"The misrepresentation of a state and its government and their authorities is one of the fundamental political problem in the developing world. The problem is as organic as the corruption that plague the lives of the billions, and as relevant as the poverty itself."
..............................................................

By Ravi Sundaralingam

(December 04, Chennai, Sri Lanka Guardian) Amid the election fever in Sri Lanka, some leaders of Tamils met in Switzerland, and the communiqué put out by the Tamil Information Centre London on their behalf read nothing of substance. This can only raise the level of intrigue of the purpose and those who organised it.

At first sight, seeing many Tamils calling themselves leaders of dead militant groups, some with members less than the attendees, can be an encouraging sign. Instead of killing each other or outsmart one another with their incapacities, it seems the shadowy powers behind the scene were persuasive enough for the attendees to shelve their over-inflated egos a while, at least until someone else tell them what to do. They know those egos are only for show within the communities than an expression of power outside. Those familiar with the Tamil militant struggle or the Tamil-on-Tamil violence among Expatriate communities understand what we are on about. Obviously the LTTE was an exception, in that it was also willing take on the outside powers, consistently. If this aspect were to be commended as an achievement then Tamil speaking communities should thank those shadowy powers and secretive wheeler dealers for their effort.

Then that is where we take leave of them, referring back to our past experiences with the LTTE. It also participated in many ‘talks’, ‘understandings’, and ‘agreements’, all very secretive with absolutely no information were shared with its own members, let alone the people, keeping the issue neatly off the agenda of the West, so that the ethnic cleansing of the Tamils could go on.

As for the LTTE, this secretive behaviour along with their socio-military/regional/international policies, and terrorist acts was also a chasm, which was complete when they lead their own to a cul de sac where they perished, and the final culling of the Tamils was declared a victory against terrorism.

The cloak and dagger stuff, a culture developed and encouraged by the International Community, including India, during the militant-phase, talking and deciding about a people and their rights without any consultations with them, while repetitively uttering the word ‘democracy’ as some sort of mantra to cheat the poor and feeble, raises many questions just as it gives an impression to solve a single issue; persuading many Tamil ‘leaders’ to meet.

To their credit participants had understood, but didn’t promise, they “should not kill each other”, and accepted they had “separate agendas”. Even with our positive attitude towards such efforts we find it almost impossible to interpret the statement in any other way.

Beside the public consultations we notice, absence of an agenda, common political understanding or future program, and absence of others who fundamentally disagreed the Sri Lankan state. Instead, we see the domination of a tendency that denied any discussion about the plight of the Tamil speaking people in real historical terms.

All attendees had renounced or denied their past association with the campaign for a separate Tamil state. Their reiterated argument is, just as it was when the LTTE was dominant, is about ‘reality’ and “the need to work along the powerful”.

This feudal wisdom, which was absent at least among the Sinhala communities until four decades ago, is now the most prevalent theme, as all the social and civic structures in Sri Lanka are militarised for the purpose of the government in power. This can be ‘argued’ as a progress if it were done on behalf of a state, instead of the ruling party or family. This regression into modern feudalism necessitate similar responses from the under links, the communities and their alleged leaders, thus the confusion between the state and the government is perpetuated.

The attendees could have clarified this situation a little by coming to a common understanding to abandon the terms Tamileelam or Eelam from their party labels. How can any group working with the Sri Lankan state hold on to these terms is a mystery, beyond comprehension. Having endured the LTTE and lived off them for political philosophy of sort, they could have taken the opportunity to make their own political demarcation, by dropping these bogus labels.

Sinhala government’s demand that they dropped these, made good sense on the ground of loyalty to the state, and to good taste to their definitions.

And it is indeed strange, when all attendees had already agreed in their relationship with the Sri Lankan state, they had to come a long way, into the winter months in Switzerland, to let each other know they existed.

At least they could have listened to the inner calls, the chance to ‘make money’, and uttered a few words about the war devastated and state deprived economies in the North, East and Central provinces and any effort to improve them should abide by some principles, even if couldn’t agree on those principles.

If this is far reaching, they could have agreed how they could approach the impending election, not in terms of candidates, but about the scope of democracy within the system.

Those forever speculate on the role of India and China and the past mistakes by the LTTE could not see an opportunity to put the records straight, for a different relationship with India, and even China. Again, everyone of them will probably tell that they are ‘speaking’ to ‘India’, in secret.

The meeting of similar minds may have been part of a program of someone else. But more than their intentions, the results are spelt out by consequences and their perceptions. For an outsider, it was a project browbeaten into nothing by the confusion between loyalty to a government and a state. And, it was also a missed opportunity to gain some political credibility by the so called alternatives to the LTTE, who turned out in Switzerland only to make “Mahinda Chinthanaya” look as it were the real alternative.

If wiping out the LTTE, having used them to wipe out the entire Tamil leadership was a program, then this meeting, may be unintentionally, in a small way was part of it to ensure the ethnic issues didn’t dominate the presidential election.

This gives ground to the speculation that there must be a deal about these issues with the Sinhala political and military chiefs before the okaying end of the LTTE. It made sense, only if you believed the powers actually cared about the status of the Tamils in Sri Lanka. Because, the rationale starts with the question, “why would the International Community create a political vacuum for the Tamils, deplete their stay on the ground, and make them a defeated people?” Once again, deals or no deals all what we have is secrecy and intrigue.

Have they been aware of their opposition to the hijacking of votes by the LTTE, urging a boycott or support a candidate. Thus, should have been willing to reach an understanding to desist from declaring support for any candidate or putting up a stoking-horse only to declare a preference in the end. Instead, they would have agreed to spell out their ideal candidate, who would address a list of issues, which they agreed in the meeting.

Failing all these, they could have at least set up a ‘team’ to investigate and compile a list of immediate issues and, the principles that defined them for the benefit of such a meeting in the future.

Unfortunately, every possibility raised by us were far removed from the attendees, as they spent a weekend in Switzerland and flew back for further instructions.

Democracy, state and government

The misrepresentation of a state and its government and their authorities is one of the fundamental political problem in the developing world. The problem is as organic as the corruption that plague the lives of the billions, and as relevant as the poverty itself.

In advanced nations civic institutions are the basic structures of a society. But, what are these civic institutions? Are they the family, community, socio-political / economical / religious institutions?

The clans and extended families existed only for socio-psychological continuities than socio-economic advancements. The cyclic relationship between the individual, family, community and state are the result of the historical struggles for the betterment of the terms and conditions of the economic and social relations for the communities and individuals for their being. The main engine providing the motive force has always been the economical development and the accumulation of the surplus capital. Even the domain in which these activities take place has evolved from a nation to region and, now to a global scale. As the area of the domain increases, so is the tension on the cyclic-relationship, changing the nature and the structure of these institutions.

Therefore, the concept of a family has very little economical value for the individual, unless it is wealthy. The expectations of their lives and welfare are so high, it would be almost impossible for an ordinary family or clan to provide for them. In fact, there are even predictions of end to the nucleus family. As traditional institutions, such as family and community fade out of this relationship the dynamics between the individual and the state become strenuous yet, stronger through newly found common socio-political institutions. It could be a single issue campaign group or an NGO to work abroad or a psycho-cultural sect, but they all link the individual to the state at various connection points, which may be outside the geographical nation-state.

Therefore, even within the stranglehold of a capitalist corporate state structure, individuals and ‘communities’ still see ‘sense’ to transfer their sovereignties into common currencies.

In fact, the transformation of this process is so deep, it would be impossible seek meaning of an individual or community without shared sovereignty. This is true even for those immigrants who claim to hold on to their ‘values’ and wage a war against their respective states.

It is therefore possible in the advanced states to construct sovereignty of an individual and community within a framework of human-rights.

The conditions in the underdeveloped societies are opposite. Without the support of the dominant clan or extended families an individual or a community cannot move forward. Therefore, the expectations and the notion of a state are severely limited in scope and practice. It is not so strange for a serious commentator to say, even for the oversimplification, “Pakistani army is primarily fighting against the Massud’s clan in Warristan” when there is a full scale war on a people or to know that the voting in Afghanistan are decided by clan elders, who impose hefty fines if directions are not followed by members. Or in India, many more communities want to be recognised as scheduled-casts to access state quotas or the LTTE was controlled by the Valluvettithuari-fisher folks and, the new feudal lords in Sri Lanka, the Rajapackse family are Govigamma, but need the backing of the Sinhala Parava communities.

Under such conditions sovereignty and authority of a state are easily misrepresented, and those in control of the tools of power deliberately focus their arguments on authority of the government than the sovereignty of the individual or communities. As heads of clans or ‘families’, when individuals take control of a state they translate their communal models as the norm of the state and the government.

Having accessed the powers of the state through feudal means it would be impossible for them not to use its powers to ‘better themselves’, in the process institutionalising the casts, corruptions, discriminations and whole lot more. It is no surprise then, the development of a sense of common sovereignty, and collective responsibilities are severely undermined. Therefore, what is intended and what happens are two different things as the majority chase the dream of social advancement through an enforced “feudal-democracy”, in essence a parliamentary dictatorship, which clearly cannot suit the purpose.

What to do?

There are desires, and beside them are the realities conditioned by socio-economic tendencies. The struggle for those who want to truly lead their people is to bridge the gap between them. As for us, firstly, we see the terms ‘leadership’ or ‘leader’ utterly meaningless in the context of the Tamil speaking communities at present, and secondly as Expatriates, see our limitations. Therefore, our the main objective is to engender a process of ‘thinking’ rather being ‘right’, which has been drained out of the socio-political system.

In this respect, we hope the attendees of such future meetings would realise,

i. Tamil or Sinhala speaking communities, living outside the Western province and the wet zone, have similar economic conditions.

ii. The consequences of those are accentuated by ethnic differences, which in turn are exploited by bigots and opportunists.

iii. Sri Lanka is a failed state where the militarization of all of its civic and social institutions in support of the ruling party of the day is complete, and the National minorities aren’t even recognised as part of the structure.

iv. This process has wiped out any chance of social or political democracy without serious economic development.

v. Tamil speaking communities have specific issues with the state, which is now completely in the hands of the Sinhala majority.

vi. India as a determining power of the region, and can play a constructive role to upgrade the economies of the people, particularly in the Dry zones of Sri Lanka.

vii. Any such development program can be linked to the security of the region in which Tamil Nadu can play a role, departing from its partisan historical past.

Can all this observations be part of any program?

We suggest two ideas that could have far reaching consequences to the underdevelopment and thereby, to the ethnic problem in Sri Lanka, which need not copy any Indian model. Concept of these can be discussed on another opportunity.

1. The regions of North, East and adjoining districts should be declared a demilitarised Special Environmental and Economic Zones (SEEZ).

2. A special regional development agency, South Asian Regional Economical and Development Agency (SAREDA) is created to oversee the projects within a regional context, especially for the southern tip of the Subcontinent.

(The writer is a London based expatriate Sri Lankan Tamil and the The Academic Secretary of ASATiC. He can be reached at E-Mail:- academic.secretary@gmail.com)

-Sri Lanka Guardian Read the full story »

By Ajit Kumar Singh

(December 04, New Delhi, Sri Lanka Guardian) After 26 years of full-scale civil war, the island nation is returning to the state of normalcy. On May 20, 2009, the Army, having entered the garrison town of Paranthan and captured Kilinochchi, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam’s (LTTE) political and administrative headquarters, on the New Year’s Day, officially ended the Eelam War IV. This followed an official announcement made in the afternoon of May 18, over Rupavahini, the main Government-controlled TV channel, that the LTTE chief Velupillai Prabhakaran, LTTE intelligence unit chief Pottu Amman and Sea Tigers’ (sea wing of the LTTE) chief Soosai, had been killed in the course of an Army attack earlier that morning. The Government had announced its ‘humanitarian mission’, launched to liberate civilians held hostage in a human shield by the LTTE for months, had been brought to an end in the afternoon of May 17 in Mullaitivu.

On May 22, the United Nations disclosed that between 80,000 – 100,000 people had been killed in the war since 1983 – including unofficial and unverified tallies suggesting 7,000 civilian deaths since January 2009. On the same day, Defence Secretary Gotabhaya Rajapakse stated that 6,261 Security Force (SF) personnel, Policemen and paramilitary troopers had been killed and 29,551 wounded, in the offensive that commenced in August 2006 and concluded on May 17, 2009. He also revealed that, since 1981, 23,790 SF personnel had been killed in the war. Though the Defence Secretary did not give casualty figures for the LTTE, military spokesman Brigadier Udaya Nanayakkara was quoted as saying that the troops had killed 22,000 LTTE militants during Eelam War IV. In November 2008, the LTTE had revealed that the rebels had lost more than 22,000 cadres since the first guerrilla death in November 1982.

Since the end of war in May, the country has seen another 17 killings, including three civilians, three SF personnel and 11 militants, Though the number clearly suggests that the LTTE, which, at one time, controlled over 15,000 square kilometres, nearly one-fourth of the 65,332 square kilometres territory of the island nation, is decimated, it fails to correctly reflect the threat of the remnants of the LTTE – both inside and outside the country.

According to a November 20 report, the Police uncovered a fresh plot by the Tamil Diaspora to carry out a massive bomb attack in the capital, Colombo. The arrest of Ananda Varnan, a top LTTE militant, in Vavuniya by a special Police team on an unspecified date, revealed the planned attack. The Police also recovered a powerful bomb, which was to be used in the attack. Varnan had received SLR 30,000 from his leaders, based in Malaysia, to carry out the operation. Under interrogation, the suspect had led investigators to a seven kilograms claymore mine and a remote controller in an LTTE hideout. The Police said that the suspect had planned to trigger a claymore attack in the city over the succeeding days. Varnan admitted that he had obtained the remote controller from a shop in Vavuniya. He had earlier escaped from an Internally Displaced Person (IDP) camp in the Vavuniya area after he was brought to the Vavuniya Hospital to receive medical treatment. Investigators disclosed that Varnan had been involved in a series of bomb attacks in the city and its suburbs over a period of time. Earlier, an August 10 report, quoting Defence sources, indicated that key LTTE cadres and others who had infiltrated into Colombo and other areas on suicide missions targeting VIPs and top military personnel, had been mingling with the local population. Further, arrested LTTE leader Kumaran Pathmanathan alias KP reportedly revealed the presence of a large cache of arms and ammunition hidden by the outfit in Colombo, Prime Minister Ratnasiri Wickremanayake disclosed on August 13.

On May 24, top military officials had stated that over 10,000 LTTE militants had surrendered to the military. Out of these, 202 hardcore elements of the LTTE were identified by the military and separated from the refugees in the welfare camps. Further, a senior Police officer disclosed that some 350 LTTE cadres, who had taken refuge among ordinary IDPs in the camps, had been arrested by the Police, including about 50 female cadres. Among those arrested were those who had been trained in handling explosives, guerrilla warfare and in handling heavy weapons. Prison Commissioner General, Major General V.R. De Silva, on November 16, disclosed further that nearly 600 LTTE suspects were still in custody. According to the Government, 11,000 LTTE child soldiers were also under the protection of the troops. A September 28 media report, however, quoted Senior Superintendent of Police Ranjith Kasturiratna as stating that at least 20,000 of the nearly 300,000 IDPs in the Vavuniya camps had escaped. These were believed to be LTTE cadres.

Reports of the escape of LTTE cadres certainly do not augur well for the security of the island nation. Despite being militarily defeated at the home front, the LTTE remains very politically active in the Tamil Diaspora beyond the country’s borders. Radical expatriate groups can be expected to restore their linkages with surviving LTTE elements within Sri Lanka to work future mischief.

The LTTE international wing has three surviving factions, with the USA-based Visuvanathan Rudrakumaran heading its political affairs; Oslo (Norway) based Perinpanayagam Sivaparan aka Nediyawan, who has declared himself in favour of continuing the LTTE armed struggle, leads a second faction. "The more significant threat to Sri Lanka will come from the Nediyawan factor," analyst Rohan Gunaratna warns. Nediyawan succeeded Kumaran Pathmanathan as the new LTTE leader, following KP’s arrest on August 7. According to Gunaratna, the most secretive faction of the LTTE is headed by Ponnaiah Anandarajah alias Ayyar, who is a US citizen and a double Accountant [an accountant who knows double-entry accounting which is a method of record-keeping that lets people track just where the money comes from and where it goes].

Both Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapakse and the Minister of Export Development and International Trade, G. L. Peiris, have confirmed that the LTTE’s communication system was still functioning and continuing to plan actions against the country. On August 11, President Mahinda Rajapakse had urged the international community to help the nation crack down on the LTTE’s international financing arm. He said the LTTE was still active in some countries, especially in South-East Asia and Europe. Unsurprisingly, Canada, which was one of the top sources of funding for the LTTE, providing up to USD 12 million a year, admitted on November 4 that the defeat of the LTTE had ended the insurgency, but they remained a terrorist group that "could potentially have a significant impact on Canada".

Nevertheless, in a Press statement issued on November 4, the LTTE welcomed all current democratic moves in the Diaspora, such as a referendum on the Vaddukoddai Resolution [unanimously Adopted at the 1st National Convention of the Tamil United Liberation Front, held at Pannakam (Vaddukoddai Constituency) on May 15, 1976. The TULF went to polls in 1977 with this and received an overwhelming mandate from the Tamil electorate. This was the last time Tamils of Eelam were able to express their wish freely at a democratically conducted poll], Country Councils and Provisional Transnational Government of Tamil Eelam (PTGTE). Accordingly, the Norway based LTTE leaders decided to hold the first phase of PTGTE election in that country. However, only 2,667 out of a total of 27,000 Tamils in Norway voted. The LTTE candidate lost and Vijaya Shankar, an Indian Tamil from Chennai – capital of the southern Indian State of Tamil Nadu – secured the largest support, with 1,864 votes. Nevertheless, since the election was an LTTE initiative, it is expected to keep the movement alive.

Meanwhile, under the Government's process of restoring peace and harmony in the country, 45 new Police Stations have been established in the Northern and Eastern provinces, after the two provinces were liberated from the LTTE. 37 of these new Police Stations have been set up in the East and eight in the North. Similarly, the Sri Lankan Army, on May 25, stated that it would boost its manpower by more than 100, 000 troops to prevent a resurgence of the LTTE or any other such group. The troop build up, which will increase the number of Sri Lankan forces from 200,000 to 300,000, was announced by the then Army Commander General Sarath Fonseka. Also, implementing its troop deployment plan for the fully liberated Kilinochchi and Mullaitivu Districts, the Sri Lanka Army established two Headquarters in Mullaitivu and Kilinochchi to oversee the overall security plan for the two Districts. These two Headquarters are in addition to the Headquarters at Wanni in the north.

Stating that the Northern and Eastern provinces of Sri Lanka witnessed virtually no development or growth while under the control of the LTTE, Home Affairs Minister Sarath Amunugama, on November 9, declared that a large chunk of 2009-10 budgets would be allocated to these regions to give a major impetus to developmental activities: "The Government has taken a policy decision to invest largely in the Northern and Eastern provinces. It is only fair that we do that, because there has been no growth there for three decades."

On a positive note, the country has made major gains following the end of war. The Government on November 6 informed that it has already re-settled 119,687 IDPs in their own villages. The exact figure of remain IDPs to be resettled was 143,534. The Government stressed that it would complete the re-settlement process on or before the January 1, 2010. Andrej Mahecic, spokesman for the office of the UNHCR, confirmed that that the re-settlement of IDPs was continuing at a rapid pace and about a third of those displaced during the conflict in Sri Lanka had returned home over the past three months. The Government, however, is apprehensive of widely reported LTTE attempts to revive the organisation amid efforts by the outfit to rescue hardcore cadres housed in Government-run refugees camps for Tamil civilians in the Vavuniya District, according to Defence Secretary Gotabhaya Rajapakse, and has consequently established a systematic screening process, slowing down the rehabilitation programme.

