Kazagham (DMK) and its national ally the Congress Party have focused on Indian aid to Sri Lanka for the Tamils affected in the war torn Northern Province. The issue had figured in interaction between leaders of both parties at the highest level. And Tamil Nadu chief minister Karunanidhi expressing concern at the proper utilisation of the Indian aid had requested the prime minister for despatching a representative to make a first hand assessment.

Towards the end of the month, the Indian government despatched Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao on a visit to Vavuniya, Kilinochchi, and Jaffna areas for a first hand assessment of Indian assistance to the affected population. She met a number of displaced persons awaiting resettlement as well as those already resettled. She also visited sites of de-mining operations carried out by Indian agencies.

The visit has brought sharp focus on the implementation aspects of resettlement for which Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh had announced Rs 500-crore humanitarian assistance last May. Ms Rao also focused on India’s promise to construct 50,000 houses for the displaced population made during the visit of President Rajapaksa to India in June 2010. She said the houses would be constructed with local participation to give a fillip for their employment.

Both New Delhi and Colombo took another significant step to boost bilateral relations when they signed an agreement to establish Indian consulates general in Jaffna and Hambantota. This was agreed upon during Rajapaksa’s New Delhi visit. Sri Lanka is also likely to establish yet another consulate in India, in addition to the ones now in Chennai and Mumbai.

These Indian moves are significant in the face of sustained high profile interest of China in Sri Lanka for sometime now. On August 15, the President participated int the ceremonial filling of sea water in the harbour basin of the Chinese aided Hambantota Port under construction. This marked the completion of first phase for which the Chinese had given a loan of $ 425 million. Sri Lanka is negotiating for a further $ 800 million loan for the second phase of the $ 1.5 billion dollar project. When completed Hambantota will have bunkering facility and a tank farm project with a capacity of 80,000 metric tonnes. The port will begin handling ships from November. It is one of the four ports being built or upgraded as part of Rajapaksa's plan to boost the economy. They will significantly change the strategic profile of Sri Lanka in Indian Ocean security, apart from impacting trade and commerce.

Tamil refugees in Canada

The travails of Tamil refugees seeking safety overseas were highlighted when Canada intercepted MV Sun Sea carrying over 490 Tamils heading towards Port Alberni in British Colombia. They have been detained in camps apparently for screening before deciding their future. Sri Lanka has alleged that among them were LTTE cadres escaping capture from Sri Lanka and their supporters. In a similar incident last October Canada took in 72 Tamils asylum seekers after their ship Ocean Viking was stranded without a port to berth off Indonesia. It is going to be more and more difficult for Sri Lankan Tamil refugees to find refuge as Sri Lanka is no more considered as war torn country.
August 31, 2010
Courtesy: South Asia Security Trends, September 2010 Vol 4 No 8
www.security-risks.com

The Grateful Dead

This is not about any rock band of the same name as the title. I have been writing about the way people have chosen to ignore the war dead in this country. Many Indian soldiers in the heavens of warriors must be grateful they are dead. They have been spared of the ignominy politicians have been heaping upon soldiers, insulting the memories of their dead comrades. This piece is bout one more such instance.

In Bangalore, or Bengaluru to be politically correct, the Karnataka government has suddenly dropped the project for national memorial for war heroes - after completing 80% if earth work in work order if Rs 12.62 crores -that is about Rs 9 crores.
As the media reports said the government has taken a sudden U-turn on the decision to build a memorial to the 1971 Bangladesh war heroes at the Indira Gandhi Musical Fountain Park.

It had earlier resisted the pleas of residents of the Krishna Apartment Owners’ Association (KAOA) who were against the constuction as they felt it was eating into the "green lung" of the park in their midst. When the government refused to budge they approached the Karnataka High Court. However, after the High Court allowed the work to proceed, the Association had taken the issue to the Supreme Court. The apex court had scheduled the next hearing on the case on July 26.

The memorial was to be maintained by a trust chaired by the Chief Minister, with highranking army officers as its members.

Rajeev Chandrasekhar, MP and chairman of the National Military Memorial Committee, commenting on the latest government move said “The decision could have been taken much earlier by the CM. This would have spared tremendous cost, money and time spent by many people of our city, and most importantly, spared the many families of martyrs and veterans the humiliation and trauma of this unseemly controversy.” But who cares for such niceties, Mr Chandrasekhar?

Apologising to the families of martyrs and veterans for "this unseemly and unfortunate controversy," he said he had been "subjected to many personal attacks during this whole episode by some socalled elite citizens of our city." But is it any surprise, with elitism creeping in the midst of political-bureaucracy-business mafia in power everywhere? Every issue is being used to exercise power and not achieve results. Chandrasekhar went on to "reassure families of these martyrs that a large majority of citizens have the greatest regard and respect for them and their loved ones...” We are delighted to hear such words; but with due apologies to him, they sound hollow when they are uttered in the wake of one more act of ignominy.

The Times News Network had speculated whether the cause for the government volte face was Rajeev Chandrasekhar’s recent outbursts against the Yeddyurappa government on the Lokayukta and tardy flood relief works. I will not be surprised if this is true. He would not be the first chief minister to do so to settle political scores.

Chief Minister B S Yeddyurappa has promised the legislative council to "look for new space far better than the present one." So we can expect the charade to continue for another two to three years before a site is selected. And the same people who took the botched decision earlier are supposed to act on this!

The work on the ground for the memorial has stopped at Indira Gandhi Musical Fountain Park. According to media reports the project engineer had said that all civil works were almost done. They quoted him as saying “We will have to pay as per the tenders finalized for the earth work completed till date." That is at least Rs 9 crores of public money down the drain. But who cares about public money, when the public themselves don't bother?

The KAOA secretary had some advice to the memorial committe. He asked it to identify "a bigger, better, non-controversial site in a place that’s accessible to all, taking the local residents along for their valuable suggestions and support." That is a lofty thought never applied to the way things are done in this country. As he said the process "most importantly, it should be transparent." Is he talking about government decision making in India? Opaqueness is the life blood of politicians and bureaucracy in this country.

