2012: HAPPY NEW YEAR

( January 01, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) We would like to wish all of our readers and contributors all very the best of wishes for the New Year of 2012.

We would like once again to thank you all for your support and contributions throughout 2011, and look forward to more of the same in 2012.

We sincerely hope that you and your families all have a very happy, healthy and safe New Year ahead.

Sri Lanka Guardian


A SOLEMN NEW YEAR WISH - 2012 !

File Photo

| by Sunalie Ratnayake

( January 01,  2012, Washington DC, Sri Lanka Guardian) 

May the New Year ;
Bring hope for the poor, in all their needs,
Poise for the rich, to indulge in good deeds…

May the coming year ;
Sanction the poor to abscond poverty,
Permit the rich to depart gluttony…

May the New Year allow ;
Those who sleep, to be happy in their dreams,
And those that work, to be thorough in their deeds…

May the New Year ;
Endorse our minds to forgive and forget,
Even to love those who gave us appalling big baits…

May we realize ;
It’s only a passing of a point…
There is nothing old or new, between those lines…
An enduring journey of the humankind…
To bring wisdom and essence into every mind…

Let’s wrap-up the vengeance,
And remorseless thoughts,
That concluded last year,
Not giving a resort …

Let our hearts unwind to a song of console,
A placate that creates good deeds from our souls…
Where hoodlums are washed from the phase of the earth,
And autocrats withdraw into thin air like dire dirt.

May the erudite behave and prove in their acts,
That they no longer sluice dirty linen of sick brutes..
Who abuse fine power to gratify their needs,
And the fourth estate ends up being a doormat of a beast…

May order and law trounce intrusive claws,
May the police conduct duties like a sovereign force…
May ruffians, and gangland be banished for cause,
And the masks of those muggers be frayed once and for all…

May the nation comprise liberty by true epitome,
Not an autonomy that sells on red carpeted domes…
May heroes’ voices no longer be hushed by stones,
Or guns, or bullets, or detention walls…

Peace should be felt by all, not fractions,
Liberty should no longer be a word, but corporeal…
To talk, eat, walk, sleep, breathe as one feels,
Requires abundant free-will, and all by its means…

'Twenty-Eleven' subsides, waving us all goodbye…
Bringing-in 'Twenty-Twelve' like a fresh lullaby…
May egalitarianism find meaning, in the minds passing by,
May my country thrive with elation, as I slowly swing by.


( Sunalie Ratnayake can be contacted at sunalie.secretandbeyond@yahoo.com or sue@srilankaguardian.com )




The Sunni-Shia Wars

2012 Threatens to be a Very Violent Year

| by PATRICK COCKBURN

( December 31, Washington DC, Sri Lanka Guardian) In three of the Arab countries east of Egypt – Syria, Bahrain and Yemen – protesters have challenged their governments over the past year but failed to overthrow them. The reasons for those failures are very different though they have important points in common. In each of these states protesters were frustrated because a significant part of the population had a lot to lose if the ruling elite were reformed or overthrown.

AP PHOTO/MURAD SEZER
In Syria and Bahrain religious identity helps explain loyalty to the powers-that-be. Protesters in Bahrain might insist that their program was secular and democratic, but everybody knew that a fair poll would affect revolutionary change by putting the majority Shia in power instead of the minority Sunni. In Syria, similarly, democracy means that the Sunni, three quarters of the population, would effectively replace the Alawites, a heterodox Shia sect, as rulers of the state.

This does not mean that the demonstrators in both countries had a secret sectarian agenda. It was simply that political divisions already ran along sectarian lines. In Bahrain the security forces were almost entirely Sunni. As the year went on sectarian hatreds became starker.

At the height of the repression, the government demolished Shia mosques claiming it had suddenly discovered they did not have planning permission. Unlike Tunisia and Egypt, the sectarian homogeneity of the ruling elite in Syria and Bahrain made it impossible for senior state officials to dump an unpopular regime in order to maintain their own power and privileges. In Syria the Alawites came to believe that if President Bashar al-Assad lost so would they.