On the political front, elections for the Uva Provincial Council and Southern Provincial Council were successfully held, with the ruling United People's Freedom Alliance emerging the winner in both. More significantly, elections for the Jaffna Municipal Council and Vavuniya Urban Council were also held. Elections for all the Provinces have now been completed, with the exception of the Northeast Province.

Meanwhile, Election Commissioner Dayananda Dissanayake announced, on November 27, that Presidential Elections would be held on January 26, 2010. Nominations would be accepted from 9.00am (SLST) to 11.00am on December 17. This will be the country’s fifth Presidential poll to elect the sixth Executive President. The 2008 electoral register will be used for the election, with a total number of 14,088,500 persons eligible to vote. On November 23, President Mahinda Rajapakse had ordered a fresh Presidential election, two years ahead of his tenure, in order to "seek a fresh mandate". Under the Constitution, the President can call a Presidential election once the incumbent completes four years of the six-year term. President Mahinda Rajapakse had stated, on July 6, that the ‘political solution’ to the ethnic conflict would come after the presidential elections.

In the upcoming Presidential poll the buoyant President Rajapakse, who has no lost a single election, barring Vavuniya Urban Council election, since coming to power in November 2005, faces a serious challenge for the first time as the opposition led by United National Party is to declare the former Army chief General Sarath Fonseka as unanimous candidate. On November 29, Fonseka himself announced that he will be the unanimous candidate from the opposition.

With the LTTE defeated, Prabhakaran and all top rung LTTE leaders killed, and the stage set to secure a political solution, it is time for Colombo to look for a political consensus, which remains elusive, to finally end the ethnic conflict in the Emerald Isle. However, the future discourses will depend upon who emerges as the winner of the Presidential poll.

-Sri Lanka Guardian Read the full story »

“Corruption is rampant from the top to the bottom of the government machinery. This is not covert. It is explicit everywhere. Commissions and bribery are at the forefront of the manoeuvres for stealing the public money that could be invested to develop the country and to improve the quality of the ordinary citizen.”
..........................................................................

By Helasingha Bandara

(December 04, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) Mahinda Rajapaksha was at the peak of popularity at the time of the defeat of the LTTE. What went wrong within the past six months was no mystery. The glorification of the Rajpaksha family, condoning of violence, nurturing of corruption, nepotistic centralising of the power to the Rajpaksha clan, arrogance and dictatorial behaviour, abuse of power are some of the reasons that can be attributed to the popularity decline of the government in general and Rajapakshas in particular.

Mahindra Rajapaksha did not pay heed to any of these allegations, perhaps because he had no defence against the allegations. He has not so far uttered a word about corruption among the politicians and party supporters or of the law and order situation. The common candidate has already promised to cleanse the country of corruption and to restore of law and order.

The family glorification

The Government and its cronies went overboard in glorifying the Rajapaksha clan. The unofficial coronation of Mahinda Rajapaksha as the great king of Sri Lanka, albeit on the large scale billboards, not only became an eye sore but a nuisance to the people and the world who have rejected monarchy or the one man rule long time ago. People would not believe that such glorification went ahead without the knowledge of the President. If he did not approve of this, billboards would have come down sooner than they went up. Also adding insult to injury it was the politicians who shared the credit for the victory over the LTTE. Some have now come out and admitted that it was a team play and there were many stakeholders to the military victory. It is too late for the government politicians to acknowledge that the soldiers should have got the biggest slice of the cake. Indeed the political leadership was equally important as was the contribution of the media and other people. From time to time we still hear some opportunistic vultures claim that the army had been there before without winning the war, it is the political leadership that counted for the victory this time round. In the same vein Sarath Fonseka can claim that he was not there earlier as the army commander to lead the troupes to victory. This argument does not get us anywhere. The conclusion should be that it had been team work in that both Mahinda and Sarath played equally important roles.

Condoning violence

Lasantha Wikkramathuinga was considered a traitor by many Sri Lankans. Not many people have shed tears about his death. Yet there are plenty of people who would not agree with the manner in which he died. This was a high profile case. Crimes are committed upon the people who do not toe the line of Rajapakshas on a daily basis. Many such low profile cases tend to go unreported. Some perpetrators receive government clemency and go unpunished. This has brought the individual freedom for leading a dignified life to the lowest possible ebb and people are feeling helpless in a lawless society.

Nurturing Corruption

Corruption is rampant from the top to the bottom of the government machinery. This is not covert. It is explicit everywhere. Commissions and bribery are at the forefront of the manoeuvres for stealing the public money that could be invested to develop the country and to improve the quality of the ordinary citizen. The government does not show any sign of ending the nurturing of corruption as long as cronies are ready to harm the political and personal opponents of the government. For such people perks are displayed out in the open.

Nepotism

Sirima Bandaranaike fell from grace for nepotism. Rajapakshas have been the worst on this front. Starting from the sending off his son to Sandhurst and the altering of the statute to allow his nephew to be both Basnayaka Nilame and the Leader of the Uva provincial council, Mahinda Rajapakshas has shown to be all about his family. There is no harm in getting a some of his own people to key positions for his own safety and protection in a war stricken country. Yet it was said that the plan was to appoint core Rajpakshas and peripheral Rajapakshas to lead the majority of districts at the next general elections. People would not justify that.

Arrogance and dictatorial behaviour.

Apparent arrogance was the key reason for the Rajapakshas to kick out those who supported them to win the war. Arrogance made them forget the contributors. Once they were home safely, dictating terms to all others became the norm. Those who showed guts and expressed differing opinions were kicked out.

Abuse of power.

The prime example is the unacceptable behaviour of Mervin Silva. If not for the government’s policy of abusing the power, Mervin Silva could either be in jail or six feet under. He has been awarded an honorary doctorate by a Sri Lankan University. That says a lot about our Universities and the people who manage them. This doctor does not have any sense of the dignified behaviour of a civilised citizen. He has got no respect for anybody other than the Rajapakshas, at least while they in power. The Mervin Silva factor is the key to the unpopularity of the Government. He is denying people their fundamental right s to freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of expression and the freedom to live. Sri Lanka electorate is literate and people do not tolerate the behaviour that Mervin Silva has demonstrated time and again. The voters wonder why Mahinda Rajapaksha has not taken any action to stop Mervin Silva. Can he not? Perhaps he cannot. If so people may elect someone who can.

I will be writing again on “Presidential Election and the Ranil Factor”

-Sri Lanka Guardian Read the full story »

“Why did Zardari do so? There is no satisfactory answer to this question. According to some, it reflects the weakening position of Zardari, who is increasingly distrusted not only by the Army, but also by important sections of political and public opinion because of the perception that he is amenable to American pressure.”
...........................................................................

By B. Raman

(December 03, Chennai, Sri Lanka Guardian) On February 2, 2000, Pakistan's National Security Council (NSC), chaired by Gen.Pervez Musharraf, set up a National Command Authority (NCA) to co-ordinate and control policy-making relating to nuclear weapons. It consisted of an Employment Control Committee, a Development Control Committee and a Strategic Plans Division to act as the Secretariat of the NCA.


2.The Employment Control Committee was chaired by the head of the Government and included the Ministers of Foreign Affairs (Deputy Chairman), Defence and the Interior, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee (CJCSC), the three Service Chiefs and the Director-General of the Strategic Plans Division, who acted as its Secretary. The Chairman was empowered to co-opt technical and other advisers.

3.The Development Control Committee was also chaired by the head of the Government and included the CJCSC (Deputy Chairman), the three Service Chiefs, the Director-General of the Strategic Plans Division and representatives of strategic organizations and the scientific community. This Committee controlled the development of strategic assets. Political personalities holding important Cabinet posts were excluded from it.

4.The Strategic Plans Division, headed by a senior army officer, was established in the Joint Services Headquarters under the CJCSC to act as the Secretariat for the NCA and perform functions relating to planning, coordination, and establishment of a reliable command, control, communication, computers and intelligence network.

5. The security division of the NCA was made responsible not only for the physical security of the assets and installations, but also for personnel security. It now reportedly has more than 10,000 personnel and is headed by a 3-star General. It has a personnel reliability programme (PRP) directorate.

6.The NCA thus constituted functioned for over seven years without any legislative authority. Just before the elections to the National Assembly held in the beginning of 2008, Musharraf promulgated an ordinance called the NCA Ordinance 2007 on December 13, 2007, which sought to give it the required legislative authority. This was one of the many ordinances issued by Musharraf, which remained unapproved by the two Houses of the Parliament when he left office and was succeeded by Asif Ali Zardari as the President last year.

7. Earlier this year, this ordinance came up for consideration by a 17-member committee of the newly-elected National Assembly headed by the Chairperson of the NA Standing Committee on Defence Azra Fazal Pechuho, who incidentally is the sister of President Asif Ali Zardari.

8.Contrary to the widespread public speculation on the subject, neither the charter of the NCA as laid down when Musharraf was in power nor the subsequent proceedings in the Committee of the NA and then in the NA itself dealt with the question of who will have the ultimate power to press the nuclear button in case of a war with an adversary. From the beginning in the days of Zia ul-Haq, the Army had made it clear that the nuclear button would be under its control and was not prepared to share this control with any elected political leader----whether he or she be the head of State or Govt.

9.When Benazir Bhutto's Pakistan People's Party won the elections of 1988 after the death of Zia ul-Haq, the Army and its Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agreed to let her become the Prime Minister only after she agreed to let herself be excluded from all decision-making in nuclear-related matters. The Army insisted that it would report directly to the then President Ghulam Ishaq Khan in nuclear matters and not to her and she had to agree to it.

10.During her two terms as the Prime Minister (1988-90 and 1993-96) and during his first term as the Prime Minister (1990-93), neither Benazir nor Nawaz was in a position to over-rule the Army in nuclear matters because the then Presidents had the power to dismiss the Prime Minister and they were afraid that if they decided to be assertive in nuclear matters, the Army might pressure the President to dismiss them. This fear disappeared in 1996 when Nawaz won a two-thirds majority in the elections to the National Assembly. He used this majority to abolish the powers of the President to dismiss the Prime Minister. Thereafter, he tried to be more assertive in nuclear matters. His desire that the elected Prime Minister should co-ordinate the decision-making process in nuclear matters became one of the bones of contention between him and Musharraf, who was the Chief of the Army Staff. He was reportedly taken by surprise when the Americans allegedly informed him that at the height of the Kargil conflict, Musharraf had alerted the nuclear forces on his own without keeping Nawaz in the picture.

11.After seizing power in October 1999, Musharraf ensured that whatever be the set-up of the NCA and whoever chaired it, the final decision in all nucear-related matters would be taken by him and not by his Prime Minister-----initially Zulfiquar Ali Magsi and then Shaukat Aziz, who succeeded Magsi. Musharraf also re-introduced the 17th Amendment of the Constitution of 1973 under which the President has the power to dismiss the elected Prime Minister and dissolve the National Assembly. Zardari inherited from Musharraf the powers assumed by him in respect of the dismissal of the Prime Minister and the dissolution of the National Assembly. He also inherited Musharraf’s powers relating to the NCA. Nawaz Sharif and other leading political leaders belonging to parties other than the PPP have been demanding that the 17th Amendment should again be abolished. While accepting this ostensibly in principle, Zardari has been avoiding it by taking advantage of the fact that no party has a two-thirds majority in the National Assembly to be able to implement this.

12.After Zardari took over as the President last year, the powers and methods of functioning of the NCA became a subject of international concern because of growing fears over the security of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. What concerned the US was not so much as to who will have control over the nuclear button in case of a war, but as to who will be responsible for the security of the nuclear arsenal. This concern over the security of the arsenal had become magnified after the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and the various other Punjabi jihadi organisations commonly referred to as the Punjabi Taliban stepped up their activities after the Lal Masjid raid of July,2007 and after the TTP started attacking the security forces.

13.The emergence of the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LET) as a terrorist organisation with capabilities on par with Al Qaeda---- as demonstrated by the Mumbai 26/11 terrorist strike--- increased these concerns even more. In the past, the US concerns regarding the security of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal mainly related to the reported attempts of Al Qaeda to acquire weapons of mass destruction material. After Mumbai 26/11, the US is increasingly concerned over likely threats to Pakistan's nuclear arsenal from organisations such as the TTP and the LET and others of Pakistani origin.

14.Reports of the infiltration of the Pakistani armed forces by these organisations---- as demonstrated by the alleged involvement of junior and middle level Air Force and Army personnel in the two attempts to kill Musharraf in Rawalpindi in December, 2003 --- created fears of such infiltration into Pakistan's nuclear set-up and into the Division under the NCA responsible for the physical security of the nuclear arsenal.

15.The post-2003 discussions between the US and Pakistani officials on the security of the nuclear arsenal focussed attention not only on the physical security of the arsenal in order to prevent it from falling into the hands of terrorists, but also on preventing the infiltration of the nuclear set-up by the terrorist organisations in order to obtain nuclear and other technologies.

16.As a result of these concerns, the major part of the discussions in the 17-member committee came to be devoted not to the question of the control over the nuclear button, but to the question of how to meet the US concerns over the physical security of the nuclear arsenal and over the dangers of the infiltration of the nuclear set-up by jihadi elements.

17.Reflecting this change of focus, the "Daily Times" of Lahore wrote in an editorial as follows: " A report of the standing committee on defence regarding the National Command Authority (NCA) bill 2007 has been laid before the National Assembly. The timing of the report’s presentation suggests to some observers the urgency of allaying the fears expressed by the Western media, veteran journalist Seymour Hersh’s piece in the New Yorker being only the latest significant case in point, regarding the safety and security of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal. The greater concern is not about any external force gaining access to the arsenal. The apprehension being expressed concerns internal leakage of technology and/or the weapons themselves. The beneficiaries of such a hypothetical leakage, according to Western media reports, could be the terrorists operating within and around Pakistan. The concerns of the Western media and even some governments have to be seen in the context of the track record of the security of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons. The least likely scenario would be that a weapon/s could actually be spirited away by some inimical personnel. A nuclear weapon is not a piece of candy or a lollipop that can be secreted away in a pocket to be calmly taken away under the nose of tight security. Our weapons have been dispersed and rendered impossible to use without proper authorisation precisely to pre-empt any such possibility and even prevent the accidental use of these deadly weapons. The real apprehension in the minds of those fundamentally hostile to the existence of this capability is that the very personnel charged with the responsibility to ensure their security may be infected sufficiently by jihadi ideology to consider leaking vital information and/or equipment to the terrorists currently battling against the Pakistani state. From Musharraf onwards and downwards, officials in positions of high authority have been emphasising consistently that no such threat exists or will be allowed to rear its head. While knowledgeable US officials have been saying much the same thing, the Western media seems not to be inclined to let the facts stand in the way of a good story. The proposed bill to give legal cover to the NCA would have the President as the ex-officio chairman of the Authority, with the Prime Minister as the ex-officio deputy chairman. The bill proposes to give retrospective cover to all acts by officials of the NCA committed before the bill becomes law. It seeks to institute vigilance not only against external threats but also to keep an eye on the officials and employees of the NCA to prevent any breach of security, which has been held punishable with a jail term extending up to 25 years."

18.When everybody was expecting that as recommended by the 17-member committee, Zardari would take over as the Chairman of the NCA after the approval of the committee's report by the National Assembly, he sprang a surprise on November 27,2009, by issuing an ordinance which designated the Prime Minister as the Chairman. "Transferring the chairmanship of the National Command Authority to the Prime Minister is a giant leap forward to empowering the elected parliament and the Prime Minister," presidential spokesman Farhatullah Babar said in a statement.

19.Why did Zardari do so? There is no satisfactory answer to this question. According to some, it reflects the weakening position of Zardari, who is increasingly distrusted not only by the Army, but also by important sections of political and public opinion because of the perception that he is amenable to American pressure. According to others, who are in the PPP, Zardari took this decision not due to political or military pressure but due to a desire to avoid getting involved in a sensitive controversy over the security of the nuclear arsenal in the light of the growing US pressure on the subject.

20.As is evident from the “New Yorker” article of Hersh, the secret US talks on the security of the nuclear arsenal are being held with the military leadership and not with the elected political leadership. Whether the NCA is chaired by the President or the Prime Minister, it is apparent that the US would like to deal directly with the Army on this subject instead of through the President or the Prime Minister. Zardari has chosen to come to terms with this harsh reality as Benazir did in 1988 instead of making an issue of it which he is bound to lose if he did.

(The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )

-Sri Lanka Guardian Read the full story »

“The Sinhala people- the majority- have to view these elections as an opportunity to demand critical issues such as pervasive corruption, nepotism, favouritism, lack of accountability, disrespect for the rule of law and politicization of all national institutions are brought to an end to ensure good governance.”
.......................................................................

By: Dr.Rajasingham Narendran

(December 03, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) The presidential election will be held on 26th January'2010, two years ahead of schedule, and the general election on due time, soon thereafter in Sri Lanka. The circumstances under which these elections take place will be different from those prevailing over the past three decades. Two JVP insurgencies and the long running Tamil militancy had negatively affected elections held in the past few decades. Emergency regulations and anti- terrorism laws of a draconian nature were in force and continue to be so. The JVP and the LTTE were in a position at the height of their respective and on one occasion combined powers to subvert the free expression of popular will in areas under their influence and distort the state-people relationship considerably.


The response of the government and the national political parties were reactive in nature and directed at eliminating the symptoms-violence was met with counter violence - while not simultaneously attempting to address the root causes. Civil liberties and rule of law were enfeebled and impunity entrenched. The state and its agencies have progressively become insensitive to issues relating to civil liberties and the rule of law. The state and its agencies have also as a result ceased to reflect the values of the island's people and the national ethos. The causative factors leading to the JVP insurgencies and the Tamil militancy yet remain unresolved.

The defeat of the LTTE has ensured the possibility the elections next year can be held in conditions that are freer and conducive to discussion of issues that are critical at this juncture of our history. However, free expression and a wide -ranging public debate can take place only if the emergency regulations are withdrawn and the anti-terrorism regulations suspended. The public services, police and armed forces should play their assigned constitutional role in these elections and prevented from interfering in this process and distorting results.

The Sinhala people- the majority- have to view these elections as an opportunity to demand critical issues such as pervasive corruption, nepotism, favouritism, lack of accountability, disrespect for the rule of law and politicization of all national institutions are brought to an end to ensure good governance. The cost of living and other bread and butter related issues should be relegated to the background for the moment. These issues can be addressed in a transparent manner once good governance is assured. The government and politicians will become responsive to the issues of concern to the people if good governance is entrenched.

The war is over. It is in the past. Instead of debating who deserves credit for winning the war, public attention should turn to substantive issues that matter to the future of our country. The stupidity of the LTTE contributed to ending this war, as much as the efforts of all the forces arraigned against it. The government elected democratically by the people led this war effort and succeeded. The people won this war, having backed the war effort at tremendous cost to themselves. The people paid the price in blood, tears and cost. This fact should not be forgotten by the servants of the people, at all levels in the government structure.

The Sinhala people also should demand issues of concern to minorities, particularly the Tamils and Muslims, which have caused national grief, be dealt expeditiously in a visionary manner. The fact that minorities exist and their grievances and demands which are reasonable should be addressed immediately, should receive due recognition.