I have always wondered why the government has to build memorials for the war dead in this country? Where is the civil society? They should take a look at the Matthew Hickley's 20 September 2007 report in the Daily Mail, UK.

Or they may take a look at the decision of the Westminster Council to permit the construction of an open style pavilion costing £ 3.5 million pounds for a memorial to the war dead of Bomber Command at the Piccadilly entrance to Green Park. The memorial, to be built by 2012, will commemorate the 55,573 crew of Bomber Command, with an average age of 22, who were killed in World War II.

But then, we are not living in the UK. The reality here is to forget the war dead and pander the nethas by making cut outs and statues out of public money. I suppose that is our culture.

Sri Lanka: Much ado about few things

By Col R Hariharan

From Indian point of view the much hyped visit of Sri Lanka President Mahinda Rajapaksa to New Delhi from June 8 to 11 can be summed up in one sentence as ‘much ado about few things,’ with apologies to Shakespeare.

Shorn of usual diplomatic fillers, the tangibles in the joint statement issued at the end of the visit were on three tracks. One set formalised projects already in the pipeline for sometime and included financial incentives from India to push them forward. The other set attended to easing structural arrangements (i.e., agreements, MoUs, statement of intentions) to promote better relations and trading arrangements. And the third set related to rehabilitation largesse from India.
But there was little or no animation of perennial issues discussed in the joint statement. There were very few hopeful signs to progress three gritty issues – rehabilitation, devolution, and strategic security. Overall, the impression created after the President’s visit is that India had tacitly agreed to let President Rajapaksa handle these issues at his own pace in his own style. I will be happy if those involved in the process prove me wrong.

The Indian Prime Minister making the inane statement that “a meaningful devolution package, building upon the 13th Amendment, would create the necessary conditions for a lasting political settlement,” creates the impression that sidelining of the Tamil issue appears to have been accepted. In the last three years India's representatives have said the same thing a number of times. And Sri Lanka's response had been more to buy time than make any real progress on the issue.

President Rajapaksa does not talk any more about the 13th amendment or even the 13th amendment +. So not surprisingly in the joint statement he made no commitment to implement the 13th amendment – which in any case has been pushed to the realms of relevance. The President merely “reiterated his determination to evolve a political settlement acceptable to all communities that would act as a catalyst to create the necessary conditions in which all the people of Sri Lanka could lead their lives in an atmosphere of peace, justice and dignity, consistent with democracy, pluralism, equal opportunity and respect for human rights. Towards this end, the President expressed his resolve to continue to implement in particular the relevant provisions of the Constitution designed to strengthen national amity and reconciliation through empowerment.”

Have we not been hearing similar dialogue for a long time now between Sri Lanka and India? It is difficult to understand how the mere repetition of implementation of13th amendment as a mantra from Indian side and the flowery rhetoric on democracy, pluralism et al from the Sri Lankan side are going to improve the lot of Tamils. Are we not thinking of any other options? Apparently not; otherwise it would have found a place in the joint statement.

So it is no wonder Tamils on both sides of the Palk Strait feel they have been let down very badly by India. The window dressing offered by arranging a meeting between the visiting President and the members of parliament from Tamil Nadu might satisfy the ruling coalition party leaders but not the people. The rhetoric and political manoeuvring on this count to be wearing thin as people are waiting to see visible action on all fronts from Indian side.

Of course, later in Chennai Home Minister P Chidambaram presumably on a mission to ‘enlighten’ Tamil Nadu on the takeaways, highlighted India’s allocation of Rs 1000 crores to build 50,000 houses for people in north and south left to fend for themselves. And he explained that the money would be directly given to householders through banks.

While this is laudable, the process of rehabilitation has remained good in parts like the proverbial curate’s egg. But what is the overall architecture for enabling the people ravaged by war to resume normal life and join the national mainstream? Without such an architecture bound by a time frame, accountability from both sides and integrated execution, these welfare measures tend to get dislocated, downgraded or even get hijacked. For instance, in the east infrastructure facilities have made good progress, but peoples struggle for livelihood continues as before.

When the Eelam War raged there were protests in Tamil Nadu by pro-Eelam and pro-Tamil Tigers segments of political parties on happenings in Sri Lanka. Then these were joined in by protests on human rights violations and humanitarian issues and war crimes. The protests were neither large nor spectacular. But they were there.

During President Rajapaksa’s visit this time - a year after the war - the protests have become significant because there is no Prabhakaran or war to give a boost to these protests. The protests had gathered sufficient public and media attention, even without the orchestration provided by the war.

The pro-Eelam leaders Vaiko and Nedumaran and about thousand followers courted arrest while protesting against the President’s visit. These protests have to be studied in sequence of Sri Lanka-centric events that have been happening. First there was pressure on film personalities to boycott the International Indian Film Awards function in Colombo. These were followed by protests in other forms in Tamil Nadu. There are indications of simmering discontent over Sri Lanka policy increasing into effervescence.

A Public Interest Litigation filed in the Madras High Court sought issue of directions to the government to arrest Sri Lanka Minister Douglas Devananda, who was part of President Rajapaksa’s entourage. The PIL alleged Devananda was a proclaimed offender, wanted in a slew of cases including murder in Tamil Nadu.

The moot point is the Tamil Minister, well known for his strong anti-Prabhakaran stance and equally strong support to the President, had visited India and Tamil Nadu a number of times even at the height of the Eelam War. And nobody thought of raising the issue on such occasions earlier. Why now, after the defeat of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) and decimation of its leadership? Clearly the PIL was aimed at embarrassing New Delhi and the visiting dignitary.

The other incident was more sinister. Thanks to alertness of railway staff, the Rock fort Express train going from Kumbakonam to Chennai escaped from accident after a metre-long portion of the railway track was found blown up at Sithani, about 25 km from Villupuram junction on the railway link to Chennai. The incident happened a day after President Rajapaksa flew out of New Delhi. High-power gel-type explosive device ignited by electric power had been used indicating familiarity with handling of explosives. It was powerful enough to create 80-cm crater and blow up the sleeper along with a piece of the rail. The Police were quick to suspect the Tamil Nadu Maoist elements and later the Tamil Tiger acolytes in the act of sabotage. Both are capable of organising the sabotage. Even though they failed to derail the train, with their act they have sent a strong message of their extreme frustration at India’s inability to respond to the Tamil problems in Sri Lanka.