The Shia and Sunni split has other serious implications. The struggle between these two Islamic traditions, so similar to the battle between Roman Catholics and Protestants in Europe in the 16th and 17th centuries, has been escalating since the Iranian revolution of 1979. The Iran-Iraq war of 1980-88 and Shia-Sunni civil war in Iraq in 2006-7 deepened the hatred between the two sects. Of course it was always much in the interests of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, the Assad clan in Syria and the al-Khalifa dynasty in Bahrain to play the sectarian card and demand communal solidarity from their co-religionists. As far back as 1991 I remember Saddam Hussein bringing the mutilated bodies of Baathist officials back from Najaf, where they had been lynched by Shia insurgents, and the terror expressed by Sunni friends in Baghdad, previously opposed to the regime, that the same fate awaited them if Saddam was toppled.

The Sunni-Shia rivalry goes some way to explaining why the Arab Spring won successes in North Africa that it has not achieved east of Egypt. Each side has been led by religiously inspired states, Saudi Arabia and Iran, which have struggled for supremacy in the region for 30 years. Embattled regimes and their insurgent enemies automatically gain allies. The Assad government might be isolated, but not quite to degree that Muammar Gaddafi was before his fall. Iran will do almost anything to keep its most crucial ally in the Arab world in power. By the same token Iran’s many enemies, unable to overthrow the government in Tehran, are determined to weaken it by changing the regime in Damascus.

Regional rivalries, deepening Sunni-Shia divisions and the democratic protest movement, commonly called the Arab Spring, combine to produce the ingredients for a long-running crisis. “2012 will be one of the most unstable years ever in the Middle East,” predicted a minister in one of the Gulf countries. In almost every Arab state he foresaw violence increasing as no decisive winners emerge. Syria and Yemen are on the verge of civil war, Bahrain remains divided while the turmoil affects other states in the region. For instance, one reason why the Islamist Shia government of Iraq has struck at Iraqi Sunni leaders in the past few weeks is the fear in Baghdad that it may soon be facing a hostile Sunni regime in power in Damascus. The Shia political elite want to strengthen their grip on power now.

Look at the situation in Yemen 10 months later. The protesters are still camped out in the capital Sanaa and many have been killed or wounded by government forces. President Saleh may go to the US for further medical treatment for injuries he received from a bomb that almost killed him in June. But the surprise at that time was that his departure to hospital in Saudi Arabia did not mean triumph for the uprising because his son Ahmed Saleh, commander of the Republican Guard, took over. The street protesters have been pushed to one side by such dubious members of Yemen’s ruling establishment as General Ali Muhsin al-Ahmar, commander of the First Armoured Division and Hamid al-Ahmar (no relation), a billionaire entrepreneur and tribal leader. Troops and fighters loyal to both men have been protecting protesters. These divisions at the top are not new. When General al-Ahmar was fighting Shia rebels known as Houthi in northern Yemen in 2009 his own government, according to a US embassy cable published by WikiLeaks, tried to kill him by asking Saudi planes operating against the rebels to bomb a building which turned out to be the general’s own headquarters.

In Syria, and to a lesser extent, in Bahrain there is a danger that a frustrated opposition will progressively turn to violence. In Bahrain, the Shia see themselves as not only being politically disenfranchised, but becoming the victims of social and economic apartheid. Opposition leaders say it would not be surprising if some militants turn to violence against the monarchy.

In Syria, the opposition clearly does not have an effective strategy for getting rid of Bashar al-Assad and the Baathist government. It can keep up demonstrations and propaganda, but those familiar with the inner core of the regime in Damascus, say they are confident they can hold out. The opposition is fragmented and divided between those inside and outside the country. There is no provisional government in waiting as there purported to be – and to some extent was – in Libya. The core of the Syrian security forces remains united. Sanctions are squeezing the government but, as happened in Iraq in the 1990s, these hurt the people – and cause popular resentment – before they damage the government. Neighboring governments repeat the mantra “Assad is bound to fall”, but are not sure how or when.