While in the long term the minorities should not feel they are minorities, as envisioned by the president, the fact the minorities feel alienated at present should not be ignored. The need to reform our political system to ensure the minorities are treated as equal citizens and recognize their right to manage their affairs at the periphery and have a say in national affairs, should be an issue at these elections. We should not pussy foot around these issues any more. We have done this for too long and paid a heavy price as a nation.

The Sinhala political parties should articulate their proposals to ensure good governance and solutions to minority-related issues in unambiguous terms before the electorate. The Sinhala political parties should adopt a national, rather than a sectarian outlook in their policies to attract the minorities to their ranks. The Sri Lankan electorate should not be treated as village idiots once again. One community should not be played against the other for cheap political gain. Emotive reactions and distortions should not be brought into play to cloud national issues such as good governance and the rights of minorities. Issues such as devolution, units of devolution, provincial councils and subjects for devolution, should be discussed openly and widely in an honest and objective manner.

Issues and personalities seeking election should be the subject of a wide- ranging discussion in the print, radio, television and internet media, subject to the normal laws of the country. Candidates fielded should be educated, cultured, of proven ability and untainted by criminality and corruption. Any party fielding candidates of dubious reputation and unacceptable conduct should be shunned by the people.

The country has been cleared of a virulent and long running armed insurrection seeking to set up an independent state of 'Eelam' within its borders, the resulting terrorism and the psychosis of fear. The armed forces and the police had a free hand and plenty of support to end the insurrection. They have accomplished their task amidst allegations of human rights violations. The overt aspect of our national tragedy has ended, hopefully for good. However, the insidious factors that are far more debilitating and are a cancer in our body politic remain to be dealt as a matter of urgency, if we are to take our due place in the 21st century. We have to become a value-based society and these elections are an opportunity to set the process in motion.

The minorities, particularly the Tamils have to do a lot of soul searching relating to their current circumstances and, their short, medium and long- term goals. These elections are a golden opportunity to do so. The prolonged insurrection and the civil war have debilitated the Tamils in terms of numbers and economic and social circumstances. The tale of the Tamil speaking people in Sri Lanka is a tragedy that should be a lesson to not only Sri Lanka but also the world. It should primarily be a lesson for these unfortunate people, who were forced to react in a short –sighted manner to the various actions and inactions-perceived as vicious- by the Sri Lankan state and were very badly led.

Emotions rather than pragmatic thinking came to the fore and in the process made what was presumed to be bad, horrible for the Tamils. The Tamils jumped from a warming frying pan into a raging fire, mesmerized by the utopia promised by shortsighted politicians and equally shortsighted, arrogant and 'Trigger-Happy' militants. Tamils should reconsider whether they want to continue on the path of emotive politics or embrace a practical and pragmatic path, which will lead to their recovery as a people and win the place they deserve within Sri Lanka.

While the Tamil vote will not significantly influence who or which party would be voted into power by the majority Sinhala electorate, they could definitely influence who is elected to serve them. This is an opportunity to elect a new set of Tamil leaders untainted by an unsavoury past, but with fresh thoughts, new strategies and proven credentials. There are many such men and women who are providing leadership silently and unsung in their villages and towns, amidst adversity. They should be given the opportunity to emerge and lead.
Let those who have misled the Tamils, have blood in their hands, have enriched themselves on the misery of others and have plans to enjoy power and perks at the expense of the Tamils be shown the place they deserve- hell! The forthcoming elections should be used by the Tamils to give those yet peddling the line of the LTTE and other militant groups the message that they have had enough and ask them to get lost. This is an opportunity to clean the Tamil political stables.

This is an opportunity to tell the Sinhala leadership not to foist leaders of their choice on the Tamils. This is an opportunity for aspiring Tamil leaders to define in concrete terms what they seek for the Tamils in the future. This is an opportunity for the Tamils to define their future relationship to the Sri Lankan state and the Sinhala and Muslim people. This is an opportunity to bring real democracy into play among the Tamils. This is also an opportunity for the Tamils not to repeat their past foolishness.

How the Tamils should start building bridges to the other people in Sri Lanka and take an interest in both their affairs and national affairs, should occupy the thoughts of aspiring Tamil leaders. The Tamils cannot continue to be parochial and isolated from the national mainstream any longer. Tamils should involve themselves in issues of national concern and vote for those who would be good for the whole country, including the minorities. Tamils should not function as a voting bloc for any party or individual. Tamils should vote as individuals as per their predilections, perceptions, experiences and expectations. All parties and individuals seeking election should canvass the Tamil & other minority votes.

The minorities should not become a football, in the competition between major Sinhala political parties, any longer. Tamils should never give room for a repeat of 'Dudligey Badey Masala Vadey' or similar partisan sloganeering among the Sinhala people. The minorities have to work with whichever government is in power, to ensure good governance and progressive national policies. The past must be forgiven, if not forgotten, by the Sinhalese, Tamils and Muslims. The Tamils have to look forward to the future, without morbidly dwelling on a very tragic past.

The internally displaced persons, the resettled persons in the north, east and other parts of the country, and the war-affected should be the immediate concern of the Tamils. The need to give these unfortunate victims of the just ended national upheaval a meaningful and productive future should be at the core of Tamil concerns. While every Tamil has been adversely affected in one way or another by the prolonged conflict, the people who came out of the war zone last, have borne the brunt. They were the final victims of a brutal war and the inhumanity of the conflict. They have not only suffered the most, but also seen the most of human insensitivity and wickedness. They are our cross to carry. These elections give the opportunity to demand from aspiring Tamil leaders, what plans they have for these unfortunates.

These elections are about the urgency to recoup their losses as a people and recover from unimaginable trauma for the Tamils in Sri Lanka. The Tamils have to be told by their aspiring leaders the truth- the depth of the hole they are in at present. Tamils have to climb out of this hole first, before they start demanding anything. Tamils cannot talk of rights from the depths of a deep hole- a grave that can potentially bury them forever. Tamils need sympathy and help more than anything else now, from everyone in Sri Lanka and the world. This brutal fact must be told by aspiring Tamil politicians to their people. Let these politicians not try to mislead the Tamils once again with their slogans and big talk about a utopia about to dawn once they are elected. Let the Tamils not be fooled once again. It is a hard slog ahead and the Tamils should be aware of this.

Sri Lanka has an opportunity through the forthcoming elections to assert its true self as a nation. It is hoped all Sri Lankans and their leaders grasp this opportunity to do what needs to be done. We have shed enough blood. We have seen enough violence. We have brought about enough tragedy in our midst. Enough is enough. Let us learn our lessons from the past and chart a new course into the future.

-Sri Lanka Guardian Read the full story »

“President Ahamadinejad’s foray into Latin America last November was a huge success and he won support for his country’s nuclear programme and expanded Iran’s reach in Latin America in a three country good-will tour of Brazil, Bolivia and Venezuela.”
.............................................................................

By Saybhan Smat

(December 03, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) The saga of Iran’s nuclear programme despite long term negotiations with the world powers of the US, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China has once again ended in a stalemate with the Western powers calling for crippling sanctions.

In the latest development the UN watchdog’s governing body has passed a resolution condemning Iran for developing a uranium enrichment site in secret. The International Atomic Energy Agency(IAEA) also demanded that Iran freeze the project immediately.

The resolution the first against Iran in nearly four years, was passed by a 25-3 margin with 6 abstentions. Iran says it’s nuclear programme is for peaceful purpose, but the US claims that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons.

In September, it emerged that as well as its uranium enrichment facility in Nantanz Iran has a second such facility near the holy city of Qum. This revelation deepened Western fears about Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

This latest resolution against Iran by IAEA will certainly be used by the Western powers to impose crippling sanctions on Iran. In addition the US and Israel have made veiled threats of a military attack on Iran. They also claim that unless Iran is pliant to their wishes, Iran will be treated as a pariah state and be isolated in the world community of nations.

All these views of the Western powers are treated with contempt by the Iranian regime. The foreign minister Manoucher Mottaki in response to these threats said sanctions were effective in 1960s and 1970s, presently sanctions will not be effective. He added Iran knows how to get over sanctions. As to military attack a spokesman of the foreign ministry in Iran said that the US and Israel do not have the moral courage to stage and attack on Iran. In the latest move to demonstrate its defiance Iran announced that it was going to construct 10 more nuclear enrichment plants.

On the subject of Iran being a pariah state and in isolation in the world community, this is not true. On the country Iran has expanded relations with the Non-Aligned countries and with other Muslim countries, signing several bi-lateral relations for trade and economic development.

President Ahamadinejad’s foray into Latin America last November was a huge success and he won support for his country’s nuclear programme and expanded Iran’s reach in Latin America in a three country good-will tour of Brazil, Bolivia and Venezuela.

Chavez’s enthusiastic embrace of Iran, which shares his hostility towards the US and Israel, has made Venezuela a gateway for the Iranian government to make diplomatic in roads into Latin America.

In Bolivia, Ahamadinejad signed an agreement with President Evo Morales committing Iran to help his country do research on exploiting lithium, the light weight metal used in electric cars and other batteries. Bolivia possesses half the world’s known lithium reserves.

Ahamadinejad also built on ties with Bolivia by overseeing the results of Iranian aid to the poor Andean country watching the inauguration of a hospital and two milk processing and pasteurizing equipment for the plants. Iran donated funding for the seven storey Red Crescent hospital plants.

In Venezuela, Iran has already helped set up factories that assembled cars tractors and bicycles and Iranian businesses have sent crews to build public housing under contract with Chavez’s government. Both Chavez and Morales offer support for Iran’s nuclear programme, saying it is peaceful and not aimed at developing nuclear weapons as the US and European nations fear.

In Brazil during talks on 30th November, President Luiz Inacio, Lula de Silva urged Western nations to drop threats of punishment over the nuclear programme and negotiate a fair solution with Iran. Ahamadinejad’s visit to Latin American nations, especially the first stop in politically moderate Brazil appeared designed to provide a new measure of international legitimacy for his nation as it engages in large scale war games and refuses to back down from developing its nuclear programme.

In addition Iran has expanded economic ties with several other countries among them Russia, China, Pakistan, Lebanon, Palestine the Persian Gulf countries and even Sri Lanka. Iran has also got the unstinted support of the Non-aligned Movement and Islamic Organization Conference. So, the claim of isolation is not true. All these challenges that Iran is facing from the Western Powers only makes Iran stronger and more steadfast. In fact the Iranian progress is unstoppable and it was a wise move of President Rajapakse to strengthen relations with Iran which brought Sri Lanka aid to develop the Sapugaskande Oil Refinery, the Uma –Oya project, the rural electrification scheme and also obtain petroleum at concessionary rates.

-Sri Lanka Guardian Read the full story »

By Terry Lacey

(December 03, Jakarta, Sri Lanka Guardian) Asian bourses, banks and currencies were worried last weekend as investors dumped shares from Mumbai to Tokyo to distance themselves from over-exposure to debts in Dubai, a leading financial and investment player in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). (The Jakarta Post 28.11.09).

Dubai recently had to ask creditors of state-owned Dubai World and Nakheel PJSC to agree to a standstill on billions of dollars of debt prior to restructuring. The Dubai World conglomerate had US$59 billion of debt as of mid-August, the bulk of the total Dubai debt of $80 billion.

Adrian Rusmana of BNI Securities in Jakarta said the Indonesian bourse, “With the UAE defaulting the perception of global investors on other emerging markets such as ours becomes negative.”

Leading Indonesian economist Fauzi Ichsan of Standard Chartered Bank said, “The world market is now worried about two things : whether there will be other defaults of major financial institutions in other countries, and whether the Dubai World creditors will be able to act quickly to restructure their debts”. (The Jakarta Post 30.11.09).

The MSCI Asia-Pacific Index of local shares took its biggest drop in eight weeks while the greenback rose against major currencies. In Asia local currencies fell from the Philippines to Korea.

Korean companies were believed to be exposed to $32 million of Dubai debt as of September according to the Money Today newspaper.

But the bourse was closed in Indonesia, Singapore and Malaysia due to the Muslim holidays and as of Thursday the Indonesian currency was still the best performer in the region with Indonesian exporters of coal and palm oil worried the rising rupiah could hit export earnings. (The Jakarta Post 26.11.09).

The Jakarta Composite Share Index soared 82 percent this year as overseas investors ploughed funds into Indonesian stocks and bonds, with a positive balance of $951 million on trades.

Fadhill Hasan, executive director of the Indonesian Oil Palm Association was worried the rupiah would hit 9,000 to the dollar soon, “9,000 would be dangerous for our exporters.”

However Tetsuo Yoshuikoshi, senior Singapore economist of Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corp said the rupiah may weaken on worries next year about the slow speed of global recovery.

And now this Dubai downturn means worries for Christmas instead of the New Year.

The Bank of Indonesia is concerned that Indonesia may be attracting some hot money and senior bank deputy governor Darmin Nasution confirmed recently that the central bank was studying the option to limit foreign fund inflows into short-term (one month) bills, so that when the jitters come the rush out does not become bigger than the rush in. And Dubai is making Asia jittery.

Mitul Kotecha of the investment banking unit of France´s Credit Agricole in Hong Kong took a balanced view. “ We see Asian currencies a bit vulnerable in this environment. Its not going to be a huge fallout because Asia looks more solid in terms of fundamentals.” (The Jakarta Post . 28.11.09)

But another aspect worries Asian bankers. Nakheel PJSC cannot repay Islamic bonds worth $3.52 billion due for maturity on December 14th. This is the largest single default on an Islamic bond, but now we hear of at least half a dozen sukuk in trouble, the first of them being Aston Martin Lagonda.

Indonesian Islamic banking will remain an infant industry for at least a decade although Islamic bonds (state and private) shows signs of take-off. Indonesia cannot afford that this promising financing route becomes diminished by doubts from Dubai.

The wheel of history seems to have turned a full circle. In the G20 Indonesia leads with China the arguments of the emerging economies for improved banking discipline in the West, having learned from its own 1998-1999 collapse. And now Malaysia, Indonesia, Hong Kong and Singapore will want to assess if the Dubai debt default will damage their Islamic bond markets, expanding again after a period of doubts, and any implications for regulatory frameworks.

If fact, Asia may be deemed in terms of financial data to be a little more dependable at the moment than Dubai. That is a development we did not dream of.

Terry Lacey is a development economist who writes from Jakarta on modernization in the Muslim world, investment and trade relations with the EU and Islamic banking.

-Sri Lanka Guardian Read the full story »

By Our Swiss Correspondent

(December 03, Zurich, Sri Lanka Guardian) The three distinct Tamil-speaking political parties in Sri Lanka – indigenous Tamils, Muslims and Indian Tamils – met in Switzerland from November 20 – 22 and they all agreed to disagree and meet again to discuss how they could work together.

It was hosted by the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs. Tamil Information Centre (TIC) in London invited the Tamil parties to the first meeting of Tamil-speaking parties. Each participant was paid $3100 as expenses.

When the conference opened Minister for Social Services, Douglas Devananda, representing the Eelam People’s Democratic Party, objected to the presence of Swiss Foreign Ministry officers, saying that they were invited by TIC and foreigners should not intervene in the domestic politics of Sri Lanka.

The Tamil National Alliance (TNA) representatives struck a discordant note by trying to discuss the coming Presidential elections. Suresh Premachandra of Eelam People’s Revolutionary Front

raised the issue of self-determination. This was followed by Gajendra Ponnambalam of the All-Ceylon Tamil Congress, talking about two nations.

They were rebuffed by Douglas Devananda, Dharmalingam Siddarthan, People’s Liberation Organisation of Tamil Eelam, and Arumugan Thondaman of the Ceylon Workers Congress, representing the Indian Tamils.

Devananda emphasized the need for a political solution within the framework of a united Sri Lanka.

These divisions were confirmed when Devananda, Siddarthan and Thondamana returned to Sri Lanka. All three have pledged their support to President Mahinda Rajapakse in the coming Presidential election due to be held on January 26, 2010.

The joint communiqué issued at the end of the three-day meeting also confirmed the failure of the parties to agree on a common agenda. In a laconic statement the parties said:

“We, the representatives of the political parties of the Tamil-speaking peoples unanimously:

Affirm the historic meeting enabling an exchange of views, and express a full commitment to a common forum among representatives of all Tamil-speaking peoples;

Recognize 'Tamil-speaking peoples’ comprise three distinct peoples: Tamils, Muslims, and Tamils of Indian origin;

Respect the distinct and separate identities, interests and positions of the parties;

Recognize and affirm the need for unity and consensus among the Tamil-speaking peoples while acknowledging differences with regard to some issues and the paths to pursue them;

Commit to the engagement by all segments of society towards a just and durable political solution through a dignified, respectful and peaceful process;

Agree and commit to continuing our dialogue.”

The conference was organized under the title of “The role of the elected representatives of Sri Lanka’s Tamil and Muslim population in a process of national reconciliation, reconstruction and reform” with the clear objective of forming a broad front of the three distinct Tamil-speaking communities. But political commentators pointed out that it was a failure.

The organizers behind the conference were 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.

Some participants suspect that though it was hosted by the Swiss to put up a show of neutrality the real hand behind it was that of the British. The British government is making covert moves to dabble in Sri Lankan politics in a big way. Des Browne, the special Envoy of Britain, made a surprise move to get together the Tamil diaspora in Australia. Last month the British High Commission in Canberra invited all Tamil parties to meet Des Brown at the British High Commission.

Some Tamils are highly suspicious of British moves to manipulate Sri Lankan politics through the Diaspora. Britain was also in the forefront of the latest move to obstruct the next Commonwealth Heads of Government (CHOGM) to be held in Sri Lanka. Sri Lankans generally resent British interference in the domestic politics, particularly on humanitarian grounds. A leading political commentator told Uthayam, weekly news paper based in Melbourne: “British hypocrisy is well-known in the Commonwealth. The ex-colonies are still facing the consequences of arbitrary British acts like drawing the Mc Mohan line across the Himalayas which led to the Indo-China war. Besides, Britain massacred Sinhala rebels and decimated the male population in the Uva Rebellion. There were no males to cultivate the land for ten after the search-and-burn policy to quell the rebellion. Britain also flattened Dresden in World War II when it fire-bombed the city. In all 130,000 Germany civilians were killed in that indiscriminate bombing when it was clear that Hitler was defeated. That is how Britain ended the war in Germany. The Americans ended World War II by dropping the atom bombs in Nagasaki and Hiroshima when the Japanese were about to surrender. Their history is full of war crimes and crimes against humanity. They can’t point a finger at others because four fingers are pointing at them.”

-Sri Lanka Guardian Read the full story »

(December 03, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) Government has launched a mud slinging, undemocratic and illegal campaign ahead of the Presidential Election, claims JVP Parliamentarian Anura Kumara Dissanayake at a media briefing held yesterday.

“As you know the Government has to face a challenge they never expected at this election. The Government has opened up a front that spreads rumors and lies today. This is not money that belongs to the government but tax money collected from the people.

"This money which sustains Lake House is not the property of Bandula Padmakumara or Mahinda Rajapaksa. Neither is ITN the property of Anura Siriwardene or Mahinda Rajapaksa. Rupavahini is not the private property of Athugala. They need to realize that these entities are maintained with public money.

"If they are going to continue in this manner the JVP is ready to protest together with the people apart from taking legal action. They need to keep in mind that being in power is never permanent.

"Hereafter the JVP will not invite ITN or Rupavahini for media briefings. It will not be necessary because they don’t air what is being said,” said the JVP parliamentarian.