During the Eelam War, there were a few instances of the LTTE elements and the Maoists coming together for mutual benefit. But caught between the turbulence of caste politics and the allure of Dravidian political idiom, Maoists were always weak force in Tamil Nadu. Even those few fell out with the all India body of the organisation in the eighties over the question of supporting Tamil nationalism. They could not survive as a cohesive entity in the face of the Tamil Nadu police dragnet. So they scattered and have become embedded in one or more of the half a dozen small Tamil political outfits.

These fringe outfits have diverse agendas, but are united in the struggle to preserve exclusiveness of Tamil identity and Tamil nationalism which they feel are threatened by New Delhi and Colombo. They are unhappy that even the Tamil Nadu chief minister Karunanidhi, who used to tacitly support the Tamil identity issue, has joined the national political mainstream and let them down.

It is doubtful whether the disparate groups can come together to form a mighty insurgent body in Tamil Nadu like the LTTE and wage war as Prabhakaran did. That may never happen. But they represent the extreme edge of the anger many Tamils are feeling over India’s failure to respond positively to attend to the Tamil grievances in Sri Lana. This is more so because India had vigorously championed their cause in the past. This feeling has many takers among Sri Lankan Tamils both at home and abroad.

Usually police are left to handle developments of extremism in a knee jerk reaction. However, in Tamil Nadu the approach has to be more nuanced. We need to pay serious attention to the issues that have generated the discontent and act to produce visible results in Sri Lanka. And political parties of Tamil Nadu have a large responsibility in suggesting and steering New Delhi to positive courses of action than merely acting as listening posts, playing politics.
Courtesy: South Asia Analysis Group, June 17, 2010
URL:http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cnotes6%5Cnote589.html

Sri Lanka: need to restore trust

It is one year since Velupillai Prabakaran, founder leader of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, died with his aides in the final stage of the Eelam War. What is happening in Sri Lanka? Read my leader page article in today's The Hindu.
URL: http://www.hindu.com/2010/05/18/stories/2010051855271200.htm

Sri Lanka: Focus on economic development and foreign relations

Sri Lanka President Mahinda Rajapaksa has sworn in a new set of 76 ministers – 37 of cabinet rank and 39 deputy ministers – as against the jumbo ministry of 106 ministers in the earlier government. A few more ministerial appointments are likely in President’s bid to stitch a patchwork quilt to meet the interest of sundry coalition partners.

With 144-memeber strength in the house of 225, the President has gone about his government formation from a position of power.

The changes indicate the President’s current priorities – economic development and foreign policy as against the only earlier earlier – winning the war and eliminating the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). And the two priorities are inextricably interwoven particularly after the unhappy consequences of inter-national allegations of aberrations of governance that has eroded Sri Lanka’s good will.

Evidently, the President is fully conscious that economic development is imperative to put the country back on rail after it was drained of its resources and energies both during the uncertain peace impasse and the wasteful war during the last three years. There is a huge backlog of paying for the war – the public debt incurred for the war, reconstruction of infrastructure damaged due to the war and investments to kick start normal life in Northern Province.

There is also secondary fall out of war – inflationary economy, unemployment due to dislocation in hospitality and tourism services, and the negative impact of withdrawal of GSP+ tariff concessions on exports to the European Union countries. Tertiary fall out includes conforming to conditionality of international creditors which insist on lean government and curbs on non budgetary expenditure.
So it is not surprising the President chose his brother Basil Rajapakse as the minister for economic development. He served as the President’s wartime organisational hatchet man and key member of the troika that structured the victory over the LTTE.

This is going to be a key ministry as it will be involved in planning and apportioning large resources to various projects. Translated in simple political terms the ministry will wield a lot of power. Evidently, the President is again putting his trust in his brother to show visible results in the economic front just as he had done in support of operations during the war.

The Rajapaksa family hold has been further firmed in with the swearing in of President’s elder brother Chamal Rajapaksa as the speaker. Earlier he was in a less visible appointment as minister for ports. With the President’s eldest son Namal Rajapaksa also becoming a member of the House, the third generation of the family has now been anointed into corridors of power.

Foreign ministry was Sri Lanka’s weakest link in the crucial period of war. Sri Lankan diplomacy, or lack of it, cost the country dearly. When it entered the peace process in 2002 it commanded wide respect and managed to muster support of nearly 50 nations and international organisations that were ready to underwrite the financial burden of bringing peace.

However, during the war Rohitha Bogollogama as the foreign minister could not prevent the erosion of goodwill and weather international criticism that had snowballed against Sri Lanka on issues of governance and human rights. This has hamstrung Sri Lanka’s foreign policy in a number of ways. Thus the newly appointed external affairs minister (as the foreign minister has now been rechristened) Professor GL Peiris will be starting his new job with the burden of the backlog of his predecessor.

The suave and articulate professor with impeccable academic credentials brings in the much needed intellectual input lacking earlier in the foreign ministry. As minister for international trade in the earlier government, Peiris had a good equation with India, although the Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA) he had tried to promote between the two countries never came through due to internal opposition. Similarly his efforts to stave off the EU’s decision to withdraw GSP+ trade concessions, though creditable, could not achieve positive results.

Given this background, his role as external affairs minister is going to be tricky. There a few external issues he would be facing. He has to work out a face saving method to get out of the mess that has been created in handling the human rights issues with the West and UN agencies. Secondly, if he can succeed in the first task, his second task will be of harmonising external affairs and international trade policies to Sri Lanka’s advantage. This would aim at restoring the economic and trade support links with the West. However, this is going to be a tough job in the prevailing climate of paranoia and suspicion of the West.

The affable Professor Peiris’ ability to steer the country away from present course and initiate a course correction to foreign policy is going to be critical for Sri Lanka’s foreign relations. Professor Peiris would need President’s policy directions in this regard; whether he can persuade the President to do so is the moot point. Unless such an initiative is taken, mere change in language and rhetoric may not help to smoothen the ruffled feathers of some the influential friends of Sri Lanka. The country needs their financial assistance and vast markets to get the economy in order.