“Nobody knows what to do about Syria,” said one Middle East leader. The opposition calls vainly for foreign military intervention as in Libya, but this is not likely to happen. Extreme Sunni militants previously active in Iraq may see their chance and, in the circumstances, it is hardly surprising that the first big suicide bombs have exploded in Damascus this month.

The bright hopes of the Arab Spring are vanishing and peaceful protests may have had their day across the region as civil confrontation threatens to turn into civil war. 


Source:- Counter Punch


Educating Young People in Justice and Peace

| by Fr. Vimal Tirimanna, CSsR

(December 31, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) In the aftermath of a 30-year bloody spell of violence and terrorism, Sri Lanka is now pondering how to move forward in her plans for reconciliation as a nation. The Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) report is certainly a constructive step in the right direction, provided the government takes seriously what it has recommended. Not only the LLRC report, but anyone with some common sense, would rightly say that the fundamental cause for the recent decades of violence and terrorism was a lack of justice in various strata of our society, especially from the point of view of minorities (both religious and ethnic) in our country. In fact, the LLRC recommendations are all oriented towards addressing such lacunae with regard to basic justice issues. However, any genuine effort to redress such lacunae cannot afford to forget the national imperative to educate our young in issues of justice and peace. For a genuine and lasting national reconciliation of our nation, there must also be a serious effort to conscientise our citizens, beginning with our youth, about their moral obligations towards each other as citizens. Justice and peace issues will surely top the agenda of any such project. It is in this sense that the theme chosen by Pope Benedict XVI for the 45th World Day of Peace which falls on 1st January 2012, "Educating Young People in Justice and Peace" is very relevant for us, Sri Lankans.

Witnesses to values than teachers of values

Having described briefly how the present moment of world history has invoked on humanity various signs of doom, the Pope begins this year’s Peace Message by saying. In this shadow, however, human hearts continue to wait for the dawn of which the Psalmist speaks. Because this expectation is particularly powerful and evident in young people, my thoughts turn to them and to the contribution which they can and must make to society. I would like therefore to devote this message for the XLV World Day of Peace to the theme of education: "Educating Young People in Justice and Peace", in the conviction that the young, with their enthusiasm and idealism, can offer new hope to the world.

This year’s Message is a positive effort to link the natural idealism of young people with lived reality of the contemporary world. It is an effort to make sure that the good intentions and good dreams of the young people (who are locomotive of any dynamic society) would not remain in the dream level. The Pope immediately sets out to underline that in educating the youth in justice and peace, the first formation takes place in the family. This particular point has a lot of relevance in a country like Sri Lanka today, where there seems to be a popular but flawed mentality that just because the parents send their children to a school (and at times, to a so-called prestigious school or an "international school" for that matter!), and just because they give them an education in the academic sense, everything else would fall in line, automatically. They tend to forget that equally (if not more!) important is the value formation in the young, that is the moral formation of a child. The Message also hints at the vital necessity of example of "teachers" of today’s youth, and that would invariably include the example of parents:

Education is the most interesting and difficult adventure in life. Educating – from the Latin ‘educere’ – means leading young people to move beyond themselves and introducing them to reality, towards a fullness that leads to growth. This process is fostered by the encounter of two freedoms, that of adults and that of the young. It calls for responsibility on the part of the learners, who must be open to being led to the knowledge of reality, and on the part of educators, who must be ready to give of themselves. For this reason, today more than ever we need authentic witnesses, and not simply people who parcel out rules and facts; we need witnesses capable of seeing farther than others because their life is so much broader. A witness is someone who first lives the life that he proposes to others.