-Sri Lanka Guardian Read the full story »

Illusion Helping the Aggressor and Hoodwinking the Victims

By Latheef Farook

(December 03, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) President Barack Obama’s overture to start peace talks between the Palestinians and Israel seems to be yet another “mirage”. So far all such moves by successive US administrations have only helped Israel to consolidate its grip on occupied Palestinian lands while hoodwinking the Palestinians whose almost nine decades of sufferings continue unabated.

The question is how can the US ,guardian angel of Israel and an active partner in all Israeli crime and atrocities towards Palestinians, be an honest peace broker?

The US collusion in Israel’s 2008 December/2009 January genocide in Gaza and its rejection of United Nations sponsored Goldstone Reports on war crimes in Gaza are two recent examples of how the US administration places the interest of Israel above that of US itself.

Numerous independent columnists accused US of being responsible for this carnage and critized President Elect Barack Obama’s deafening silence to please the Zionists.

With regard to Goldstone report Paul Craig Roberts, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration, had this to say:

“The Goldstone Report is the Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Israeli military attack on the Gaza ghetto, where 1.5 million dispossessed Palestinians, whose lands, villages and homes were stolen by Israel, are housed. The attack was on civilians and civilian infrastructure. It was without any doubt a war crime under the Nuremberg standard that the US established to execute Nazis.

US Representative Dennis Kucinich, asked the House if the members had any realization of the shame that the vote condemning Goldstone would bring on the House and the US government. The entire rest of the world accepts the Goldstone report. The House answered with its lopsided vote that the rest of the world doesn’t count as it doesn’t give campaign contributions to members of Congress.

Obama’s credibility is shot. And so is Congress’s, assuming it ever had any. The US House of Representatives has voted to show the entire world that the US House of Representatives is nothing but the servile, venal, puppet of the Israel Lobby. The House of Representatives of the American “superpower” did the bidding of its master, AIPAC, and voted 344 to 36 to condemn the Goldstone Report”.

It is common knowledge that East Jerusalem has been Israeli occupied Palestinian territory since June 1967.That was the ruling of the International Court of Justice since July 2004 and the Goldstone Report refer to East-Jerusalem as occupied Palestinian territory.

The rule of law exists to protect the victims of war and occupying states are forbidden to seize the land and property of those they occupy, and forbidden to settle their citizens on occupied soil.

But Israel and its US patron have little regard for legal niceties. For example, on the eve of last US presidential elections, Barrack Obama as presidential candidate declared in Israel that Jerusalem would remain the capital of Israel .Thus the US help Israel to enjoy the fruits of aggression.

Palestinians in East Jerusalem and other places have been kicked out of their homes, some after half an hour’s notice, to build homes for Jewish settlers some of whom have not even seen the soil there. These Jewish settlements have been often built with US tax payers’ money and the fund raised by wealthy Jews in US and Europe .Some 500,000 Jews live in the West Bank and East Jerusalem ,among 2.7 million Palestinians.

President Obama vowed to stop Jewish settlements. However illegal Jewish settlements continue demonstrating President Obama’s helplessness in the face of Jewish arrogance despite being the president of the mightiest country in the world.

On Tuesday 17 November, days after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met President Obama at White House , Israel announced its decision to build 900 homes for Jewish settlers at the settlement of Gilo in the occupied West Bank Palestinian land annexed to Jerusalem municipality. It is hard to believe that President Obama was not aware of Israeli’s new settlement programme.

However Obama who claims that Israeli-Palestinian peace talks as the cornerstone of its Middle East policy expressed dismay and said the” situation in the Middle East is very difficult, and I've said repeatedly and I'll say it again, Israel's security is of vital national interest to the United States, and we will make sure they are secure”.

As expected U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon deplored the action. The European Union said the move hampered talks while French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner did not consider it an obstacle to peace talks despite international condemnation of the plan. President Barrack Obama's envoy, George Mitchell, asked Israel to block the proposed construction. This request was rejected.

There was hardly any response from the Arab regimes, most of whom have abandoned the Palestinians and Jerusalem.

On assuming office President Obama dispatched George Mitchell as the special envoy to explore possibilities of starting peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians. Here too yielding to Israeli dictates the US dismissed Hamas, elected in a spotless election described by former US president Jimmy Carter as free and fair, and picked up Mahmoud Abbas, a US-Israeli lackey rejected by the Palestinians.

These talks remain as a non starter. Peace talks or not, Israeli colonization of occupied Palestinians lands with Jewish settlements continue unabated.

It was a strange coincidence that Israeli announcement on new settlements came on the day, 17 Tuesday November 2009, when the 27 nation European Union rejected Palestinian requests for support for an independent state. EU’s Foreign Policy Chief Javier Solana said:” setting up a viable Palestinian state needs to be done with time and calm manner in an appropriate movement and no one is looking for that today”.

When will that auspices time come? Perhaps after Israel grabs all the Palestinian lands leaving the Palestinians with no more land to claim. Britain did that until enough Jews were brought in to establish the State of Israel after driving out the sons and daughters of the soil to refugee camps where they suffer in appalling conditions to date.

The same old conspiracy continues now under US patronage - hoodwinking the Palestinians with peace moves which drag on for generations while helping Israel to build Jewish settlements in Palestinian lands. And then Javier Solana may say, “Well “the ground reality has changed,” as once stated by George Bush.

Betrayed by US, Europe, Arab regimes and their own leaderships Palestinians face the worst dilemma in their long dream to live a normal life in their own soil.

Ends

-Sri Lanka Guardian Read the full story »

(December 03, Merak, Sri Lanka Guardian) Tamil-speaking refugees on a boat in Merak harbour, Indonesia have faced an escalation of the terror they have faced when 20-25 boats manned by masked navy commandos surrounded their boat at 4am this morning, Indonesia time. Hearing noises, some refugees woke up to see the horrific scene of heavily-armed small boats surrounding them. Seeing this, panic spread across the boat. The armed men then left in a hurry.

These Tamil-speaking refugees, including many children, elderly and a pregnant woman, flee enormous repression of a similar nature in Sri Lanka. Now they fear that their life and their rights are under threat by the very forces they seek refuge from.

The refugees, who only seek their human rights to be met and a future for their children, now fear this is even further beyond their grasp. Tamil Solidarity condemns whoever is behind this inhumane intimidation. There is no need for such tactics as the refugees have made clear what they demand and have insisted on their willingness to talk to government officials, to the UNHCR and to the human rights agencies. They have appealed to the world, Indonesian and Australian working and poor masses to support them.

Responding to their call the PRP, KASBI and the Committee for a Workers’ International (CWI) have organised a protest at all the Indonesian embassies around the world on 5 December 2009. The refugees fear that this intimidation attempt was made by those who wish to violently undermine the protest in their support. A spokesperson from the CWI strongly condemns this.

Joe Higgins, Member of the European Parliament (MEP) for Dublin, strongly condemns this violation. He said: “I am appalled to learn of this intimidation that has been carried out against these most vulnerable people. I stand in solidarity with the Tamil-speaking refugees on the boat and urge the Australian and Indonesian governments to find a resolution in favour of the refugees’ very modest demands immediately.”

Tamil Solidarity calls on all who oppose repression and stand for human rights to stand in solidarity with these refugees. Join the protests against the intimidation and for an immediate resolution of the situation the refugees face.

-Sri Lanka Guardian Read the full story »

By B.Raman

(December 03, Chennai, Sri Lanka Guardian) An alert official of the Pakistani naval intelligence in plain clothes and a naval security guard in uniform deployed outside the building of the Pakistan Navy Headquarters in Islamabad prevented what could have been a major terrorist strike against the Naval Headquarters by an unidentified suicide bomber on December 2,2009. Spotting a suspicious-looking individual outside the NHQ, they stopped him and searched him. He turned out to be a suicide bomber wearing a concealed suicide vest. However, they could not prevent him from activating the explosive device in the vest.One person was killed on the spot and another succumbed to his injuries later.

This was the second jihadi terrorist attack on a naval target since the commando raid into the Lal Masjid of Islamabad in July,2007. The Lal Masjid raid made the Pakistani Taliban known as the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) turn against the Pakistani security forces.Since July 2007, there have been many suicide and suicidal attacks on personnel of the Armed Forces and the police----not only in the tribal areas, but also in non-tribal areas , including in Islamabad and Rawalpindi and in heavily guarded cantonments.

The first attack on a naval establishment took place on March 4, 2008. Two unidentified suicide bombers, operating in tandem, attacked the prestigious Naval War College located in a high security area of Lahore. They were both on motor-cycles. One of them rammed his motor-cycle against the security gate at the rear of the building breaking it open. The other drove through this opening into the parking area and blew himself up. Their target was the naval institution and not any particular individual or individuals inside. They wanted to demonstrate their ability to penetrate the campus and cause damage. Six persons were killed--- one of them a naval officer, three members of the security guards at the gate and the two suicide bombers.

The Pakistan Navy has had no role to play in the operations in the Lal Masjid, the FATA ( Federally-Administered Tribal Areas) and Swat.However,the logistic supplies for the NATO forces are brought to the Karachi port, unloaded there under the protection of the Pakistani Navy and then transported to Afghanistan by trucks. While the Pakistani Army and Air Force have no operational role to play in the US-led military operations in the Afghan territory against Al Qaeda and the Neo Taliban, the Pakistani Navy is a member of the US-led international naval force which patrols the seas to the west of Pakistan to prevent any hostile activity which could hamper the operations in Afghan territory. The Combined Task Force (CTF) 150, established near the beginning of Operation Enduring Freedom in 2001, comprise naval forces from France, Germany, Italy, Pakistan, the United Kingdom and the United States. The task force conducts maritime security operations (MSO) in the Gulf of Aden, the Gulf of Oman, the Arabian Sea, the Red Sea, and the Indian Ocean. The leadership of the Task Force is rotated amongst the participating navies. A Pakistani naval officer has been commanding it off and on when the turn of the Pakistan Navy comes.

During the election campaign of 2008, one of the issues raised by Mr. Nawaz Sharif, former Prime Minister, was the need to re-examine the implications of the US declaring Pakistan a non-NATO ally. He apparently felt that this declaration was meant to facilitate the involvement of the Pakistani Navy in the Afghanistan-related joint naval operations of the NATO and wanted a re-think on it. He has not been raising this issue in recent months. The TTP has not raised this issue either.

( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. E-mail -- seventyone2@gmail.com )

-Sri Lanka Guardian Read the full story »

By Sumanasiri Liyanage

(December 03, Kandy, Sri Lanka Guardian) A combination of several factors in synergy has contributed to unleash since 1977, a process of increasing militarization of the Sri Lankan political and social landscape. Among them, three main factors are of great significance.

First, the market-oriented economic policies introduced in 1977 were put into practice with the notion that democratic engagement of trade unions has to be restricted and semi-oppressive labour regime needs to be put in place.

The dominance of this view was expressed in explicit terms in the series of actions taken by the Government in suppressing the General Strike in July 1980. Army and Police were used widely and the trade union leaders were imprisoned and tortured. Government-backed subterranean groups were used to obstruct pickets and public meetings. Secondly, the armed contestation of the Sri Lankan State by the secessionist LTTE and nationalist JVP had made it necessary to increase the strength and the fire power of the Sri Lankan Security Forces.
Powers of military

This has in turn increased the powers of the military elite in the process of decision-making process through setting up of new mechanisms and institutions. As a result, at the time of the comprehensive military defeat of the LTTE the Security Forces emerged a quasi-independent force with substantial support of the Sinhala segment of the population. Thirdly, the introduction of executive presidential system without corrective checks and balances has also facilitated the process of militarization of the Sri Lankan political landscape with government-backed subterranean groups operating side by side with the police and Security Forces. Although these factors operated in synergy, it may not be possible to give all these factors an equal weight and importance. There is no doubt that the prolonged armed conflict between the Government and LTTE was the key independent variable with higher parametric value in the equation.

The relationship between the process of militarization of the political landscape and country’s deep-rooted democratic institutions and mechanisms is complex, tense and dialectical. On one hand, the process of militarization of the political landscape has resulted in weakening the democratic institutions, mechanisms and values as democratic institutions and mechanisms were constantly fashioned and refashioned according to the needs of the former.

Resistance

Hence, the qualitative nature of the Sri Lankan democracy has also changed significantly and the democratic values were redefined by the laws of the market and the powers of the State.

However, on the other hand, Sri Lankan democratic institutions have had substantial resilience so that they had resisted against this militarization tendency using their limited capacity, resources and power especially at the time of short-lived peace in 1990, 1993-4, 2002-mid-2006.

Although their definition of democracy is exceedingly limited and contracting, the civilian political leadership was always careful in ensuring that military does not pass beyond a certain threshold point. Thus the architecture of the war machine is designed carefully placing civilian leadership in between the civilian executive president and the upper echelon of the Security Forces.

Appointment of Lalith Athulathmudali as the first National Security Minister was not only to make the war effort more effective but also to strengthen civic monitoring over military affairs.

The same role was subsequently played by Ranjan Wijeratne and Anuruddha Ratwatte under President Ranasinghe Premadasa and Chandrika Bandaranaike respectively.
Civil-military balance

Ranil Wickremesinghe disrupted this equilibrium almost completely during the peace talks. When Mahinda Rajapaksa decided to defeat the LTTE rather pressurizing it to come to a negotiated settlement using military methods, he had to redesign the military architecture not only to maintain civic-military balance but also to intensify military operations. Conducting a war does not follow democratic principles particularly in the context of internal armed conflicts. It was totally incorrect to interpret the appointment of Gotabhaya Rajapaksa as the Secretary to the Defence Minister as an example of increasing nepotism.

In the view of high level of intense military engagement, the architecture of the war machine had to be redesigned not only to maintain civic-military balance but also to maintain the balance between Three main Forces led by very efficient leaders who were expected act in synergy but at the same time not making a space for them to gang up against the civilian leadership. Gotabhaya Rajapaksa using his sophisticated military and technical skill has established himself as the central wheel of the war machine.

However, the way in which the Security Forces achieved comprehensive military victory over the LTTE and the media coverage given to it in both print and electronic media had made the Security Forces popular particularly among the Sinhala segment. An effective military action needs that day-to-day military operations should be freed from civilian political decisions particularly in a context in which civilian political leadership is subject to re-election.

Influences

So the intense military operation had given not only a relative independence to military hierarchy but also made it possible for them to influence decision-making even in activities that were not directly related to military operations in the war zone. So the relative independence of the military elite, their ability to influence decision-making in general and its popularity among Southern Sinhala population may have had an effect on the way in which military elites tend to think about the country’s future.

General Sarath Fonseka in his letter of resignation to the President Mahinda Rajapaksa informed he had reason to believe that the upper echelon of the Government had suspected that he would try a military coup to capture power. We have no evidence to substantiate his speculation that some people had suspected that he would try a military coup to capture power.

We have no evidence to substantiate his speculation that some people had suspected the possibility of a military coup led by General Sarath Fonseka. At the same time, no substantive evidence exists to support the view that General Sarath Fonseka himself was planning such a coup. However, given the circumstances described above, one may not, at least in abstract theoretical domain, deny the presence of some critical drivers leading towards a military coup.

When the war came to end with a comprehensive defeat of the LTTE, it is natural for civil leadership to avoid any kind of military takeover redefining the civil-military balance while addressing the issues of continuing security concerns.

Changes introduced in the military hierarchy immediately after the war may signify a first step towards demilitarization.

Demilitarization operates in different levels. For both economic and political reasons reduction of the number Armed Forces is not possible.

Sarath Fonseka at his new position as the Chief of Defence Staff sought not only the co-ordination of the activities of Three Forces and Police but a full control over them. It seems that this effort was thwarted by the Defence Ministry Secretary. So, Fonseka was dissatisfied as his plan of taking over the command structure of the Security Forces and Police to his hands did not materialized. He had to find other means and found the leadership vacuum in the opposition circle. That was the context in which General Fonseka took a decision to enter politics.

Although his support base was amorphous and internally contradictory, they all have had one objective in common, overthrowing Mahinda Rajapaksa from power. The JVP has seen its support base getting increasingly weakened as the United Peoples Freedom Alliance was able gradually in attracting youth in the periphery. Mangala Samaraweera was able to penetrate into already weakened UNP offering a shortcut to power that many UNPers were seeking for their own benefits. In the past three years, the SLMC almost lost its support base in the Eastern Province. Western imperialist countries are also unhappy about Mahinda Rajapaksa regime because of the change of orientation of its foreign policies. However some rhetoric has to be articulated in bringing all the varying internal forces under one umbrella. Hence came the promise of abolition of Executive Presidency that does not go beyond usual rhetoric.

Tissa Attanayaka has recently informed that a bill would be presented to Parliament one month after the Presidential Election. There will not be a major change in the Parliament even the result of the Presidential Election would be in favour of the UNP. So one may even wonder as to why UNP did not bring such a bill before the Presidential Election. It is clear that what General Fonseka seeks is what he was not able to achieve as the Chief of DS.

He has already informed that he was unhappy because he was given not controlling power but only the power of co-ordination while the Three Forces and Police would operate under their own command structure. From the point of civil rule, the existing structure is much more democratic and barrier for possible military coup. The LTTE was comprehensively defeated.

Time has come to reverse the process that had developed in the past 25 to 30 years. The removal of the danger posed by General Fonseka would be a first step although the first step would not be adequate in reversing a process that has been at work in the past three decades.

(The writer is a lecturer in Political Economy at the Peradeniya University )

-Sri Lanka Guardian Read the full story »

“India is viewed with suspicion by the Sinhalese as a whole, mostly out of fear that India may again impose a solution of its design to the national question. That is something Sinhala chauvinists would like to resolve by negating the existence of all minority nationalities.”
...............................................................................

By S. Sivasegaram

(December 03, New Delhi, Sri Lanka Guardian) By early 2006, the Government of Sri Lanka (GoSL) had decided to embark on a military course to deal with the Tamil Tigers (LTTE) and was pushed hard in that direction by its extreme chauvinist partners. The build-up for war was nevertheless on between 2002 and 2005 when the ceasefire was effective and even as peace talks continued into 2003. The then prime minister, Ranil Wickramasinghe, claimed credit a year ago for weakening the LTTE by engineering a split (with help from the US) in 2004, and some months ago for purchasing most of the military hardware, with which the GoSL successfully fought the war, between 2002 and 2004. The LTTE too armed itself during the time but did not anticipate the brutal force with which the GoSL would pursue the war and the line-up of international forces against it.

The LTTE was weakened on its naval front by the tsunami in 2004, which took a heavy toll in the LTTE-controlled regions and delivered a severe economic blow, which was aggravated by the government’s de facto denial of tsunami relief. Further, the shortcomings of the LTTE, especially its failure to carry out mass political work and insensitivity to contradictions among the people, cost it dearly when the government went on the offensive in the East in 2006. But the LTTE retreated from the East with minimal losses.

When the government followed its conquest of the East with an offensive in the North, the LTTE steadily lost ground and, despite its ability to deliver the occasional surprise attack, was a poor match in conventional warfare to the re-armed and reinforced Sri Lankan armed forces, with training in counter-insurgency. The government’s push to militarily defeat the LTTE had more than the tacit blessings of India and the ‘international community’, meaning the imperialist alliance led by the US. India and the US provided logistical as well as material support to the GoSL.

The LTTE, contrary to the belligerent image painted by the GoSL, India and the US, was, at least by 2007, keen on cessation of hostilities and negotiations. The armed forces of the GoSL, sniffing victory, were unwilling; and the GoSL made the laying down of arms by the LTTE a precondition for any negotiation. That was hard for the LTTE, which relied heavily on its image of invincibility and defiance for its financial and political backing from its supporters, especially among the Tamil Diaspora.