The President assisted by his two brothers had handled Sri Lanka-India relations during the earlier government. And the war against the LTTE became central to the relations and the core issue of devolution of powers to Tamils was put in cold storage. India went along with the President’s scheme of things as it removed the LTTE as its militant methods were blocking the evolution of a peaceful resolution of the ethnic issue.

However, with the LTTE no more, India is expected to raise the devolution issue once again. As the 2011 Tamil Nadu assembly election nears, New Delhi will have no choice but to demand action rather than mere rhetoric. Geography has destined India and Sri Lanka into a closely knit strategic environment. The increasing Chinese foot print and influence in Sri Lanka is undoubtedly a matter of concern for India. So both the countries have no other option but to address these concerns. With economic development becoming a core issue for Sri Lanka, Indian help and economic assistance is essential now more than ever before.

So Sri Lanka will have to find a winning equation in handling these three inter-related issues with India. So even if the President continues to handle relations with India, he would need the hands on involvement of both Basil and Peiris in giving form to it. Will be Peiris be allowed to play an increasing role as external affairs minister in handling India? We will have to wait and see as the relations between the two countries move into domains that had never been fully explored before.

Sri Lanka: Arrest of General Fonseka - Comments

General Sarath Fonseka, former Chief of Defence Staff, and the common opposition candidate who contested the presidential poll was arrested in Colombo last night. A summary of answers to questions put by various national and international print and electronic media on February 8 & 9 , 2010 is given in the following paragraphs.

Was General Fonseka’s arrest expected?

Actually the government had taken a series of actions to build up a case against him ever since he announced his intention to contest the presidential poll. The irritation brewing up within the ruling coalition against him turned into hostility after his poll decision. First there were media attempts to blacken his reputation in military procurements made during his tenure as army commander. Then during the run up to the election stories of sleaze were expanded and attacks became personal. After the election results were out, security forces and police were deployed around the hotel where the General was staying ostensibly to search for deserters carrying arms holed up there.


They were allegedly plotting a coup to overthrow President Rajapaksa. There was also a talk of a conspiracy to assassinate the President. His office was raided and his aides arrested. In all three dozen people, mostly retired servicemen, who were helping him have been arrested. His secretary was hounded and 15 army officers were given walking papers for supporting him.

So a strong case of conspiracy to overthrow the government and assassinate the President was in the making. Therefore arrest of Fonseka was not unexpected. But the serious allegations against him and the timing of the arrest, after the parliamentary poll has been scheduled on April 8, does come as a surprise as the action now assumes a political context.

What could be the “real” reason behind his arrest?

While I am not privy to any official information, I think basically the President’s camp probably sees him as a serious political threat – one who could damage the hard won reputation for defeating the LTTE with allegations of war crimes and human rights violations in the conduct of war. This issue has gathered more mass internationally and the government has become extremely sensitive to it. So arresting him would put a clamp on him during the parliamentary poll. And if allegations of conspiracy and plot against the President are proved it would serve the purpose even better.

General’s challenge to the government to arrest him a day earlier probably triggered the process. Having interrogated the detainees, apparently the government has built up enough evidence to back its allegations. So when the General is arraigned before the court when the case comes up there would be enough material to keep him out of circulation. And trying him under Army Act on a very serious charge would make it difficult for him to secure bail.

What do you think of the allegations of conspiracy to overthrow the government and plotting to kill the President?

The serious allegations would warrant severe punishment under the Army Act. The government spokesman has said the General would be tried by a Court Martial. Court Martial proceedings would be faster than civilian courts.

General Fonseka, who had built his reputation as a professional soldier, conspiring to over throw the government and kill the President sounds incredible. Presumably that is why the military spokesman while speaking about the General’s arrest had talked of charging him for “military offences.” In any case the government will have to present a water tight case against him and carry it out in an open manner. So the government will have to present a water tight case against him and carry out the trial in an open manner.

It is doubtful whether the government would do this. As a popular personality will be on trial, if it is carried out openly it would carry more credibility. Indian army had been doing this to ensure transparency. Media access has been provided to the proceedings now underway against Lt General Avadesh Prakash, one of the seven PSOs of the Indian army chief.

General Fonseka by emerging as a challenger to the President’s re-election for a second term has gained global attention. The U.S. and the European Union which had levelled allegations of human rights violations would be watching the proceedings of the court martial closely. The U.S. State Department spokesman commenting on the arrest has emphasised the need for the government to heal the split within Sri Lankan society, and not to exacerbate it. Already UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has appealed to all parties in Sri Lanka and their supporters to show restraint and refrain from violence after the reported arrest of Fonseka.

We can also expect the government to gather evidence on allegations of corruption against the General. His son in law is allegedly involved in this deal.

What will be the impact of the arrest of General Fonseka on the army?

Already loyalty of some of the army personnel had come under cloud over the issue of support to General Fonseka. The sacking of 15 officers including five Generals and two brigadiers carried out earlier would have already created a sense of fear among military personnel. The General's arrest would further increase it. So they would be wary of committing any action that could be construed as anti-government.

Increase in the feeling of insecurity within the armed forces could be an unhappy fall out of the arrest. It could affect the homogeneity of army.

What could be the political impact of the arrest? What happens to the General’s image as a political personality after the arrest?

Politically the arrest substantiates opposition's allegations of witch hunting by the government. General Fonseka’s fortunes were down after his electoral defeat and it was doubtful whether he could have contributed to the sustenance of the JVP-UNP marriage of convenience till the parliamentary elections.

However, after his arrest once again he becomes a focal point for opposition parties to come together during the parliamentary elections. From this point of view, by arresting Fonseka the government have provided some common ground for the opposition to come together against the President. But parliamentary polls are qualitatively and quantitatively different from electing the president as many local and personality factors govern the support of people.

Courtesy: www.southasiaanalysis.org
URL http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cnotes6%5Cnote571.html

Whose Witness, Anyway?