The last line is almost a repetition of what Pope Paul VI said in 1975 in his Evangelii Nuntiandi: "The world today, needs more of witnesses than teachers"! When it comes to teaching young people (and especially teaching them moral values), there is nothing truer than this because a good part of their learning is through imitation. As the Sinhalese saying goes: "the mother crab cannot expect the young crab to walk straight when she herself does not do so"! For example, how could a parent who is involved in telling lies and deception expect his son or daughter to be truthful?! Today’s young people are quick to see through spurious teachers who play Dr.Jekyl and Mr.Hyde. That is why they hate double standards of ‘gurus’, be they their school teachers, parents or religious leaders. Survey after survey has substantiated this point, especially, when one considers the reasons given by young people all over the world for not following seriously their parents and teachers, or whatever their religious leaders teach them. Hypocrisy is a vice courageously hated by the youth of any age. That is why good example in a family, especially by the parents, in being just, truthful and sincere, is so vital in educating our youth today. The Pope writes: It is in the family that they learn solidarity between the generations, respect for rules, forgiveness and how to welcome others. The family is the first school in which we are trained in justice and peace. The same holds good also with regard to teachers in a school/an educational institute, and more so, to religious leaders who preach about moral values, especially to the youth.

This year’s Message also challenges young people, themselves, calling them to aspire for the ideals that they expect of others, especially of elders: "Young people too need to have the courage to live by the same high standards that they set for others." The Pope goes on to give concrete advice in this regard when he says:

The right use of freedom, then, is central to the promotion of justice and peace, which requires respect for oneself and others, including those whose way of being and living differs greatly from one’s own. This attitude engenders the elements without which peace and justice remain merely words without content: mutual trust, the capacity to hold constructive dialogue, the possibility of forgiveness, which one constantly wishes to receive but finds hard to bestow, mutual charity, compassion towards the weakest, as well as readiness to make sacrifices.

The Need for a Civic Sense

The role expected of our younger generations in re-building reconciliation and trust among all religious and ethnic communities in our country today, is enormous. Learning lessons from the past mistakes of the by-gone generations, our young are today challenged to build bridges for national unity. For this, they are called to be promoters of justice and peace, as the gospel says: "Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied" (Mt 5:6). And the Pope says such persons who hunger and thirst for justice shall be satisfied because they hunger and thirst for right relations with God, with themselves, with their brothers and sisters, and with the whole of creation. This is the need of the hour: to be inspired by our respective religions, by God (building a right relationship with God), and then, reaching out to our fellow citizens irrespective of their race, religion or caste. What is badly lacking in Sri Lanka today is a real civic sense, namely, the basic sense that we live with others in society. Our youth also need to realise that these "others" of our Sri Lankan society need not be thinking the same way, that they need not be having the same ethnic and religious identity, but that they need to have one national identity which can never be reduced to one single ethnicity or religion. This sort of an ‘other-centred’ pluralistic mentality is the nucleus of any civic sense, and that is what we as a nation need to inculcate in our youth, if we are really serious about a reconciled Sri Lankan society, in the near future.

In the aftermath of our 30-years of violence, there is also an erroneous but popular feeling that it is the government that has the entire responsibility to build reconciliation and peace among various communities in our country. As the LLRC very rightly pointed out, certainly the government has the prime duty in this regard, and one hopes and prays that the government would sincerely act on the recommendations of this commission which was appointed by themselves, rather than just doing nothing on them as it has happened with regard to many other commissions appointed by the same government in the past. But mere government efforts alone won’t suffice. Such a sense of reconciliation and peace also needs to spring forth from us, the ordinary citizens of the country, that is from the grassroots of our society. It is here that our major religions have a special role to play. Like most of the other Asian societies, we Sri Lankans, are still considered as a very religious nation, no matter to what religion we belong. Our young people need to be inspired by our common religious heritage that promotes reconciliation and brotherhood based on justice. In concrete terms, this would amount to educating them to not merely tolerate but also to respect the freedom of others to hold on to and practice their own ethnic and religious beliefs. Until this sense of being united in a multi-ethnic, multi-religious Sri Lankan society gets rooted deeply in our youth, all our talk on reconciliation and peace would remain mere ideas.