Well before the fall of the LTTE’s administrative capital Killinochi at the end of 2008, it was clear the government forces could be indiscriminate in their attacks. By ordering all NGOs and journalists out of the conflict zone in mid-2008, the GoSL signalled it was unwilling to let reports of human rights violations and civilian casualties stand in its way.

The human tragedy worsened rapidly from mid-2008; and the displaced population in the North passed 200,000 at the end of 2008. The LTTE left behind a ghost town in Kilinochchi by persuading the people to follow it as it retreated. LTTE’s critics charge that it forced the people, but it is more likely that the people feared the armed forces more than they resented the totalitarian ways of the LTTE, and probably believed that the LTTE would regain control of lost territory as it did on earlier occasions. As the LTTE territory shrank, the number of displaced passed 300,000 and their living conditions became more miserable. The proportion of the displaced who wanted to leave the LTTE-controlled territory at any time is unknown. But it is likely that, with time and the GoSL restricting the flow of essential goods including food and medicine to the LTTE-controlled areas, the number of people who would rather risk it with the armed forces than be unsheltered and face hunger, starvation and disease increased.

The US, EU, UN and India were aware that the condition was deteriorating for the displaced and that the conflict was heading towards a catastrophe for the entrapped civilians. The issues were soft-pedalled by the governments and the UN was indifferent. International NGOs, which witnessed the situation in the North-East since the escalation of fighting, expressed grave concern. European governments spoke rather late in the day, but, like the international NGOS, they were snubbed by spokespersons for the GoSL. It was clear that none of the international concerns would translate by way of action into anything more than token gestures of suspension of aid.

The government, whose popularity rested on its military success against “terrorism”, paid no heed to international concerns and played to the gallery, and in the process stirred up Sinhala chauvinism. Spokespersons for the government went out of their way to rudely reject all charges of violation of human or democratic rights.

It was towards the last quarter of 2008, after the LTTE had lost much of the territory and had a massive number of displaced persons to deal with, that the people of Tamil Nadu became aware of the gravity of the situation. As the human tragedy gathered pace, LTTE spokespersons and sympathisers among the Tamil Diaspora saw their salvation in intervention by the US, countries of the EU, and the UN. Some, including Tamil National Alliance parliamentarians, pinned their hopes on India. There pleaded desperately with India to intervene, even when it was abundantly clear that India was hand in glove with the GoSL.

Once re-elected to power with an enhanced majority, the Congress-led government had no incentive to appear to care for the Tamils or to protest the outrages committed during the final weeks of the war. When the GoSL thanked India in May 2009 for its active support, India did not contradict the claim. However, when the defeat of the LTTE was imminent, there was a proliferation of publications in Tamil and English in the print and electronic media, charging that it was China’s enhanced economic and military aid in 2008 that enabled the GoSL to carry out large-scale destruction. It was the handiwork of an India-based group actively pushing an anti-China agenda in India, with a former official of the RAW guiding operations on a number of fronts. This crude attempt to justify India’s conduct continues, and had been unquestioningly adopted by the Times (London), reflecting the West’s fears of China’s growing global influence.

Rivalry between the US and India for hegemony over Sri Lanka has been there ever since British influence faded. It came into the open in 1980, and went dormant after the collapse of the Soviet Union and increasing cooperation between India and the US. Efforts of the West to reactivate its role in the Sri Lankan national question by applying pressure on the GoSL on the question of human rights violations have failed so far owing to the defiant attitude of the GoSL, which has successfully played countries resentful of US domination against the US and its allies. India’s efforts to reinforce its hold on Sri Lanka by siding with the GoSL and even canvassing for it in international discussions did not, however, yield proportionate returns.

India is viewed with suspicion by the Sinhalese as a whole, mostly out of fear that India may again impose a solution of its design to the national question. That is something Sinhala chauvinists would like to resolve by negating the existence of all minority nationalities. India’s stock among Sri Lankan Tamils is rock bottom since the exposure of its duplicity, although a handful of beneficiaries of India’s largesse are seeking to build a political alliance to do India’s bidding among the Tamils.

The rivalry for hegemony goes on. The pressure brought upon Sri Lanka by the US, its allies and the UN needs to be seen in this light. The more affluent sections of the Sri Lankan Tamil Diaspora are working hard to bring the entire Diaspora under their wing by persuading the politically desperate supporters and sympathisers of the LTTE that the hope of an LTTE revival lies with the US-led West.

It is a critical moment for Sri Lankan Tamils at home and among the Diaspora. It is important they review the history of the Tamil national struggle and realign themselves with genuine forces of democracy, freedom and social justice than let themselves be manipulated by players seeking global and regional domination. It is equally critical for the Sinhala majority to recognise the dangers of letting divisions among the nationalities to be used cynically by powers seeking to dominate and control Sri Lanka.

The future of the country depends on its ability to resist any form of foreign meddling, by uniting its nationalities through a just and lasting solution, based on the principle of self-determination, to the national question.

-Sri Lanka Guardian Read the full story »

By Maduranga Rathnayake
Writes from Melbourne

(December 03, Melbourne, Sri Lanka Guardian) We need some drastic constitutional reforms, not because political expediency and survival of some, if not all, politicians require it at this hour, because it is indispensable if we are to progress as a nation. Our constitutional making history is marred with corruption and deceit. Dire have been the consequences. The Tamils rejected both the so-called home-grown Constitutions; the short-lived 1972 Constitution and the much pulverized present 1978 Constitution. First and foremost, the lack of broad-based consultative processes before the enactments rendered those processes as well as the final constitutional documents insubstantial and unworthy. And this myriad of deception caused a deep resentment among the minority Tamils. Though any Ceylonese at the time could have done very little about the Soulbury Constitution, the Tamils felt, more importantly, recognised and to a greater extent safeguarded, by Section 29(2) and (3) of the Ceylon (Constitution) Order-in-Council 1946 which effectively barred the dominion parliament from legislating against ethnic and religious rights of the minorities.

The deliberate exclusion of a provision similar to section 29(2) and (3) in the 1972 Constitution was more catastrophic than it was utterly myopic. The probity of the so-called Constituent Assembly is certainly debatable. Though Kodeeswaran v. Attorney-General (1969) and Bribery Commissioner v. Ranasinghe (1964) judicially (the Privy Council) affirmed the entrenched character of section 29(2) and (3) it is once again arguable whether these pronouncements mandated the inclusion of the very section in a future Constitution. While one must appreciate the pragmatic relevance of the idea of a Constituent Assembly, particularly, given the constitutional technicality involved, what is unpardonable, however, is the Constituent Assembly’s failure to make a more secular Constitution by including, inter alia, a provision similar to section 29(2) and (3). This is one grave mistake in our constitutional history. Unfortunately, the 1978 Constitution was too enacted with little remorse. That too the Tamils received in the same way; outright rejection.

On both occasions, in 1972 and 1977, the respective parliamentary elections were contested, by the parties that would be elected, on an election pledge, more vigorously in 1972, for a new Constitution. It is appalling how a parliamentary election could have been an alternative to a broad-based public consultation before a new Constitution could have actually been enacted. This was and is a hoax; and a blatant abuse of a most democratic institution, the franchise. In both these instances, rather manoeuvres, the mandate was interpreted and taken as an endorsement by the people of the new constitution, which either had already been drafted and ready or swiftly finalised thereafter, whereas the mandate, in fact, ought to have been the very basis of a prospective consultative process on the enactment of a new Constitution.

What we see now is the beginning of an even horrendous process. Already private-agreements have been entered into by some presidential candidates and party political leaders regarding changing the present executive presidential system to an executive prime-minister system. Even dates and months have been set for this adventure. Firstly, are these private agreements legal? It is clear that these agreements are utterly unenforceable and of no legal, much less constitutional, force at all. Secondly, does one have a moral right to seek a mandate from the people based on these private agreements? To do so would be obnoxious to both the very essence of the franchise as well as the modern principles of constitution making. The people’s mandate should be sought only after the core principles on which the new constitution would be based on have been deliberated in a widest possible consultative process. Thus, the people’s mandate should be sought at that stage with a view to obtaining the final consensus. The recent South-African experience in this regard has shown us that such a broad-based consultative process, much as it is imperative, is possible.

What we need at this point in time are not piece-meal constitutional adjustments for leaders to secure power, instead a genuine constitutional making process wherein the rights of the majority Sinhalese and the minority communities would be vigorously examined and specific provisions that balance the rights of different ethnic groups would be introduced.

-Sri Lanka Guardian Read the full story »

Isn’t this a Freudian slip in which Fonseka describes Ranil better than anyone else?
……………………………………………..........................

By H. L. D. Mahindapala

(December 03, Melbourne, Sri Lanka Guardian) Whether General Sarath Fonseka wins or loses there is no doubt that, at the end of it all, Ranil Wickremesinghe will be the loser. If Fonseka loses it is Wickremesinghe who will have to cop the flak. It will prove once again that he is a born loser. In the unlikely event of a win credit will go invariably to Fonseka and not to Wickremesinghe. So either way Wickremesinghe is a loser. What is worse, if Fonseka wins Wickremesinghe will have no power to force him out and grab power from him. Wickremesinghe will be a loser in this respect too.

According to his late uncle, J. R. Jayewardene, the constitution bestows on Fonseka unbridled political power to do anything he pleases with Wickremesinghe, except turning him into a woman. Fortunately, Fonseka will not have to go that far because Wickremesinghe, ever since he took over the UNP, has been behaving like a cantankerous and frustrated wattiamma returning home without selling a single halmassa. Therefore, the voters and the UNPers, in particular, have a right to ask what substantial good Wickremesinghe has done to the nation and to the party. He is a self-confessed failure. In asking Fonseka to contest on his behalf he is making a public confession that he can’t even contest an election to save his skin. Sri Lanka has produced many firsts like the first woman prime minister, the doosra, and even the world’s deadliest terrorists. In Wickremesinghe, however, Sri Lanka has produced the first political hermaphrodite (napoonsakaya) who had lost around 18 elections and still claims to be a leader.

As things stand now Fonseka comes across better than Wickremesinghe in public. He sounds more convincing than Wickremesinghe at press conferences. And he fields the questions succinctly giving answers that seem to be appropriate for the moment though practically everyone of it can be faulted on grounds of credibility. Even when he says that “We are good friends now” referring to the new alliance with Mangala Samaraweera – his erstwhile critic who said that Fonseka was not even fit to lead the Salvation Army – he sounds genuine. He looks as if he has mastered the art of politicking quick-fast.

However, these are early days and there could be many a slip between now and January 28th. What Fonseka needs in the run up to the election – and also in the long term -- is a consolidated political base. If he wins the presidential race he could easily take over the reins of the UNP – and that wouldn’t be bad thing for the UNP and the nation. Wickremesinghe should have been booted out at the end of each election he lost. Hopefully the UNPers will have the guts to do the needful after January 28th.

In the meantime, Wickremesinghe, like an incorrigible habitual, reverts to his failed tactics of forming alliances. First he made a grand alliance with the best Tamil military tactician. Now he has formed an alliance with the best Sinhala tactician who beat the best Tamil tactician. He had tried every possible tactic – from “juck-muck” politics in bullock carts to dragging dogs out of the Colombo Municipal pound --- and failed. Can he win with Fonseka? When N. Ram, the editor of The Hindu, asked President Rajapakse about the threat posed by Prabhakaran, he replied: “He comes from the jungles of the north. I come from the jungles of south. Let’s see who wins!” This time round President could says: “We both come from the south. Lets see who wins!”

From the sidelines Wickremesinghe is cheering Fonseka in the hope that he will be the ultimate beneficiary of his victory. He is backing Fonseka in the hope that he will not only dissolve the presidency, if he wins the race, but also make him the Prime Minister. This is one of the most bizarre thought bubbles ever floated in politics. This stipulation also goes against every bone in Fonseka’s body politic. In short, Wickremesinghe is asking Fonseka to do another Siri Sangabo – hand over President Fonseka’s head on a platter to Prime Minister Wickremesinghe. No one believes that contemporary Sri Lankans are about to witness the rebirth of Siri Sangabo on January 28th and his instant death after declaring Wickremesinghe as the Prime Minister.

If Fonseka’s forthright statements at the press conference are any guidance to his future role then it is abundantly clear that he is determined to stay put, without moving from the presidential chair, to clean up the place, as he states. He is promising to do many things. But from where is he going to fulfill his promises if he does a Siri Sangabo? He must have power to execute his promises. But he has promised Wickremesinghe to hand over his head to him soon after he wins the next presidential election. If Wickremesinghe has his way Fonseka will neither be a president nor a prime minister. So from which place is he going exercise power to fulfill his promises? His mission and goals defined by him are highly commendable. But which office will he be occupying to deliver his promises?

This is a glaring contradiction that he and Wickremesinghe have yet to explain. Take, for instance, Fonseka’s promise to “get his hands dirty to clean up the garbage.” That is a huge task like cleaning the Augean stables which will take years, perhaps the remaining years of his life. His task, if he is going to be fair and just, as promised, should not stop at the Rajapakse regime. It should extend to the Wickremesinghe regime as well because he and his UNP caboodle ran one of the most corrupt regimes, suppressing dissent (he forced Paul Harris, the independent journalist from Janes Weekly and Daily Telegraph to get out of the country within twenty four hours) and bootlicking the West, just to mention a few. So after winning the presidency and handing it over to Wickremesinghe is he going to be the next head of the Bribery Commission working, perhaps, under Dr. Jayalath Jayawardena who will want to give contracts to his sisters, aunts and nieces? .

This whole scenario is the biggest farce in which Wickremesinghe is trying to take Fonseka for a ride and vice versa. What is worse, both are working together to take the public also for the greatest ride of their life. There is also a line which Fonseka delivered at the press conference which may have serious consequences to Wickremesinghe. He said: “The country needs a leader who loves the country. (How does Ranil fit into this description?) I don’t know whether leaders in the past have been able to prove themselves to the expectations of the people to say that they really love the country. They would have said so in words but they have to do so in action and deeds.”

Isn’t this a Freudian slip in which Fonseka describes Ranil better than anyone else? Besides, he uses a broad brush to tarnish all leaders of the past without exception and though he may be hinting at the Rajapakses it also includes Ranil, Mangala, Hakeem, etc. So from where would he begin to cleanup the Sri Lankan stables? How long does he need to that? And from which power base is he going to perform his duties?

Besides, all his calculations are based on him winning power without any guarantee from Wickremesinghe to retain power to do what he wants. The power struggle that is going to take place in the unlikely event of Fonseka winning is going to be fierce than the one he is facing with the Rajapakses. According to Ranil’s declarations Fonseka has no role to play other than to win the election and hand over power to him. Both pose serious problems of credibility. In the end the public will not be surprise to see Wickremesinghe whistling louder than ever in the wind.

Apart from that, all of Fonseka’s promises are predicated on him winning the presidential race. The whole purpose of Wickremesinghe’s current move to ride on the back of Fonseka is because he thinks his horse can carry his excess weight and win. But can he? Though Wickremesinghe still retains a substantial part of the UNP block vote he still lacks the nationalist vote in the south to tip the scales in his favour. He was earlier banking on the minority votes. Now he thinks his chances has improved by cutting into the Rajapakse vote through Fonseka. But even if he gets some of Rajapakse’s votes he is not getting the minority vote he expected to win. Nor is there a Prabhakaran to deliver a block vote to him.

One of the biggest blows came from the Arumugan Thondaman who has the capacity to deliver a sizeable block from his vote bank in the estates. He has come out committing himself to give unconditional support to Rajapakse. On top of that S. B. Dissanayake, his National Organiser who has some clout in the central hills, too many not put his full weight behind Wickremesinghe. Clearly the minority votes of the central hills are not going to swing Fonseka’s way. If that is bad it is getting worse in east and the north. Karuna and Pillaiyan, who have some say, too has pledged their support to Mahinda. Muslims of the East too are not fully behind Wickremesinghe’s side-kick, Rauf Hakeem.

What is left is the north. How would the north vote? What is heard on the grapevine is that TNA will field a candidate of its own – most probably Sampanthan - for three main reasons:1. neither presidential candidate is appealing to them; 2 a Tamil candidate is necessary to maintain their political stance of not compromising on their demands and pushing for going beyond 13th Amendment and 3. deliver a strong message to the Tamil diaspora that the TNA has the electoral clout to be their representative on the ground. If a Tamil candidates pop up then the votes that Wickremesinghe and his candidate are expecting will not be there for them on January 28th. So the minority votes from the centre, the east and the north are not coming Wickremesinghe’s way the way he calculated.

Without the minority vote he has no chance of his riding his horse to the winning post. Nor is Mahinda likely to lose that much to Fonseka. At best Fonseka may shave off some from the edges but the swing shown at the local council elections will be hard to shift., unless something unforgivable happens between now and January 28th. The government must conduct its campaign with finesse and care. What happened at the Kelaniya Temple when Fonseka took his first step into politics is as deplorable as Fonseka crossing over to the enemies of the nation.

The people are tired of violence and if they are looking for a change it will be in the direction of finding peace in every street corner. So if the government hopes to win the election it must pack the likes of Mervyn Silva in a leaking boat without a paddle and let them loose somewhere in the middle of Nanthi Kadal Lagoon. Government must give full protection to Sarath Fonseka not only because he is still a target but also because it is the most convincing way of telling the people that they can depend on the government to give the people – all the peoples – the security and peace they deserve at the end of the 33-year-old Vadukoddai War.

-Sri Lanka Guardian Read the full story »

By A. K. Verma

(December 03, New Delhi, Sri Lanka Guardian) A continuous pressure emanates from a segment of Indian elite for maintaining a dialogue process with Pakistan, directly or indirectly, for a solution of Indo Pak problems. No doubt dialogue is always advisable between any two contending parties and in the case of India and Pakistan has led to many confidence building measures like the Indus Water Treaty, cross border travel facilities and certain agreements in the nuclear field. But such dialogues over several decades carried on directly or indirectly by government representatives or by what are known as think tanks in the two countries have not been able to make any headway on the core issues, one, to whom Kashmir belongs and, two now, the total elimination of terror.

In the government to government dialogues there were spikes which built up a mood of hope and expectations but these ultimately got crushed by the hard rock of reality which is the perceived bedrock of Pakistan. The dialogue between think tanks and other similar groups belonging to the media, academia and other well wishers have rarely reached anywhere on account of a variety of reasons. The access of such luminaries to wide segments of society, polity and the common man, in the rural and urban sectors, has remained extremely limited. Often their judgments are crony based, self serving or even addressed to the interests of those who fund them. A host of powerful groups that control the destiny of the state or constitute public opinion in Pakistan remain well beyond their reach. Apart from the military establishment of serving officers, such clusters should include extremists, radicals, terror spinners, students, hard core religious orthodox and bigoted clergy and the ordinary folks in city slums and rural hinterland who all seek to have an opinion of their own on Kashmir, India, religious nationalism and puritanism, and their desired options, which fail to be given due prominence.

Successful dialogues between government to government in which some measure of progress was achieved in the core issues number only three in the bilateral history of the two countries. The first was at Simla where Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, Prime Minister of Pakistan in 1972, assured the Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi about recognizing Indian claims on Kashmir. To be fair to Bhutto, on returning to Pakistan, he started preparing the people of Pakistan through his speeches to expect a change in the Pakistan’s position on Kashmir. Public reactions indicated confusion, consternation and finally complete opposition to whatever Bhutto had in mind Bhutto had to discredit himself with Indira Gandhi. He also stood discredited with the people of Pakistan. Some believe that his journey to the gallows commenced in fact from this point.