The Indian judicial environment is loaded against those who depose in court against criminals

by COL R HARIHARAN

ON May 5, 2007, a mob of supporters of Alagiri, son of Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M Karunanidhi, torched the Madurai office of a Tamil daily, Dinakaran. Three employees of the newspaper were burnt alive. Police charged “Attack” Pandi, a criminal “history sheeter”, and 16 others with the crime. The case was transferred to the CBI on May 19, 2007. A Deputy Superintendent of Police, Rajaram, was included as an accused for his negligence when the incident occurred. The CBI filed a 32-page chargesheet and 85 witnesses testified before the court during the hearing. The prime witnesses were Sub Inspector Aladiyan, the first eyewitness, and the Dinakaran Deputy News Editor, the second eyewitness. They turned hostile while deposing before the court. On December 9, 2009 the Principal District Sessions Court, Madurai acquitted all the 17 accused for want of eyewitness evidence.

The story had a happy ending when the ruling first family patched up with Karunanidhi’s nephews, Kalanidhi Maran and Dayanidhi Maran, who own the newspaper. As in fairy tales, they are living happily ever after. It did not matter to anyone that the entire incident was telecast live, showing the criminals setting fire to the newspaper office while political bigwigs raised slogans to encourage them. The Dinakaran case was neither unique nor its verdict surprising. There have been scores of instances where those in power have systematically ensured cases against their interests are snuffed out in courts, using the very instruments of governance and law enforcement. The Best Bakery case in which 14 people were killed when a mob torched Best Bakery in Vadodara during the post-Godhra riots in 2002 is a well known example of the state’s misuse of all instruments of governance to obstruct justice. It is an outstanding example of the perils of giving evidence and how witnesses are used as pawns in the game.

There are hundreds of such instances where witnesses backtrack or turn hostile in appeal courts because of criminal intimidation or prosecution pressure. The reality in this country is that rule of law applies only to those who court the wrath of rulers. That is why such cases are ignored by everyone unless they involve prominent individuals. Even then the media is selective as it takes a risk in covering such cases and any muck-raking could be dangerous for them.

In most of these cases, nobody asks why the witnesses turned hostile or why the court did not take any follow-up action against them for perjury. The courts understand that giving evidence against the high and mighty can be a risky proposition. Witnesses’ reluctance to come forward to give evidence has created a thriving “false witness” business. Outside criminal courts, one can engage individuals for a few hundred rupees to depose as witnesses. This cosy arrangement has the connivance of unscrupulous policemen and lawyers. Judges also know this; so in many cases courts do not take the evidence of such witnesses seriously. But where it suits the judges, their evidence would be taken into reckoning.

Every citizen has a social responsibility to give evidence if he witnesses a criminal act. The law construes it as abetting the crime if he does not do so. But if an average citizen is asked, “Will you give evidence?” an emphatic “No” would be the immediate reply. It might be termed socially irresponsible. But in this country, people keep social responsibility for talk shows and use practical wisdom to survive one day at a time. I am not too sure that even I would readily volunteer to give evidence, although I am stepping into the last quarter of life. My instinct for self-preservation might take over. After all, I have only one life to live!

In the current scene of law enforcement and delivery of justice, witnesses probably run more risks than criminals under trial. The enormous number of witnesses turning hostile in appeal courts is testimony to this. Otherwise how do we explain the extraordinary phenomenon of criminals caught on live TV getting away with their crime?

The Indian judicial environment is loaded against witnesses. Witness protection is often proffered as a remedy for this. Witnesses are summoned to the court whether they have money or not. Nobody cares if the witness is the breadwinner of the family and cannot afford to be away from his work. Even if he reaches the court, there is a real possibility of the case being adjourned. And this story is often replayed any number of times as adjournments come one after the other. Meanwhile, he runs the risk of being bribed, intimidated, kidnapped, or even killed. The Supreme Court has aptly summed up the problem in one of its judgments: “A witness has to visit the Court at his own cost, every time the case is deferred for a different date. Nowadays it has become more or less fashionable to repeatedly adjourn a case. Eventually the witness is tired and gives up.”

The judiciary has made efforts to improve the level of protection available to witnesses. In the Nitish Katara murder case, Delhi High Court spelled out witness protection guidelines as early as October 2003. It made the Member Secretary, Delhi Legal Services Authority the competent authority to administer the guidelines. According to the guidelines, the investigating officer has to inform the witness about the new guidelines and the police commissioner is responsible for protection of the witness. Presumably, even these guidelines provide the bare minimum for protection of witnesses; and witnesses deposing against the police hardly get confidence.

Witness protection has become crucial in cases of terrorist attack. Based on their experience in a series of terrorism related cases in Mumbai, the police have formulated a four-point plan which takes witness protection to a new level. The (Mumbai) police plan for witness protection:
• The witness will be transferred from his hometown to another location.
• The witness will be given a new name, identity and passport.
• The government will provide the witness with a job related to his occupation.
• The government will also assume responsibility for security of the witness’ entire family.

But, in the existing environment where politicization of criminals is a reality, can State governments ensure real protection for witnesses? With political considerations, rather than performance, overriding police appointments, the ability of the police to execute foolproof plans for witness protection is questionable. Moreover, with their ever-increasing commitments, at present the police do not have either the manpower or infrastructure to administer an effective witness protection system. And how long can the state provide for protection of a large number of witnesses when courts continue to groan under a huge backlog of cases that drag on for years?

The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, does not contain specific provision for protection of witnesses against threats, intimidation or any inducement that would prevent them telling the truth. This was probably why the Law Commissions had been considering mostly the soft aspects of allowances and administration of witnesses. The National Police Commission Report (1980) did no better. However, in 1996, the Law Commission recognized the need for protection and recommended: “Witnesses should be protected from the wrath of the accused in any eventuality.” However, it did not suggest any measures for physical protection of witnesses. Even after that, the 178th Report of the Law Commission dealt with the issue of witnesses turning hostile but not witness protection though the two are not related.
Courtesy: GFiles Volume 3 Issue 10, January 2010 URL http://gfilesindia.com/title.aspx?title_id=68

Sri Lanka Election Hiccups

For President Mahinda Rajapaksa last week was not a happy one. Media predictions show a slow swing in favour of the common opposition candidate General Sarath Fonseka in the January 26 presidential poll. Like all poll predictions they have their limitations; but they were enough to disturb the dovecote of Rajapaksa camp. It was also a week of bad tidings for Rajapaksa on many fronts.