Besides the prime initiative and the inspiration which the government ought to give in peace-building and reconciliation in our society, it is also our own task, as citizens. Recalling that peace is not the mere absence of war, this year’s Message of the Pope also highlights the task to build peace: Peace, however, is not merely a gift to be received: it is also a task to be undertaken. In order to be true peacemakers, we must educate ourselves in compassion, solidarity, working together, fraternity, in being active within the community and concerned to raise awareness about national and international issues and the importance of seeking adequate mechanisms for the redistribution of wealth, the promotion of growth, cooperation for development and conflict resolution.

Thanks to decades of free education prevailing in our country, we Sri Lankans proudly boast of a literacy rate that is the highest in South Asian countries. But literacy does not necessarily mean education, in the sense that mere academic learning would not equip a person to be a human being with integrity nor would it make him/her a responsible citizen. One needs to have also basic moral values, especially a civic sense. This was precisely what the special Presidential commission appointed by President Premadasa in the aftermath of the youth uprising in the late 1980’s also stressed, i.e., the need to educate our youth with basic human values which are also called moral values. In a country that has four major vibrant religions and a vast majority of their adherents who claim to be religious, one wonders how in the last few decades we witnessed so much of violence not only in the north, but also in the south. Of course, while acknowledging that violence has many socio-political causes and factors, one also needs to recognize that a lack of moral values also largely contributes to it. This is where the oft-repeated cliché that there would be no peace without justice, is true in reality. The late Pope John Paul II while repeating this basic Catholic tenet of social doctrine also taught that where there is no forgiveness, there is no peace either, which in fact, has now become a major tenet of the same Catholic social teaching. This point, needless to say, has a lot of relevance in promoting reconciliation in Sri Lanka today for there are many fellow citizens in all our communities who were badly wounded by the decades of violence in our country.

Restorative Justice not Retributive

Today, on the one hand, there are those self-appointed, hypocritical foreign governments and some NGO’s who have labelled themselves with the respectable term "international community" who are calling for vindictive justice with regard to what they themselves have selectively called the "war crimes" in our fight against brutal terrorism while forgetting not only the atrocities committed by the LTTE terrorists themselves here in Sri Lanka (with the tacit approval of the same hypocrites), but also conveniently ignoring their own "war crimes" in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and elsewhere. On the other hand, there are indeed real victims of both terrorism and war in our country today, who are still struggling to stand on their own feet in every sense of the word. What sort of education on justice are we to impart on our youth in this regard? Is it a sense of raw vindictive justice or is it a sense of restorative justice? The former is a contemporary version of tribal revenge that would divide ourselves further while the latter is a realistic effort to restore and reconcile in our efforts towards becoming one nation where each and every citizen will live in peace based on justice. The Catholic social doctrine clearly teaches that it has to be the latter, that is justice that restores what was destroyed, justice that re-builds where destruction has taken place. In his classic autobiography, "No Future without Forgiveness", Archbishop Desmond Tutu narrates how in the aftermath of the Apartheid in South Africa, with the inauguration of Nelson Mandela as President in the early 1990’s, they faced with a similar dilemma, namely, whether to execute strict mathematical retributive justice on the culprits of Apartheid or to extend by new legislation a general amnesty for all those who admitted politically motivated crimes during the period 1960 to 1994, before a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and how they opted for the latter. Tutu points out that the Commission was not to do with extreme justice or extreme non-execution of justice, neither Nuremberg nor National Amnesia:

Our country’s negotiators opted for a ‘third way’ that avoided the two extremes of Nuremberg trials and blanket amnesty (or national amnesia). This third way was the granting of amnesty to individuals in exchange for a full disclosure relating to the crime for which amnesty was being sought. It was the carrot of possible freedom in exchange for truth, and the stick was the prospect of lengthy prison sentences for those already in gaol, and the probability of arrest, prosecution and imprisonment for those still free.