The second attempt was by Zia-ul-Huq, President of Pakistan, in 1988. The general had come to believe that confrontation with India was costing heavy to the people of Pakistan in terms of absence of development and economic progress and that a compromise should be sought with India on key issues. He got his corps commanders from whom real power emanates in Pakistan to support his thinking. A new dialogue commenced between the two countries through high level representatives, away from public glare and unknown to the normal channels of communications. The dialogue resulted in some spectacular meeting of minds on Siachin, general reduction in the level of armed forces of the two countries, contours of an outline of a possible solution of the Kashmir question etc. At Indian insistence Pakistan forwarded to India the proposed new delineation of actual contours along the Sal Toro ranges in Siachin, on a GHQ survey of Pakistan map. As steps were being taken to translate these ideas from the top secret back channel to the official domain, the corps commanders in Pakistan probably realized what an enormous shift in the balance of power between the two countries would come about on the concessions being made and how the military establishment in Pakistan will turn out to be the ultimate loser in the process. It is difficult to say what steps the corps commanders took to stall the process which already had developed a momentum of its own but the whole world knows that President Zia-ul-Huq of Pakistan died in a mysterious air crash in August that year. The cause of the crash has never been disclosed. Surprisingly, the existence of this dialogue has been totally denied by subsequent Pakistani governments. There is now not a scrap of paper in Govt. archives in Pakistan to provide proof that such a dialogue did take place. The only solid evidence is the GHQ Survey of Pakistan map received from Pakistan.

One of the visible manifestations of the good that the dialogue created was the suo motto release of four Indian Sikh soldiers who had defected to Pakistan earlier that year, misguided by Khalistani propaganda. The coordinates of the area where the release was to take place and the date of the release were determined by the Pakistani representative and communicated to his Indian contact who passed on the information to the BSF which picked up the four defectors from the identified spot. The recapture of these soldiers was just a bonus handed over by the Pakistani side to establish their bonafides. Khalistan was not discussed at all during the dialogue.

This episode is reflective of the hard and solemn reality of Pakistan. Power resides absolutely in the hands of the military establishment there. No price, no sacrifice, is considered too great by them to preserve their interests. If a subjective, speculative and cynical conclusion can be drawn, it will be that the dialogue process got two top powerful personalities in Pakistan to lose their lives.

The third episode is equally telling, demonstrating that the combined powers of the head of state and head of the military establishment fall way short of challenges thrown up by public prejudices and religious propensities. President General Parvez Musharraf discovered this when he ordered surrender of unlicensed weapons and registration of madrasas in Pakistan soon after seizing power... The underlying clash was between the military might and the Islamic might. The former threw in the towel and beat a hasty retreat. So, when Parvez Musharraf promised to US and India that he would not allow the territory of Pakistan to be used for cross border operations, the discerning knew that it would be a hollow promise as it indeed proved to be. The military and the extremist establishments were just not willing to abide by his diplomatic undertakings, underlying once again the acute limits of the dialogue process and the capability of any power centre in Pakistan to take unconventional decisions.

The Kerry Lugar enactment of the US Congress, just signed into a law by the US President, imposing conditonalities on US civilian aid to Pakistan of $1.5 billions yearly for five years, provided an occasion to the world to glimpse again Pakistani reluctance to mend its ways. The law, among other things, seeks to ensure two red lines for the Pakistan Establishment; one, the military should remain under civilian control, and two, the territories of Pakistan should not be allowed to be used for terror against neighbours. The reactions of the military and the public in general, including the elite sectors, indicated that they had felt revolted by such conditions. In other words, the ruling structure and public opinion in Pakistan, by and large, spell out the message that they are unwilling to modify their ways, even if this US aid brings a great deal of succour to their faltering economy. Apparently, starvation is preferred to withdrawal of a policy of terrorism against neighbours. What hope can, therefore, be entertained for any dialogue process to reach any meaningful end?

Such a mind set is not a product of recent history. At least a millennium has gone by producing factors, contributing to the psychology of this frame of mind. There are Pakistanis who believe Pakistan started incubating when the first Muslim stepped on the shores of the Indian subcontinent. Muslim encroachments and pillaging expeditions into India and subsequent establishment of Muslim ruling dynasties in India sparked off dreams that the whole of India should rightfully be ruled by Muslims. Nobody in his right senses could agree to such an absurd proposition but such formulations have been voiced again recently by leaders of terrorist organisations in Pakistan like the Lashkar-e-Taiba (LET). For them creation of Pakistan is just an intermediate milestone in the march of history.

Events in Pakistan since its constitution when its founder Mohd. Ali Jinnah had envisaged Pakistan as a secular state, to present times when radical Islam seems to be in strategic control of the country, holds out many lessons for our own country. National frontiers cannot hold back spread of ideologies. Radical Islam has already crossed the borders into India. It is a phenomenon that, starting from a little spot in the deserts of Arabia, has spread across continents, ravaging and destroying empires, countries, religions and people. As Pakistan sinks deeper into the clutches of Talibanised and Jehadi Islam, its threat to India as a nation with a composite culture and multiethnic society is assuming monumental dimensions. Today, Islamic radicalism using terror as a tool constitutes the most serious danger India faces, larger than the Naxal threat which has been publicly described by the government as the top most threat to India. Compulsions of politics prevent Islamic terrorism from being identified in its true colours... How can dialogue be a success with a party that sponsors Jehadi extremism against India?

Pakistani can not withdraw from its involvement with terrorism as it has converted it into a multinational enterprise, with theatres of operations spread through all those areas in the world where Islamic interests have been under pressure. The target is not just establishing an Islamic Caliphate in Delhi but also all around the world. With the rate of growth of their populations in mind, the Islamic radicals have said that time is on their side and, sooner or later, Europe will become Euro-Arabistan, England Londonistan and so on. Al Qaeda has invited the US to convert to Islam or run the risk of decimation. All incidents of Islamic terrorism in any part of the world have been found to have links with Pakistan in one way or other. As new potential terrorists are discovered and apprehended in US and Europe, Pakistani links surface again and again. Therefore to imagine that terrorism against India will be given up will remain an unrealistic hope.

The same applies to the Kashmir issue also. Besides, Pakistani leadership is also on record for stating that a solution of the Kashmir question will not end their confrontation with India.

Pakistani enmity for India is abiding. It is reflected glaringly in its educational, military and nuclear doctrines. Not only the madrasas but also the Govt. approved text books in schools and colleges demonise India, indoctrinating the young minds with hatred for India. One can ask the NGOs and think tanks that pitch in time and again for resumption and continuance of the dialogue process how many of them have asked for revision of text books to replace the animosity and hatred they teach, with a call for a friendly, compassionate and neighborly fellow feeling. Never has sympathy stirred the hearts of Pakistanis when attacks by Pakistani terrorists have killed innocents, women and children in India. Enmity with India makes Pakistan focus its military and nuclear doctrine entirely against India. Increasing Islamization of the rank and file of Pakistani military and nuclear establishment makes reconciliation with India almost impossible. There are good reasons to believe that some in Pakistan are itching to unleash the nuclear arsenal on India. It will simply be unwise to think that the logic of deterrence that operated during the cold war can be the guiding lights for the irrational minds that govern Pakistan.

Several other issues harden the Pakistani posture with anti India feelings. Regarding India as hegemonistic lands Pakistan in a perpetual conflictual stance. Search for parity with India in strength and influence amounts to a vain effort to prove geography wrong. Plans of a modus vivendi remain unattainable because of the unquenched thirst for revenge in the Pakistani armed forces which suffered successive defeats in wars with India. The causes of defeat remain incomprehensible to the military mind which then turns to the delusional solace that devotion to religion will turn the tables against the adversary.

Since wars have failed to produce the desired results and have even led to the division of the country, a strategy of subversion, sabotage, terrorism and proxy war has been substituted, that despite mounting international and bilateral pressure Pakistan is refusing to give up. Growing Islamic radicalization in Pakistan makes a change of policy there infinitely more difficult. Use of terror has created its own rules of the game. The initiatives have now passed beyond the hands of the state and the controller himself is being threatened. The short objective of the proxy war and terrorism against India was to initiate another two nation theory movement in India. Unless Pakistan moves away from the two nation theory it will be just futile to expect any change in Pakistani policies and practices. Till then Pakistani assurances should be rejected as too often in the past Pakistan has betrayed the trust reposed in its words, written or otherwise...

The dialogue process is just too inadequate to meet the challenges from Pakistan. First, they have to be fought at the ideological level and then at the field level. What the response at the field level should be needs to be thought out in advance and appropriate measures kept ready, to be launched at a moment’s notice on any new transgression. A majority of citizens of the country are likely to respect a bold and blunt policy.

(The author can be reached at e-mail: verma_anandkumar@yahoo.com)

-Sri Lanka Guardian Read the full story »

[This article appeared in Radical Notes Journal, India, of November 23 and Socialist Resistance, UK of Nov 30th as A Rejoinder to Ron Ridenour’s essay on Sri Lanka which condemned the role of Cuba and the ALBA states in helping Sri Lanka.]

“The role of Dayan Jayatilleka…during his short spell as Sri Lanka’s UN ambassador has made an impression in Latin America”.

By Prof S Sivasegaram

(December 02, New Delhi, Sri Lanka Guardian) I fear that the attitude of supporters of the Tamil cause towards Latin America is rather subjective, and that their approach is still sentimental. I will come to that later in my response, but, before that, the Tamil nationalist, especially pro-LTTE, claims need to be studied with care.

Firstly, accepting the right of Tamils in Sri Lanka to self-determination is correct. But the national question is far more complex than supporters of the Tamil cause in Tamil Nadu and elsewhere in India are made to understand. I have elaborated on this in my long essay which Radical Notes published as a book. Secession is still not the answer and the call for secession in 1976 was thoroughly ill-considered.

Secondly, the history of Tamils in Sri Lanka is being willfully distorted. A most objective version of ancient history exists in the recent work of Dr K Indrapala, a Tamil, now in Australia. The point that comes out is that there is evidence of Tamil settlements in the island much earlier than acknowledged in the past. But that does not mean that the present-day Tamils are their descendants. The Jaffna Kingdom on which Tamil nationalists lay their claim to Tamil statehood is something of the Second Millennium A.D. which ceased to be nearly 5 centuries ago. There were, however, Tamil chieftains and despotic rulers in the Vanni who survived until the British moved in early in the 19th Century. Part of the Vanni was under the ‘Sinhalese’ Kandyan Kingdom.

The Sinhalese have had a longer history in terms of kingdoms ruled by ‘Sinhalese’. (Not all rulers were really Sinhalese. At least one was from Kalinga. Several were Tamils or Telugus). But what does all of this prove? Not a lot.

The reality is that in the course of modern history, two Sinhala-speaking polities that had a separate existence for 450 years merged into one to serve certain class interests. Tamil-speaking polities ended up as three nationalities with distinctions in many ways and with problems for which Eelam was not an answer. The attitude of the Tamil elite in early 1900s alienated the fisher folk of the west coast of the island and let them accept a Sinhala identity. In course of time the Tamil identity of the Colombo Chetties and the Paravar communities was lost. The main reason for these was that the Tamil leadership (of Jaffna mainly to which the Vanni and the East got added much later) was dominated by the Vellala Saivaites (equivalent of the Pillai/Mudaliyar etc. of Tamil Nadu, Nayar/Pillai/Menon of Kerala, Patels of Gujarat etc.)

To talk of a Tamil nation comprising 25% of the population is incorrect. The Tamil nationalists nominally represent about 10%, but they truly represent the interests of a fraction of it. When the armed conflict escalated in the 1980s, the elite fled and it was the oppressed that bore the brunt of intensifying chauvinist oppression and war. The elite are abroad, living in comfort, and want to prolong the conflict to pursue their pet project of ‘Tamil Eelam’. The vast majority of the Tamil Diaspora has been misled by a few nationalists (pro-LTTE and now the vociferous pro-government groups). What I like to stress is that history has been successfully distorted on all sides to serve narrow interests and to divide the people.

Thirdly, the LTTE was on the one hand the only remaining armed resistance to state oppression. But on the other they systematically failed the people. Their dominance of Tamil politics came about mainly by brutal repression of all opposition, rivals and potential rivals. That continued until their ultimate fall. The genuine left still treated them with some deference for being the only defence that the Tamil people had against state repression; but the LTTE was undemocratic, acted to please imperialism (especially since antagonizing India), never believed in people’s struggle, and relied on military victory led by their army. They recruited children by force especially as their fortunes faded. They let the rich get away by paying off while the poor had to send their children to join the LTTE ranks. All these are factors that contributed to their defeat. But that does not in any way justify any of the cruel and at times barbaric acts of the state.

Yet, failure to criticize the LTTE for its attacks on civilians (not just Sinhalese) has done a lot of harm. Rivals of the LTTE with Indian and Sri Lankan state patrons have been just as guilty. A section of the genuine left criticized the LTTE’s faults while defending the struggle and denouncing state oppression.

Fourthly, leaving alone the anti-democratic and even terrorist acts against civilians, the LTTE and its supporters among the Diaspora have much to answer for the failure of the peace talks (although the government is the main culprit); its reliance on the US (which used the peace talks to get the better of India in Sri Lanka while undermining the LTTE in collaboration with the UNP leadership); and its failure to protect the people.

The LTTE cannot escape the charge that it led 30,000 to the slaughterhouse and 300,000 to what are open prison camps. That tragedy could have been averted had the LTTE let the people go after the fall of Kilinochchi in December 2008. If they did not drag along with them the 100,000 or so from the Kilinochchi District, the government forces could not have advanced fast without clearing the District, and that would have allowed the LTTE leadership to change their strategy. Also there would have been political issues that would have arisen preventing the government from taking people out of their homes. That was water under the bridge when the people were taken to Mullaitivu and compelled to live a life of misery, with the government curtailing if not blocking the supply of essentials. But what justification was there to forcibly prevent the people from leaving when they could not bear the agony anymore? I have heard from people who escaped before the fall of the LTTE about the anti-people methods used by the LTTE to keep the people with them?

Did they seriously think that they could reverse their military fortunes? Did they expect meaningful foreign intervention? If so, in what form? There is substantial circumstantial evidence that they were given false hopes by a section of the Tamil elite among the Diaspora about some form US/UN led intervention (to save the LTTE leadership even if not to save the Tamils). Many such questions are being carefully avoided by the Tamil nationalists.

Thus the blame lies with firstly the Government, secondly with the Tamil nationalists as a whole and the LTTE in particular, and thirdly the forces of foreign intervention (the US and India especially) for the tragedy of 2009.

To turn to Latin America

Objectively, Latin America is increasingly facing US-led threats (The Honduras coup and the Colombian bases are additions to an existing threat). Human rights have consistently been used by the West to undermine defiant states. The US, which uses one set of rules for the Palestinians, a different set of rules for the Kurds of Turkey, and a slightly different one for the Kurds of Iraq, also encourages secessionist forces in the wealthy parts of Bolivia and Venezuela). Latin America sees the issues in terms of a global reality that it faces.

The UNHRC resolution was a pre-emptive response to an anticipated resolution that the US, UK, Germany and Mexico (of all countries!) were planning. Why did Sri Lanka become an issue to them? It was to punish Sri Lanka, not for killing Tamils or denying Tamils their basic rights, but because the government was drifting out of US control. (Indo-US rivalry too has been a factor). USSR and China even during their socialist days had steered clear of UN intervention (and have hopefully learnt from their mistake of allowing meddling in Afghanistan and let the invasion of Iraq pass).

The basic guideline for countries confronting US imperialism is to do what is possible to prevent US meddling in any form. To imagine that a resolution denouncing the Sri Lankan government would have brought relief to the Tamils is fantasy.

Then there are subjective reasons, which cannot be ignored.

Leading Tamil nationalists of all shades have cared little for struggles for justice internationally. (Anton Balasingham, the LTTE ‘theoretician’ had even denounced the struggle in Kashmir as trouble making as he did the resistance in eastern India). The LTTE has not denounced the oppression of the Palestinians or US aggression anywhere, much in line with their political forebears in the Federal Party who denounced the Vietnam struggle as communist trouble making. The SLFP had an anti-imperialist past, but had been dodgy after the 1980s. Of late, the government has occasionally stood up for the Third World on important issues; the role of Dayan Jayatilleka (whose politics is not necessarily genuine) during his short spell as Sri Lanka’s UN ambassador has made an impression in Latin America. I do not think that the Tamil nationalists have had a moral right to ask for support from any country outside the imperialist world and India whom they loyally served. The tragedy is that they have left the Tamil people badly isolated.

By isolating themselves from the left governments, the Indian, especially Tamil, friends of Latin America will achieve nothing. They should have sought to discuss the matter with some of the Latin American embassies before jumping to conclusions. Taking decisions one-sidedly without reference to their friends is not healthy practice. It will be the progressive forces of India who will lose most by such kneejerk action.

-Sri Lanka Guardian Read the full story »

Three perspectives on Sri Lankan identity

[Slightly revised version of the 12th Bakeer Markar Memorial lecture on ‘Challenges to Strengthening Sri Lankan Identity’, delivered on Nov 17, 2009 by Dr Dayan Jayatilleka, former Ambassador/Permanent Representative of Sri Lanka to the United Nations at Geneva].
..................................................................................

By Dayan Jayatilleka

(December 02, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) When Imthiaz extended this invitation to me, it was impossible for me to refuse for three reasons. Firstly, Bakeer Markar was one of those unforgettable Speakers who could command the respect of the House; a legend in his time. Secondly, Imthiaz and I had known each other from the time we were school boys. He captained the debating team at Ananda College while I captained the debating team at St. Joseph’s College -- we met in those circumstances and have been friends since. Thirdly, one of the grandsons of the late Mr. Bakeer Markar, one of the sons of Imthiaz, Fadhil, a very bright young man who was the President of the LSE students’ union, worked with me as a volunteer intern at our Mission in Geneva when I served as Sri Lanka’s Permanent Representative.

Those personal reasons apart, the political scientist in me found the topic irresistible because this topic is the key, the most crucial problem that Sri Lanka has to face today. It is indeed the topic, the issue, the problem which framed our development and our discontents, our wars and our periods of peace, our crisis and our construction since Independence. It is the issue that we have not yet resolved. It is the question to which we have not provided a satisfactory answer, though we have triumphed over the main obstacle to the strengthening of a Sri Lankan identity – the deadly, protracted armed challenge posed by the separatist terrorist LTTE. That military triumph, historic as it is, is only a pre-condition, a pre-requisite for the construction of a Sri Lankan identity. We have removed an obstacle, but we have not yet reached our destination. So this is indeed the topic that all politicians, all intellectuals, artists, and concerned citizens must address their minds to. Obviously I cannot exhaust this topic or even do justice to it in the time available to me. I hope to speak in our link language, in English and if time permits I will switch to Sinhala for a few minutes in order to summarize my views. But what I do want to achieve is to shed light on some aspects of this problem; to disturb you in some way and catalyze a process of thinking.

Now, when we talk about Sri Lankan identity, what do we really mean? What does it mean to be a Sri Lankan? We may put it even more basically or crudely: To whom does Sri Lanka belong? This is the crucial question. Let us face it squarely. I submit that there are broadly speaking, three perspectives on this. These may not be explicit, though some have been explicitly stated -- but in many cases, they are perspectives that are and have been the implicit co-ordinates of policy. What are these three views?