General Fonseka increased his chances of garnering more Tamil votes than the President after the Tamil National Alliance (TNA), announced its decision to support him. The TNA arrived at the decision after talking Fonseka though it had not “signed any agreement, we have come to an agreement,” as its spokesman clarified. According to the media, the TNA announcement came after Fonseka handed over a document pledging to address TNA concerns. These include on lifting the four-year old state of emergency, release of all the persons held in detention without any evidence and grant general amnesty to former LTTE supporters and help their rehabilitation.

The issues are close to the heart of Tamils and no Tamil party can really question these concerns. While it has given the TNA a face saving method of supporting the General, whose war record did not carry the new found convictions. But the moot point is how many Tamil votes would it swung in favour of Fonseka based on TNA recommendations. The TNA is a divided house with an estimated 60% of leaders rooting for the General. There is also the prickly but 'minor' issue of Sivajilingam's candidacy. It is an ironic turn that the TNA, accused of suspect loyalties, is now in a position to become the national king maker; but can it do it? That is a $ 64 question even the TNA would be unable to answer.

President Rajapaksa has limitations in making free wheeling pledges to Tamils as he would not like to antagonise Southern Sinhala vote banks. They had stood by him in the crucial run up in the last presidential poll; he could jeopardize their support if he is seen leaning too much in favour of Tamils, who were till recently supporting the LTTE.

However, Rajapaksa dogged in his beliefs took his campaign to the Tamil heartland in Jaffna. His visit to Jaffna came a week after Fonseka’s trip. The President was seen doing all the right things there, starting with worship at Nallur Kandaswamy kovil. Rajapaksa promised all the things he failed to do in six moths of peace after the war: speed up reconstruction and resettlement of 300,000 Tamils who fled from the battle zone only to be incarcerated in internment camps till end 2009. Later, in Colombo while releasing the 14-point election manifesto of the ruling United Peoples Freedom Alliance (UPFA), the President said he would devote the entire second term to address all the key issues.

But to all those who expected the President to clean up his act, these words sound hollow as his regime had shown remarkable insensitivity to not only to ethnic reconciliation but other issues of governance as well. These relate to corruption, lawlessness, rule of law and lack of accountability. However, if re-elected the politically-savvy President is in a better position to act than the General who has no party base. Fonseka as president is likely to be affected by the pulls and pressures of the United National Front (UNF) and the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP), who are in an inconvenient relationship with a negative objective. At the same time, if Rajapaksa is elected solely on Sinhala backing, he may have to tone down his “resolve” to solve the Tamil issue equitably.

The defection of Batticaloa Mayor Sivageetha Prabhakaran to the Fonseka camp also probably sent a minor shock to Rajapaksa camp. She is a former secretary of the Tamil Makkal Viduthalai Pulikal (TMVP) who had joined the ranks of the UPFA to become the mayor. Sivageetha is believed to enjoy the support of both the TMVP and the followers of Karuna Amman, currently a minister in the UPFA government and founder of TMVP. Is Sivageetha’s defection a forerunner of TMVP changing its mind on supporting the President? This is a question that would worry the Rajapaksa camp. The TMVP has the muscle to swing Tamil votes in the Eastern Province. And loss of TMVP support would affect the winning chances of Rajapaksa.

General Fonseka has increased his visibility and articulation of his views both in print and electronic media. A growing belief is that the Americans would like to see Fonseka elected to progress Sri Lanka’s human rights and war crimes cases. This belief finds favour with Rajapaksa’s supporters who see a sinister international conspiracy in all this to malign Sri Lanka and tarnish its war record. The ‘conspiracy’ theory gained ground as a response to criticism of Sri Lanka’s human rights record by Germany, Canada, Britain and the U.S. that had gathered mass during the war. Presumably stung by the criticism, the President got cosy with the anti-American league of Iran, Venezuela, and Myanmar. So it is not surprising the escapist mode of ‘conspiracies’ haunt the minds of President’s supporters.

But now election compulsions appear to be having their effect, despite 'conspiracies'; Tissanayagam the Tamil journalist sentenced to 20-years imprisonment under draconian Prevention of Terrorism Act for his anti-state writing was released on bail pending his appeal. The court had denied this privilege all along.

To add to the President's cup of woes, the UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial killings Philip Alston has also timed his call for carrying out “an impartial investigation into war crimes” in Sri Lanka on the eve of the election. His call came after getting the Channel 4 video showing summary killing of prisoners by soldiers in January 2009 authenticated by three experts. The culpability of Fonseka, the army commander during the war, in these acts is as much as the President, who is the commander in chief of all forces. However, Fonseka vocal criticism of these actions appears to have been accepted as contrition by those demanding action.

It also curious to see many Tamil expatriates, some with strong pro-LTTE history, supporting the General indirectly. While their convoluted reasoning is not clear, their financial support to the Fonseka camp could further grease the axles of anti-Rajapaksa juggernaut to move a little more smoothly.

What about the 'Indian influence' that is usually bandied about in Sri Lanka elections? If it is there it is not visible; Sri Lanka appears to have become truly international with American and Chinese influences whizzing past the lumbering Indian elephant.

In this developing political scene, the reported move of anti-Rajapaksa political parties including the UNP and JVP deciding to contest the forthcoming parliamentary election as a new political front - the United Opposition Alliance - is interesting if not significant. According to the media, this front would reportedly contest with the ‘Swan’ symbol used by Fonseka. While that could happen if Fonseka won, what happens if he lost the election? Usually opportunistic alliances lacking ideological convergence never hold up in defeat. They crumble. So it is probably too early to speculate about a united opposition alliance for the parliamentary poll.

Having said all this, who will win the presidential poll? It is difficult to speculate in South Asian “democratic elections.” Usually money power, political arm twisting and horse-trading override emotions in voting. There are enough emotions rooting for both candidates, so the one who turns the head rather than the heart is likely to win.
Courtesy: http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cnotes6%5Cnote563.html

SRI LANKA: MEGA TRENDS 2010

How is the year 2010 going to be for Sri Lanka? What are the likely trends?

The year 2009 had been a remarkable year of achievement for Sri Lanka. By May 2009 President Mahinda Rajapaksa managed to lead the country to eliminate the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Tigers (LTTE) founder leader Prabhakaran its entire leadership. But significantly, he failed to carry the nation as a united entity to handle post war problems of economic woes of the poor, human rights and humanitarian aberrations and ethnic distrust. So it was a dismal ending of a great year.

Here is an assessment on three issues – politics, international affairs and human rights - based on analysis of major events of 2009 to identify Sri Lanka’s major trends in 2010. However, this analysis does not cover trade and commerce, which is a speciality in itself. Similarly, the trend in Tamil insurgency is excluded here as it has been covered in detail in Sri Lanka update No 188 dated December 23, 2009. Strategic security trends and Indian policy options in Sri Lanka in 2010 are proposed to be covered in a separate piece.

Political

The remarkable year of 2009 ended in a sour note when the President allowed political expediency to take over and advanced the presidential poll by two years to January 26, 2010. When one of the chief architects of military victory General Sarath Fonseka challenged the president’s bid for a second term in office, the polity and people have been polarised. The nation is divided vertically when unity was the key to reap the dividends of peace.

Thus we find the nation using irreplaceable resource of human endeavour on a political exercise instead of addressing vital national issues that have a strategic connotation on Sri Lanka’s future. The issues include kick starting the national economy to pay off war debts, upgrading human resources stunted durrng the war years, redress of historical grievances of minorities and rectifying human rights and humanitarian aberrations.

The President is leading the race in the run up to the elections. However, General Fonseka, the common opposition candidate, is improving his competitiveness. He has revamped his campaign making a foray into Jaffna peninsula, a no-go area for any erstwhile army commander without escort for the last 25 years. Apparently Fonseka is determined to improve his trust quotient among Tamils which suspects his new found sympathy for Tamils plight. However, unless the former political ally of the LTTE – The Tamil National Alliance (TNA) –makes up its mind to support him he is unlikely to get no large scale Tamil support. With the government in power in a position to indirectly trade off favours, the TNA's much delayed decision may not be wholehearted even in the unlikely event of favouring Fonseka.

Compared to the General, President Rajapaksa is better placed to win Tamil votes despite historical Tamil tilt towards the rival United National Party (UNP). Thus it would be reasonable to expect the President to win the mandate for a second term.

If that happens we can expect him to become even more assertive in the run up to the parliamentary poll. His aim would be to strengthen his coalition numbers in parliament as no single party by itself has a chance to get a absolute majority in the proportional representation system.

So the year 2010 will probably see the deferring of contentious questions like abolition of executive presidency. Even with all good intentions, in the coming year we can expect no dramatic improvement in other hardy perennials – human rights, Tamil autonomy, and enforcement of 13th and 17th amendments to the constitution. At best expect there would probably be cosmetic changes through a patchwork quilt of measures to buy time and space rather than paradigm changes because politically that would be more convenient.

International affairs

Sri Lanka is likely to adopt a more conciliatory profile with nations which matter because it would need their support to prop up its war ravaged economy, handle embarrassing human rights and humanitarian issues coming up internationally, and take maximum advantage of the strategic power play in the Indian Ocean and South Asian regions.

Sri Lanka's relations with the U.S. are likely to undergo a face lift with. The Obama administration already indicating its mood to ‘forget and forgive’ in reshaping its Sri Lanka policy. Of course, Sri Lanka has to thank the increasing footprint of China in the country for change in the U.S. attitudes. Otherwise the U.S. would not have suddenly discovered it should have “an integrated strategy that leverages political, economic, and security tools for more effective long-term reforms” in Sri Lanka.

Of course 2010 will be the year of sizeable increase in the Chinese profile beyond its projects in Sri Lanka. We can expect the markets to open up for a flood of Chinese goods giving a run for the money to Indian and local brands. Towards the year end probably we would see the first of the Chinese tourists in large number.

Indian response to the Chinese moves could be slow in its own ponderous pace. The focus would be on developmental activity in the Tamil areas and taking up other projects long in incubation. In 2010 Indian concerns with Af-Pak region are likely to occupy greater space in its foreign policy preoccupations due to the likely downsizing of the U.S. profile in the region as prelude to progressive military disengagement in that region. Despite this, with the Tamil Nadu legislative elections due in another year the Tamil issue could be brought back to the top of the open agenda from backroom parleys. So Sri Lanka will be required to handle this isue whether it likes it or not.

The EU despite periodic fulminations about extending the GSP+ tariff concessions may well end up striking a compromise. The EU rarely takes abrupt or precipitate action in handling such situations. Usually it provides enough space for the other nation to evolve a workable solution. Moreover, it has both strategic and commercial interests in the region and cannot exclude itself in the power game in the region.

Britain’s Sri Lanka relations had a forgettable year in 2009. They are unlikely to fare any better in 2010 due to Britain’s own political compulsions in responding to ethnic Tamil lobbying and human rights pressures outweighing other considerations.

Human Rights issues

It is pay time for Sri Lanka’s human rights aberrations and alleged war crimes. In 2010 there is likely to be more international pressure on Sri Lanka to show concrete actions to prevent economic and diplomatic stand off with powerful entities like the EU and the U.S. In view of this Sri Lanka could move away from its hard positions and take face saving measures so that it presents a reasonable image to a more friendly U.S.

However, if past experience is any guide, Sri Lanka is likely to fall short of translating words into action. Usually it works out a slew of half way measures to ease international pressure and to buy time. Though executive presidency gives adequate freedom for the president to do so he is unlikely to expend it on this count to make a radical departure from past practice for want of political incentive to do so.