One is that Sri Lanka belongs to the few. The other is that Sri Lanka belongs to the many and the third perspective, which I hold and which I hope to urge on this audience, is that Sri Lanka belongs equally to all its citizens. What do I mean when I say that there are those who hold that Sri Lanka belongs to the few? If we look back at what is seen, more or less accurately, as the golden age of Sri Lankan or Ceylonese identity -- the first decade after independence -- I would submit that there was something seriously flawed in the social contract of that time. If that were not the case, how does one explain the election results of 1947 where the parties of the Left did so well that they would have formed the first government of independent Ceylon if they had agreed to a coalition between themselves and the progressive independents? How do we explain the mass protest, the ‘Hartal’ of 1953 and the turning point or ‘rupture’ of 1956? These are explicable only because, there was a sense among the masses, that to be “Ceylonese” was something restricted to an unrepresentative elite. There was a notion that a few, a certain class of people, ethnically diverse but socially integrated, were the real owners of Ceylon. This perspective or perception is an obstacle, a challenge to the formation of a true Sri Lankan identity because the country cannot belong to just a few, policy cannot benefit only a few and if it does or if it is perceived as so doing, there will be a majoritarian backlash of one sort or the other, i.e. on class or cultural lines or a combination. This view that Sri Lanka belonged to the privileged few, be they domestic or foreign, or that those at the top held such a covert conviction and acted upon it, was one of the well springs of the second insurrection of the JVP and even of certain parliamentary electoral outcomes such as 1970 and 2004.

The second perspective is that Sri Lanka belongs to the many, to the majority. Now on the surface this seems justifiable, but I would say that it is a very dangerous view. The “many” can be described and have been described by political formations in Sri Lanka in two senses. One is socio economic. Those on the Sri Lankan radical left, quite different from the radical left elsewhere in the Asia and in the rest of the world, have defined the many not only in socio economic terms, that is as the poor or the working people, but as the many of the many, the working people minus the Tamil and Muslim poor; the Sinhala underprivileged. This is the ideology of Sinhala Only combined with the doctrine of class struggle (and the practice of class/caste struggle). The Sinhalese are felt to be an underprivileged nation, oppressed, discriminated against and marginalized by an imperialist-backed cosmopolitan elite or a minority dominated compact. But whether you describe it in strictly socio economic i.e. ethnicity blind/neutral class terms or in more loaded ethno religious or ethno cultural terms, that is a way of excluding vital segments of our citizens be they the entrepreneurial classes, the professionals, the middle classes, the urban dwellers or the ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities. These segments are seen as somehow non-national, alien, and reactionary.

The notion that Sri Lanka belongs to the Sinhala Buddhists while the minorities are somehow guests or visitors, has directly or indirectly caused the conflicts that have devoured almost a quarter million citizens of this country in the 60 odd years since Independence. One may ask why I put together those who have died in two Southern insurrections which were ideologically based or class-based, and those who have died in successive wars in the North and the East which were ethnicity based. The reason is this: The failure to construct an inclusionary, stable, successful Sri Lankan identity not only alienated the minorities, but also blocked the path to sustainable economic development in the country as a whole and therefore was responsible at least in part for the stagnation that led to unemployment, poverty, inequality and the resultant youth insurrections in the South. This is a constructive critique of Sri Lanka that was made most cogently, consistently and with the greatest authority by Singapore’s Lee Kwan Yew. Thus, the unresolved question of identity, the idea that Sri Lanka is a country that belongs and must be “ruled by” an ethno-religious or ethno-lingual majority, is something that will have to be transcended if we are to heal and progress as a country and a people.

The third perspective, which I believe is the only pathway to build a successful Sri Lankan identity is the idea that Sri Lanka belongs equally to all of its citizens irrespective of whether they happen to the members of an ethnic or linguistic or religious majority or minority. The idea of the equality of citizenship, that Sri Lanka is a country that belongs equally to all Sri Lankans, is something that we shall have to fight for. That is a relatively simple idea, surely. We live on a little island. Either we can consider and conduct ourselves as members of a single extended family, with members/relatives who, naturally, are different from each other -- or we can continue to consider and conduct ourselves warring tribes which will continue to fight each other for hegemony or a segmented, separate sovereign space on this small island. If we opt for the latter course, we continue to waste more time, more resources, more lives and blight our future while failing completely to fulfill the magnificent potential that we have as a country. This is the moment, now is the moment to make this decision, because we are in the aftermath of a Thirty Years War. We have almost experienced a Second Independence. It is a second chance that few countries get, and we must be proud of having wrested this chance. We must be proud of being able to achieve this victory over a very formidable and internationally notorious terrorist army, not just a terrorist group, not just an organization, but a movement and militia. Our people have shown that they have the psychological and spiritual resources to fight and win, not to succumb to terrorism. Now, we must go on to demonstrate that we have the wisdom, the sagacity, the generosity to build a united nation, Sri Lanka, which is not a synonym or disguise for the dominance of this or that community. If Sri Lanka is only another name for a Sinhala Country or ‘Sinhala Rata’, then once again you will have the constituent peoples of this island drifting apart from each other. That drift may not take the form of a violent insurgency. I am not really worried about the renewal of the LTTE’s military campaign because I think we have a splendid army which is perfectly capable of crushing any such resurgent violence at the first sign of its appearance-- but I am worried about the gulf between our peoples which prevent us from pooling our talents, capabilities and resources and flourishing as a society, a nation, a country.

We have to face the question of whom Sri Lanka belongs to -- the few, the many or all – together with certain allied and ancillary questions. For instance, is diversity a danger or a resource? We have, as Sir Arthur C Clarke said, perhaps the greatest biological diversity and cultural diversity compressed in a smallest possible space-- which makes for richness and beauty, but also for conflict because we have not been able to reconcile these diversities. Societies as different as the United States of America and Singapore, diversity is regarded as a rich resource. It is like the colors of a palette: the more colors that are available to you, the better it is for the artist. But diversity is seen with apprehension in some quarters in Sri Lanka . This is the mindset that we have to overcome, because diversity provides opportunity. Every community brings something to the table that is Sri Lanka . It is obvious that this is the only country in the world in which the Sinhala language is spoken and it should be indubitable that the Sinhalese must have a country, this country for their own. I believe that if we had lost the war, no Sinhalese anywhere in the world would have been able to walk with his or her head held high. But when we correctly say that “Sri Lanka is the country of the Sinhalese”, as we must, it does not mean that Sri Lanka must be regarded as the country only of the Sinhalese while the others are “visitors” or “guests”, “ tenants” or “lodgers”. Sri Lanka is the only country for the Sinhalese and of the Sinhalese but it does not belong only to the Sinhalese and cannot be “ruled” only by the Sinhalese. Sri Lanka belongs to the Sinhalese, to the Tamils, to the Muslims, to the Malays, to the Burghers, to the men and the women, all of whom are citizens of Sri Lanka . And it does so equally. The diversity of the Sri Lanka population is a most precious “natural” resource because the minorities not only enrich our cultural mix, but also provide the connecting link between Sri Lanka and the world. This is not understood. As I said, Sinhalese is spoken by a large collectivity only on this island. Theravada Buddhism does not have any echo in the sub-continent-- you have to look further afield to South East Asia for co-religionists. Ceylon or the Island of Sri Lanka as a receptacle or Theravada Buddhism is a very important and unalterable structural factor of our civilization, arguably constituting, in overlap or amalgam with the Sinhala language, its central and specific or defining core. Now, the very fact that the Sinhalese and the Buddhists or the Sinhala Buddhists are an overwhelming majority of the country should provide a sense of security because this is not a demographic that will be altered. Centuries of colonialism and millennia of invasions have not altered this fact. While of course everything is subject to change in the long term, there is no need to be apprehensive about the erosion or extinction of what is a solid, demographic and civilizational majority. That automatically guarantees certain preponderance in terms of civilization, culture and ethos. But what it does not require -- and this is the mistake we have made -- is the translation and transposition of a natural demographic and cultural preponderance into political and constitutional primacy, pre-eminence and hegemony, because once you do that, you depart from the principle of equality of citizenship, of equal rights and the principle of merit based on open competition. Thus the minorities become second class citizens whether you intend it or not.

I do not see why, when you go into a police station, you have to enter your ethnicity and your religion. We may say, “Okay, you have to enter your ethnicity because there was civil war which was drawn for the most part from a particular community”. That is now over. I really do not see why you have to enter your religion-- but this is what happens in Sri Lanka today. These are the anomalies that have to be addressed and eliminated. Diversity, as I said, has to be understood as a rich resource because whether it is the Hindus, the Muslims or the Christians, these are the communities that have some kind of links, some overlaps with the world outside. So together, and enjoying equal rights as citizens, the Sinhala Buddhists and the minorities can have the best of both worlds; can strengthen Sri Lankan identity with one functioning almost as a citadel or a castle, and the others functioning as the bridges between the cultural “core” or “heartland” and the rest of the world.

Instead what you have today is an absence of comprehension and communication. For quite some time now, we have had a dominant discourse which can be understood only within the boundaries of the Sinhala Buddhist heartland and is lost in translation when it travels, moves. The moment you try to address the Tamil people, the Muslim people, the Christians or the world, it does not sound right because there is no sensitivity to other ways of thinking, other cultures, other civilizations and other outlooks even on this small island!

We must also decide whether a Sri Lanka identity can be constructed by looking exclusively inwards or exclusively outwards, or by a two directional approach. I would say that we need an inner–outer approach; indeed a multi-vector, multidirectional approach, looking within while simultaneously reaching out to all corners of the world. For too long we have had a kind of a cultural involution and narcissism where we are not only justifiably proud of our country and our civilization achievements, but tend to exalt them to the point that we lose all perspective. There is no appreciation or achievement of other cultures. There is the repeated incantation that we are the best; everything good flowed from us; we do not need to learn anything from outside and should resist “outside influences”. We are self referential, and refuse to subscribe to, evaluate ourselves by or be evaluated by universal values, norms and standards. The sad thing is nobody believes our claims, except ourselves; nobody buys into our logic or plays our game.

The world cannot understand us and we cannot understand the world. We neither care about being understood by the world nor that we are ourselves unable to understand the world. It is a dialogue of the deaf: the outside world cannot comprehend what we are saying and we cannot comprehend what it –including our neighbors and allies– is trying to say to us. For instance we have not de-coded – as if there were anything esoteric to “de-code”—the dynamics of the Obama visit to China or the Manmohan Singh visit to the USA and the implications for us of both. We have not registered the growing congruency (rightly or wrongly) of the positions of Obama’s USA, and Russia and China, on Iran’s nuclear program. When communication breaks down we yell from the rooftops about international conspiracies! It is not that there aren’t international moves against us – not every criticism or adversarial move is a conspiracy—but these ‘conspiracies’ must be understood within the overall crisis of our external relations, and that crisis is primarily one of cross-cultural comprehension, communication, and representation.

We see this in the field of human rights which I am especially acquainted with, due to my last job. We have this strange discourse: “how dare you criticize us on human rights issues because we grow up worshiping our parents from the time we were little and you do not; instead you call your parents by their first name. So how dare you accuse us culturally superior and therefore ethically superior beings, of human rights violations?” This is some notion of intrinsic cultural superiority which nobody in the world will grant us. Human rights are universal because the human condition, the fact of our common, shared humanity, is universal! We are all human beings before we are Sinhalese, Buddhists or Sri Lankans! That must be grasped. So, the invocation of our 2,500 year old culture, civilization and history and our “homegrown” version of human rights simply will not do. I am glad that I never took that kind of stand in Geneva. If we did, Sri Lanka would not have got a 29-12 majority in its favor. No wonder we lost 63-0 in the European parliamentary vote in Brussels and had a 421-1 vote when Resolution 711, critical of us on the IDP issue, was moved in the US House of Representatives in early November! This blinkered or blind self-exaltation is not going to help us advance as a unified Lanka, into the 21st Century.

We must look at ourselves and the outside world. When we look at our own culture, our own traditions, we must learn to discern and discard that which is no longer appropriate and retain that which is valuable. Not everything about tradition is appropriate. Caste is not appropriate. Certain attitudes are not appropriate. Are we to embrace them simply because at one time they were part of our tradition? We must be able to critically sift out that which is relevant, that which is appropriate, that which is precious, that which is essential, and those aspects which are not. We must be able to blend our culture with the best of other cultures -- and this is in fact is how our Sri Lanka evolved! There is nothing within Sri Lankan culture that has not been influenced or impinged upon by other cultures, whether they were and are Indian, Tamil or Arabic or European. This is all the more so today in the era of the internet. All you have to do is to turn on your television set and you will find that culture is not something static. It is not something that belongs to the museum. Culture evolves; culture has a future and is to do with the future just as much as the past. In the construction of a Sri Lankan identity should we look to the past or the future? I think we must rediscover, reflect on and revaluate the past, but not stay mired in it as we tend to do. We must look to the future. We are not only what we have been. We are not only what we were. We are what we can make of ourselves.

I say all of these because of personal experience, and also because of a strategic reason which I will get to. The personal reasons are these: I belong to a majority and a minority. I am a member of the majority in so far as I am a Sinhalese. I belong to a minority in so far as I am a Christian, a non-practicing or not quite practicing Catholic. So I am able to see the issue of a Sri Lankan identity through the eyes of the majority as well as of the minorities. Therefore, I believe I am able to see a bigger picture, a fuller picture, rather than if I were either only a member of the minority or only a member of the majority. Now the second personal reason is how I was brought up, the foundational formation of my own identity. Many people in this audience knew my father, the late Mervyn de Silva, the famous journalist and respected editor, not to be confused at any time with another person of the same name whom I would never call a gentleman! Though he had a Sinhala Buddhist upbringing and family background, Mervyn never referred to himself or our family members as Sinhalese, nor did we say, “We were not Sinhalese”. We never disowned the Sinhala identity but it never figured consciously or explicitly, and if anyone, such as Mervyn’s good friend the late Gamani Jayasuriya, founder of the Sinhala Arakshaka Sanvidhanaya (SAS), were to bring it up, my father would brush it aside. I cannot remember in all my years of growing up that there was any reference to us as Sinhalese or any time my parents said “as Sinhalese” we must think such and such, or do such and such or be this way and not that. No, our standards were international, universal; I was brought up to behave according to and adhere to standards which were the same anywhere in the world, which is, I suppose, why I was able to function with ease and success at the UN in Geneva. We were “Ceylonese”, “Sri Lankan”— and “Asian” (my mother Lakshmi was particularly conscious of our Asian identity, while Mervyn was more “international”). Our identity was one of citizenship, of being citizens of the country and of belonging to the continent as a whole; there was no narrow ethnic or ethno religious identity or what Lakshman Kadirgamar used to decry as “tribalism”. If you look at Mervyn de Silva’s writings, he would refer to himself as “a journalist”, as “a literary critic who became a student of international relations”. So the aspect of personal identity that was most important to him was not what he was by accident of birth, but what he had made of himself through free choice. That is true of our country as well. To be Sri Lankan does not necessarily only mean this or that version of what we were or where we are coming from. It also means what we make of ourselves in the future. We have the free choice to do that.

Lakshman Kadirgamar gives us the formula for being truly Sri Lankan, exemplifying and articulating what a Sri Lankan identity is: “I am first and foremost a citizen of Sri Lanka. I don’t carry labels of race or religion or any other label. I would say quite simply that I have grown up with the philosophy that I am probably, kind of a citizen of the world. I don’t subscribe to any particular philosophy; I have no fanaticism: I have no communalism. I believe that there should be a united Sri Lanka. I believe that all our peoples can live together, they did live together. I think they must in the future learn to live together after this trauma is over. We have four major religions in the country. Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, Christianity. All these religions exist very peacefully. They get on very well. I see no reason why the major races in the country, the Tamils and Sinhalese cannot again build a relationship of trust and confidence. That is my belief. That is what I wish for and in working for that I will not be deterred by having some labels pinned on me.” (Interview with Japanese National Television, NHK, 2004)

Quoting this on the occasion of the Kadirgamar commemoration this year, Mrs. Suganthi Kadirgamar correctly said that it “encapsulates Lakshman’s vision, idealism and aspiration for a united Sri Lanka devoid of conflict”.

Now the hypocrisy of our dominant social ideology is this: many Sinhalese would applaud this but not say the same themselves! They applaud these sentiments coming from a Tamil, but are not willing to adopt the same stand, defining themselves “first and foremost as a citizen of Sri Lanka”, eschewing “labels of race or religion”. So it is a good thing when a Tamil or Muslim eschews “labels of race or religion” and affirms their Sri Lankan identity, but it is perfectly in order for Sinhala Buddhists to assert their own “race and religion”! Who and where is the Sinhala Lakshman Kadirgamar? Friedrich Nietzsche, my favorite philosopher said that “there was only one Christian -- and he died on the Cross”. Similarly we could perhaps say that there was only one Sri Lankan and he is dead. It is no accident that this pioneer and practitioner of a Lankan identity and consciousness, this prototype of being a Sri Lankan, was murdered in the name of liberation no less, by ultra-nationalists or hyper-nationalists, the Tamil extremist LTTE. He is dead precisely because he was a Sri Lankan!

Many of our ultra nationalists, mainly the Sinhalese ultra-nationalists say that the views expressed here are all Western values, which we can and must reject because we are part of Asia -- but let me tell you that their attitude is not part of Asia at all! It is not only alien to contemporary Asia; it was certainly not the attitude and perspective of the Asia of Zhou En Lai and Nehru! India, which has over 80 per cent Hindus, has a secular State. It had a President who was a Muslim. It has a Prime Minister who was a Sikh, despite the fact that there was Sikh secessionist insurgency in the 1980s and Indira Gandhi’s assassins were Sikhs. The leader of the major party which was re-elected happens to be of Italian origin. If you take Singapore , 9 per cent of the people are of South Asian origin, but many in the top ranks of the Government happen to be South Asian or Indian or Tamil. It is an integrated society based on merit. Indonesia has a population over 90% of which is of the Islamic faith but the state is defined as secular, while Bangladesh which has a Muslim majority and elements of a Buddhist heritage is also a secular state. So, while we talk about Asia we are not really part of today’s Asia at all. We must not remain out of step with the new Asian consensus and must adopt our own version of the 21st century Asian model, which is one of meritocracy, multi-ethnicity and multiculturalism. We are really displaying an island mentality which is rather like that of the proverbial frog in the well or as a friend of mine once said it is more like a frog in a coconut shell in the well. We have to get with Asia, and it is important that we do so because this century is the century of Asia, of the Asian resurgence, the shift of economic power to Asia and we only have to hook up. It is our region, our extended family, where we belong.

Our identity as Sri Lankans must include a strong commitment to equity and social fair-play, but do we want to level upwards or do we want to continue leveling downward as we did with Sinhala Only and later with media and district wise ‘standardization’? In the name of Sri Lankan identity, do we want to lower our standards and adopt the lowest common denominator with the excuse that we are compensating for colonial privilege? Or do we want to excel in Asia and the world once again, because there was a time we did (the first post WW 2 or post Independence decade), by raising our standards to the level of excellence and making ourselves competitive with the rest of the world?

All this may seem less than patriotic in the traditional or conventional sense of the word. However on the basis of our experience in the battles we fought and won in Geneva, I can assure you that it is very patriotic in the strategic sense. Those were not battles on our soil; it was a struggle on alien territory, even enemy territory. Ours was a small beleaguered mission. We were out there in hostile territory in the middle of Europe with very experienced western foreign Ministries campaigning against us, with their capitals just a few hours away by plane. Yes, we prevailed, but I also saw at first hand -- because we were the “breakwater” -- the massive demonstrations of pro-Tiger, pro-Tamil Eelam youngsters and the tragic self-immolation of a 21-year old boy who had come from London.

So, as I have said elsewhere, “The war is over, but the struggle is not”, because there is another generation of young Tamils, born and educated in the West, who are deeply alienated from Sri Lanka. How is that challenge going to be met? It cannot be met with fire power because that is not a military challenge. It has to be met through the generation and projection of “soft power” and “smart power”; brains, education, economics, diplomacy, communication. It is a struggle in the Western-dominated international media, in the corridors of power, in Washington, in London, in Brussels. Are we ready to win this “peaceful competition”? It is not a battle that Sri Lanka is geared for. It is a battle we will lose if we do not revise our notions of what it is to be Sri Lankan. If we do not construct a broadly inclusionary Sri Lankan identity based on equality and merit, we will find it difficult to win the battle.

However, we can win it because there are many young Sri Lankans, Sinhalese, Tamils, Muslims, men and women, who do not believe in separatism (like Imthiaz’s son at the LSE, a boy we can proud of). But how are we going to attract and enlist young people like that including young Western educated and/or westernized Sinhalese, while remaining in the grip of a closed minded cultural conservatism and traditionalism, even overseas, in the Diaspora and the state’s interactions with it? I went on some of the Sinhalese community radios in Australia and said “you are going lose your kids if the Sri Lankan culture they are getting are songs that are 30 to 50 years old! They will come for ‘Sri Lankan events’ with their parents till they are 12, 13 and 14 and then you are not going to see them!” So we have to change that. There is a lot going on in Sri Lanka on our television screens, on FM radio. There is a modern Sri Lanka . There is a post-modern Sri Lanka . There is a Sri Lanka of the 21st century that has already begun to emerge. We do not reflect that officially. Our State does not reflect it. The official or dominant discourse does not reflect it. It is that Sri Lanka that is already in formation, a Sri Lanka and Lankan identity that is a fusion because among young people you already have that fusion. There is an open mindedness in that fusion, which is taking place not only between the communities here, but also between Sri Lanka and the world. If only we are able to open our minds and our hearts, use our brains and modernize and democratize our notion of Sri Lankan identity; it is only if we are able to break the chains that enslave our minds, that we will be able to achieve the defeat of renewed attempts of secessionism which are based overseas and hope to leverage powerful countries outside the region against us. It is only then that we will be able to fulfill our potential as a country and as a nation. It is only then that we will be able to move confidently, reaping the benefits of our splendid military victories, arriving in the 21st century to compete and win.

-Sri Lanka Guardian Read the full story »

(December 02, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) The High Commission of Sri Lanka in Singapore and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) of Sri Lanka jointly organized a seminar titled,” Invest Sri Lanka –Time is now” on 26th November 2009 at the Fullerton Hotel in Singapore with the twin objectives of disseminating first hand information on emerging business opportunities in Sri Lanka in the post conflict era and attracting institutional investors in Singapore to invest in Colombo Stock Exchange, which is one of the five best performing markets at present.

A panel of eminent speakers, namely . Sarath Amunugama, Minister of Public Administration and Home Affairs and Deputy Minister of Finance and Planning of Sri Lanka, Jayathri Samarakone, High Commissioner of Sri Lanka to Singapore, Mr. Ajith Nivard Cabraal, Governor, Central Bank of Sri Lanka and Mr. Udayasri Kariyawasam, Chairman Securities and Exchange Commission of Sri Lanka spoke on the occasion.

A representative from M/S First State Investments in Hong Kong, a long-standing investor in Colombo Stock Exchange shared their experiences in doing business in Sri Lanka whereas three key Sri Lankan establishments namely, Commercial bank, John Keels Holdings and National Bank of Development listed in Colombo Stock Exchange made individual presentations, demonstrating opportunities to invest in their shares.

During the panel discussions, a series of pointed questions were raised by the participants which is clearly indicative of the keenness and enthusiasm of the Singaporean fund managers and prospective investors in re-surging business opportunities in Sri Lanka ,in general and existing investment opportunities in Colombo Stock Exchange in particular.

The seminar was well attended, with a participation of 150 fund managers and prospective investors.

-Sri Lanka Guardian Read the full story »

Full text of the interview with Mr. Bogollagama, Foreign Minister of Sri Lanka, conduced by the BBC on 1st December 2009
..........................................................................

(December 02, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) Presenter (Nik Gowing) : I am joining live here in London by the Minister of Foreign Affairs for Sri Lanka Rohitha Bogollagama. Minister welcome. Why can't these Tamil detainees just leave on their own accord and not have to come back ?

Minister : We have been ready to do so for a period of time and no one wants to hold, anyone in terms of some type of restriction.

Presenter : Why do they have to register to leave ?

Minister : The need be we are maintaining the camps temporarily till such time they leave back home and we want to encourage more and more people to go back home and you'll recall my own interviews here with you right here when the numbers were 280,000 two three months ago and today we have got down to 126,000. We have made over 150,000 leave within a very short period of time (interruption).

Presenter : What I want to ask you, what is the principle behind, why they have to register, why they can't leave as they would like to, to get fresh food ?

Minister : Very good, they could still go and the fresh food is all around. At the same time, they have to go back home which we want to do is to provide them with more and more shelter. We have to have the statistics in order to see that they get the shelter they need. Then also we have to have the areas cleared in terms of landmines and if we know where they want to go, then we could facilitate.

These numbers will not be 126,000 by tomorrow, it will be another three four thousand less. Likewise, we are reducing the numbers.

Presenter : There is a limit of fifteen days, then those who are detainees would be cracked down, not allowed to move around at their own wherever they want to go as long as they want.

Minister : Absolutely, we have allowed 156,000 ..(interruption)

Presenter : You accept that now?

Minister : We are not accepting it. It is not the case at all. Let me get in terms of what I wish to say. Right now, you wouldn't have been able to pose any of these questions if the numbers were at 286,000. Now the numbers at 126,000 and the numbers are receding on a daily basis, this only a temporary situation. What we are looking at is in order to facilitate more and more shelter for our people, more and more areas for them to get back to. Even this morning I shared these concerns also what we are seeking with the international community with some of my colleagues in the House of Commons this morning before I came over here (interruption)

Presenter : You will understand that I mentioned about human rights and the international concerns. There is a concern you are still wanting to control these Tamils particularly in advance of the elections at the end of January. It's become a political issue and not a humanitarian issue.

Minister : Not at all. All these time it had been a humanitarian issue and it will continue to be a humanitarian concern and that concern is expressed by the government more than anyone else and we want to see people are back home and that is how our strategy and we want to make it happen.

Presenter : We are happy to discuss this here in London, and you are on your way back from the Commonwealth Summit. Why aren't you allowing independent observers in, like the BBC correspondent and many international correspondents to check, to see for themselves whether their permits will get withdrawn? (interruption).

Minister : Absolutely it is totally open..... (interruption). So that they can go tomorrow, you take my word.(interruption). Absolutely there is no restriction that we impose in anyone, any journalist and in the event if there are any procedural issues administrative details to be worked out, we are happy to work on that. Our President has gone on record allowing everybody to access these camps including some of these delegations coming from India, from United Nations and various other organisations. During the last three weeks, we had all eminent visitors coming to Sri Lanka, couple of Foreign Ministers, UN Under Secretary General, John Holmes and the Indian Parliamentary delegation. They have seen to themselves and they have said that we are doing an admirable job in Sri Lanka and that is the message I want to get across.

Presenter : We need as many independent observers as possible. Let me ask about the credibility problem, human rights record, Human Rights Council and now the Commonwealth Summit in Trinidad over the weekend where led by Britain and Australia you have now been denied the chance to host the Commonwealth Summit in two years. That suggests that you have a big problem in terms of your credibility and your image, you Foreign Minister.

Minister : I would like you to put it this way, reason being that we have been always looking at a CHOGM in terms of when it is convenient and the fact that in 2007, we proposed 2011 in terms of how the leaders were looking at in terms of there are other takers by 2009 and we are accommodating all the time, Australia has come in at the same time Mauritius has come in and Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister of UK has proposed Sri Lanka for hosting it in 2013. We welcome that.

Presenter : Why it was being blocked by Britain and Australia because of human rights concerned about you ended the war against Tamil tigers?

Minister : Not at all and that expression has never come onboard and at the same time it was never discussed and it is a matter of fact what Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister of UK said to the world leaders who assembled at the CHOGM was that they are all equally qualified to host 2011 summit and they would like only have in that order in terms of Australia, Sri Lanka, Mauritius and that is the message. Otherwise I wouldn't have been able to say that quoting the Prime Minister of United Kingdom.

Presenter : Right Minister, lets move on. There is now a second Presidential candidate facing your President Rajapaksa. He is the General who seems to left in high judge and retired early, General Fonseka.

He gave a briefing on Sunday in which he said the following. Lets listen to his remarks about the current President.

General Fonseka: Sri Lanka suffered indignities and violence in the hands of a terrorist. We have been suffering for too long. We have done away with the terrorist. But now you can't leave the country in the hands of a tin pot dictator.

Presenter: He said there that your country is led by "a tin pot dictator". He suggests that the President should no longer be the President because he is "a tin pot dictator". What do you say about this as a representative of his government?

Minister: I think his language there speaks for his character having served as the Army Commander. It is a very regrettable statement coming from the very army commander who served the Commander in Chief, the Commander of Chief being the President of a democratic country, a sovereign state who had a mandate from the people to eliminate terrorism and who gave the strength and the leadership to the country's armed forces, the Army, Navy and the Air Force and brought in the resources and got into a humanitarian exercise in freeing the people of Sri Lanka from the clutches of terrorism and that of the brutality of the LTTE terrorism and having a General is to run an army and there are so many Generals in an army.

Presenter: He is now a politician and in an interview with our correspondent Charles Haviland in Colombo broadcast just before you were right here in this studio he accepted the human rights and civil rights record justice and law and order was quote unacceptable and I would change that track record and in other words he realises that this is not acceptable in the early 21st century.

Minister: This is my problem right here. In the event you call General Fonseka because he is a candidate, a politician, I like first to know from which political party he represents Sri Lanka's polity. Secondly, a General becoming an agent at an election we are going to lead a very very dangerous trend in terms of Sri Lanka's polity.

Presenter: It has to be taken seriously when he says there are difficulties in freedom and justice for the people as you just said in the BBC interview.

Minister: I would have liked if the leader of the opposition of Sri Lanka to express himself on these matters, a person who he has been virtually accused at one time denying these freedom of our people is today saying that he is the person going to give the freedom to our people. Now that job is a matter that our people have to decide and I am sorry to state here in a democracy how agencies can still work in terms of run up to elections and in terms of candidates at elections and this is a regrettable situation.

Presenter: Foreign Minister, Bogollagma thanks for joining us on BBC World News today.

Minister: Thank you.

-Sri Lanka Guardian Read the full story »

( December 02, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) “Looking back after 60 years of independence, we can see that unfortunately, things had gone wrong and the country had suffered. I think we can cry inside our hearts. However, another opportunity is before us,” said Karu Jayasuriya, Deputy Leader of the United National Party on Monday.

“We have to build this country. I think our time is gone. Most of us are playing the second innings. But we have to make way for the younger generation, and for the generation unborn,” said Mr. Jayasuriya.

He was addressing the 79th commemoration day of Sir Ponnambalam Ramanathan held at the Presidential Secretariat.

A garland was placed at the statue of Sir Ramanathan by the UNP deputy leader.

TNA parliamentary group leader R. Sampanthan and several other members were present at the occasion.

“We have a duty by them to rebuild this country. The distrust that was created in the past must be cleared and the country has to start again. Therefore, I most humbly appeal to all political parties at this juncture, Let us look for the future, and this is the time when the elections are coming up.

“There is a presidential election, parliamentary election and once they are over, we have to build this country and specially, I know the great inconvenience caused due to the distrust of people. North and East went through immense suffering and we have to understand this fact. And therefore, to make their living meaningful, to ensure that those people living in camps are resettled and to ensure that they get back to the comfortable life that they enjoyed in the past, is the duty of the government and the duty of us all.

“It is time or is it the time that we expect to pray that we have people of the calibre of Mr. Ramanathan who looked beyond narrow reefs,” asked Mr. Jayasuriya.

R. Sampanthan, parliamentary group leader of the TNA, addressing the gathering said that all in the country had to live together. “We can't go on with problems for ever,” he said.

“As Mr. Karu Jayasuriya said, we must work together. Sir Ponnambalam Ramanathan said the same thing. We must think good, we must keep good and we must deliver good.

“If we say that we are one people, one nation, but we don't practice it, it is a pathetic situation in this country.

“Now it is a very crucial time in Sri Lankan history, the presidential elections are going to be held. It is going to be a keenly fought, a very close contest,” said Mr. Sampanthan.

-Sri Lanka Guardian Read the full story »

"A long and arduous battle lies ahead. Success will depend not only on the dedication and devotion of the ground forces but also on the commitment of the political and professional classes leading the charge."
......................................................................................

By A. K. Verma

(December 02, New Delhi, Sri Lanka Guardian) Internal security is an important dimension of national security, the maintenance of which is a fundamental duty of any government. A government’s claim to legitimacy and public loyalty arise from the satisfaction it can give to its citizens over issues of security. Judged from this criterion, public record has not been too good in India.

In 2004, Naxalism was officially identified by the Centre as the most dangerous internal threat, facing the country. In 2009, an exactly the same description was officially again given to this phenomenon. The conclusion seems inescapable that while the nature of the problem was understood, no practical solution could be devised to tackle it in the interregnum.

Naxalism grew from a miniscule movement of Charu Muzumdar of village Naxalbari in Darjeeling district of West Bengal, carved out by him in1967 after a split, from the ultra left sections of CPI (Marxists). The movement, basically anti landlord, acquired the nomenclature of CPI (Marxist Leninist) in 1969. A similar group calling itself Marxist Communist Centre (MCC) was operating in the South. CPI (M) and MCC merged in 2004 and became CPI (Maoist), accepting Maoist doctrine of revolutionary agrarian war of seeking power through armed violence, surrounding the urban centers from the countryside. Their activities soon accounted for 90% of revolutionary armed action in India. This brand of revolutionary activities came to be described broadly as Naxalism in recognition of the village Naxalbari from where the bugle of armed revolutionary agrarian revolt was first sounded.

The CPI (Maoist) stuck for long to the Maoist doctrine of waging a people’s war from the countryside and set about in a planned way to increase its influence and presence. According to Govt., as of today, 20 states of India and 223 districts, feel the heat of its progress in a big or small way. Its approach to its growth is quite methodical. It is setting up a state committee as it expands into a state. Two special area committees exist, one for UP, Uttarakhand and North Bihar, and the other for West Bengal, Jharkhand and rest of Bihar. The three most deeply impacted regions, Dandakaranya, North Telangana and Andhra Orissa border have each a special zonal committee to oversee the movement’s activities and growth in these areas. What all these committees together represent can be called the first well knit organizational structure and super structure for waging a war of revolution in India. If one looks at the land area where the Naxalists have their sway, it has to be conceded that Naxalism has come a long way in these forty plus years from the single village Naxalbari where it took birth, CPI (Maoist) has also widened its tactics. It is no longer an agrarian driven movement. For sometime it has been trying to make common cause with other centers of rural and urban dissatisfaction, tribal or non tribal. All sections of marginalized populations are being targeted for enlarging its base. Land for the tiller is not the only war cry. Attempts have been on to include all those in its bandwagon who regard themselves to be victims of globalization, privatization, unemployment, lay offs, displacements caused by project development etc. or those, who have been ignored or left behind in the socio economic progression. Industrialized areas appear to offer them special opportunities. The industrial cities and towns of Surat, Ahemdabad, Pune and Mumbai in Western India and Kolkata, Ranchi, Dhanbad and Bhilai on the Eastern side have been put on the Naxal radar for enhanced penetration.

Seeking disaffected groups as allies formed the classical pattern of united front tactics of the international communist movement in the last century. The Naxal leadership has now moved on to the same page. This has also brought a bonus... The urban centers of disaffection against the state are often led by educated leaders, usually coming from affluent or semi affluent backgrounds, who get deflected to an agitational agenda for ideological, moral, personal or societal reasons. Where united fronts have been successfully established, the leadership of the Naxals also lands into their lap. The beneficiary ultimately proves to be Naxalism. Mostly such associations remain and function at the covert level. Some intellectuals, human right workers and political or media activists seem to belong to this category. In other words, no class is being left out. Semi- proletariat, petty bourgeoisie and even national bourgeoisie are being probed for support and collaboration. The success achieved in making such inroads seems to suggest that some grounds for a revolution, howsoever embryonic, do exist in the country.

The Naxal united front tactics have resulted in exploitation of sentiments and of people involved or affected by issues like Singur agitation, Nandigram rising against SEZs, murder of members of a Dalit family at Khairlanji, and suicide of farmers in Vidarbha and elsewhere.

Naxalism and its threat to the state have been growing steadily in the past forty years. Their ideology appeals to the deprived and down trodden. They have a coherent organisation whose members are ready for sacrifice. They have visionary plans of seizing political power through armed violence. Their strength should not be counted by the number of those with arms or by incidents staged; their strength lies in the numbers who have been given military training. They display a robust will and determination of purpose.

As against this the Centre is only now waking up to the complexity of the problem and trying to devise a counter strategy. The Home Ministry of Govt. of India until P. Chidambaram took over as the new Home Minister, was inclined to play down the Naxal threat, treating it merely as a law and order problem which the bureaucrats and police would be able to tackle at their own level in their own time. The earlier less than enthusiastic approach of the Centre could have been caused by the constitutional scheme of division of labour and powers between the Centre and the states. If visualized as a law and order problem only, the states alone have a constitutional right to deal with it. The Centre could claim only a role for co-ordination which some states, ruled by those in opposition to the ruling coalition at the centre, could effectively ignore. The Salwa Judum experiment of arming self defense volunteers in Chhattisgarh to counter Naxalists, though proving somewhat successful, has been unacceptable in other states and earlier even to the Centre. The Chidambaram strategy combines strong armed action by central paramilitary forces with a heavy dose of development. The states have been invited to send their own police forces to join in the hunt for the Naxalites.

Under this pilot scheme, code named Operation Greenhunt, about 50000 men will be deployed in five of the most affected states in the near future. Most of them will have been put through some special training before action begins. In the tribal areas covered by CPI (Maoists)’s special zones there are large areas where the state has never been able to penetrate ever. Land where state authority fails to reach remains ungoverned. Naxals rule over there, calling them liberated areas. The government’s new strategy aims to drive out physically the Naxals from such areas and introduce governance by building roads and establishing schools, health clinics, markets, panchayats etc.

A long and arduous battle lies ahead. Success will depend not only on the dedication and devotion of the ground forces but also on the commitment of the political and professional classes leading the charge. A counter strategy is also required for the urban locations where sympathy for the Naxal cause has been gathering momentum for some time and finding some resonance.

A ‘red corridor’ from Pashupati to Tirupati remains just yet an empty dream for the Naxal ideologues. If the current plans of counter strategy fail, it could well become a reality. But some areas, included in the concept of red corridor, have the Naxals already ruling over them. It is also to be remembered that an uncontrolled internal security problem has the potential of destabilizing external security as well. Therefore, failure can exact an unacceptable cost.

CPI (Maoist) has ideological allies in similar groups in neighboring and some other countries of the world but there is little evidence to conclude that it has received material support from any one of them. Chinese small arms do manage to reach them through illegal agencies and as yet there is little evidence that any official agency is involved. As and when the Chinese and Indian rivalry enters a new plane of which there seem to be good chances, help to Maoists may prove to be a usable option to the former. It may be wise to look at the Naxal problem from this perspective as well.

(The author can be reached at e-mail: verma_anandkumar@yahoo.com)

-Sri Lanka Guardian Read the full story »