Of course a strong peoples’ movement could change this. There are no signs of such a movement in the near future. It is extremely doubtful whether the opposition parties with their own tainted record would be inclined to do so.

Allegations of war crimes are much more serious in the international eye. But politically it is going to be difficult for the President – regardless who is in the chair - to seriously investigate allegations of war crimes and take them to logical conclusion. So this issue is likely to be a major challenge for the new president. China is likely to be the gainer if the West confronts Sri Lanka on this issue. China has a history of taking advantage of such confrontations. Usually it uses them as opportunities for strengthening its relations by preventing concerted international action. Myanmar and Sudan are two shining examples of this strategy.

Moreover, the international process of handling war crimes is bureaucratic and time consuming. So the Western powers are likely use the time delay and economic pressures, rather than direct confrontation, as tools to try and bring Sri Lanka on line. In view of this issue is likely to hang fire during the year 2010.
Courtesy: www.southasiaanalysis.org

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

Sri Lanka: Poll Plots Thicken

General elections in South Asia have all the makings of a Bollywood pot boiler. Being the largest country, India takes the cake where general elections run into many episodes like an afternoon soap.

Sri Lanka, though small, is no less if past experience is any guide. And the plot is thickening there as the main opposition parties the United National Party (UNP) and the Left wing Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) appear to be coming together in achieving a single aim: defeating President Mahinda Rajapaksa's re-election as president. To ensure that, they appear to be keen to put up General Sarath Fonseka, the hero of the victorious war against the Tamil Tigers, as their candidate. The reluctant General is probably facing a dilemma of Shakespearean proportions before he makes up his mind to contest.

The Eelam war against the Tamil Tigers has thrown up a lot of heroes– President Rajapaksa, his brothers Basil and Gotabaya, and General Fonseka. Similarly there is a dearth of villains because the war had killed the ‘villains’ who ruled the roost for three decades – Prabhakaran and his lieutenants.

So, political pundits are busy trying to find villains among heroes. Some of them have the essential skill sets for elections - arm chair plotting and alliance management. And rumour mills have been working overtime. International actions are adding their pennies’ worth to muddy the waters further. Given this setting, the General appears to be paying the price for his popularity. His trip to the U.S. to renew his green card status turned into a problematic one, finally graduating into full blown international issue.

Even if the opposition cobble up an alliance for presidential poll it is at best a marriage of inconvenience. Their cheese and chalk differences in ideology, goals, style and ambitions would ensure its break up when they go to parliamentary polls in the first quarter of 2010 after the presidential election. Of course which election would be held first is still the sixty four dollar question.

UNP’S CONDITIONS

The UNP appears to have a lot of reservations in allying itself with the JVP and in putting up the General as common candidate. So it is not surprising that the UNP leader Ranil Wickremesinghe has spelled out the conditions under which the party would agree to go along with the JVP and support the General. As per his interview to Sudar Oli, published in the Island, the conditions are as follows (own comments are given in brackets in italics):

Common candidacy: The UNP, JVP and the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) have to agree to field a common candidate. [Will TNA agree to the General, essentially a military man who established his reputation by routing the LTTE, as the common candidate? Can the JVP and TNA see eye to eye? Of course in politics anything can happen.]
Abolition of executive presidency: He expected the common candidate to pledge on abolishing the executive presidency. [If executive presidency is abolished the extensive powers enjoyed by the president would be reduced; it could cramp the General’s aggressive style of action.]

Caretaker government: The General has to appoint a caretaker government with Ranil Wickremesinghe as the prime minister. He should make a prior announcement that important portfolios in the caretaker government would be given to the JVP and the TNA. [Can the General feel comfortable in working with Wickremesinghe as the prime minister and TNA ministers when he has major differences with their political views?]

Attitude to Tamil issues: General Fonseka has to clarify certain issues concerning the Tamil people. [These ‘issues’ probably relate to the General’s articulated view on Tamil autonomy and Sri Lanka as the country for the majority Sinhala people.] The UNP leader says the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) should endorse General Fonseka’s clarifications as acceptable to the Tamils. Wickremesinghe also expected the TNA and JVP to have an understanding on this issue. [This is probably to provide a face saving way for the TNA to join the UNP combine and also to ensure the UNP’s Tamil votes are not alienated when it agrees to support the General.]

PRESIDENT’S REACTION

While a political leader might accept these conditions, the General’s political ambitions will have to overwhelm his strong personal views to accept the conditions spelled out by the UNP leader. That is the moot point. Though General Fonseka is still not on cards as a contestant, the President is watchful of the developments. The General is one person who could spoil Rajapaksa’s cake walk victory. So Rajapaksa has become extremely cautious on the issue; he has refused to comment on the General’s political ambitions. To strengthen his alliance, the President is likely to strive hard in closing some understanding, if not alliance, with TNA. To make the job easier, he might offer the TNA an acceptable political package to accommodate Tamil political aspirations as the carrot. The impending SLFP convention could clarify these issues.

The media had been discussing a whole range of structural subterfuges the government can use to dissuade or prevent Fonseka from contesting. But there is problem in believing what the media says.

South Asian elections usually have lots of intrigues, whispers in the corridors, broken promises and some broken hearts, bags of money passing hands, guns and gangsters, fast cars and, I am sure lots of pretty girls, thrown in as incentive to the foot soldiers. And Sri Lanka is no exception. How General Fonseka, the disciplined soldier, would compromise his strong perceptions on what he believes as right and wrong for political support is a question waiting to be answered.

With the election pot boiling, pulse rate of politicians have gone up and the anxiety of candidates would also increase when clarity emerges. However it is the public who will decide it finally when the happy ending comes. Of course it depends partly upon the political script they understand, and to be frank, how much money the winners and losers spend.

Tailpiece: In my last SAAG up date No 184 “Sri Lanka: Importance of being Fonseka” I had said that Gen Fonseka had recommended Lt General Jagat Jayasuriya to become the army commander, superseding seven other generals. Many well informed readers have pointed out that I was wrong. I thank them and apologise for the unintentional error.

Courtesy: www.southasiaanalysis.org URL: http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cnotes6%5Cnote551.html