This was a very realistic effort to acknowledge the crimes committed and then to reconcile with the bitter memories inflicted on each other by the two communities, the minority Whites and the majority Blacks. An acknowledgment of any guilt deliberately inflicted on others is a must for any forgiveness and reconciliation. Outright denials that there was any sort of violence and terrorism is not only not realistic but an added insult to those who suffered brutal violence in the past three decades. This is where most of the recommendations of the recently released LLRC become the minimum realistic steps towards a lasting reconciliation and peace in Sri Lanka, provided of course, that the government of Sri Lanka takes them seriously and makes a sincere effort to implement them for the sake of the country. The onus to take such a noble initiative rests totally on the government, if they are serious about the common good of Sri Lanka. The grassroots of our society, will also then be activated and re-invigorated accordingly, in promoting reconciliation and peace initiatives. Tomorrow’s citizenry of our country, namely, the youth need to be trained in this sort of restorative justice. Thus, it is imperative on all parents, teachers, religious leaders and others who impart value education on our youth to do so by emphasizing restorative justice that re-builds the nation, not vindictive justice that divides our nation further apart by inflicting bitter wounds on our already wounded communities. South Africa was fortunate to have able leaders (political and religious) in the persons of Nelson Mandela, Archbishop Desmond Tutu and others. Let us hope that our political and religious leaders, too, would now rise to the occasion here in Sri Lanka.

Conclusion

Catholic Social teaching is hailed by those inside and outside the Church as a good guide towards building justice and peace in the world. This corpus of social teachings, especially of Popes, began in 1891 with the Encyclical letter of Pope Leo XIII in the wake of terrible social ills which ordinary people (especially the poor labourers) had to suffer, as a result of Capitalism which was creating havoc in Europe in the aftermath of the Industrial Revolution. Ever since, Popes have not hesitated at various periods of history to write such Encyclical letters that address various social issues of a given time, and proposing guidelines based on Christian teachings. The World Peace Day messages on 1st of January every year, inaugurated by Pope Paul VI in 1967, also belong to this body of Catholic Social teaching. They are crucially important in the sense that they are not only creative Christian responses to the "signs of the times" but they are also clear concretizing of the teachings of the gospels in a given time and space, in a given context. But unfortunately, this rich body of Catholic teachings is not that publicised, not that well-known, and in a way kept quite hidden by media and also by Church personnel themselves, so much so, they are also called "the Church’s best kept secret"! Consequently, when it comes to talking about the Church’s moral teachings, unfortunately, only her rather strict teachings on sexual morals are highlighted, ignoring completely, the other aspects of her moral teachings. Her teachings on justice and peace, certainly need to occupy a central place in the Catholic corpus of moral teachings, as the late Pope John Paul II so often stressed.

In educating the youth in values of justice and peace, there can be no better systematic guideline than the Catholic social teaching. This is very true in our present Sri Lankan context within which we are struggling right now to find a way towards genuine reconciliation based on justice that would lead us to a lasting peace! After all, at the end of a brutal spell of violence, in the form of terrorism and war, all of us Sri Lankans, deserve a durable peace based on justice, but then, as the Pope says at the end of his Message: "Peace is not a blessing already attained, but rather a goal to which each and all of us must aspire"! Educating the youth in justice and peace is certainly a right move towards that goal.


The LLRC Report : Meaningful Implementation is the key to reconciliation

| by Shanie

"The moody mountain frowns, aloof, detached,
What was your crime, you little mountain town?
Just that you lay upon the Armies’ route;
Two tracks met here by whim in ancient time."
- Norman Morris writing about the plight of civilians in a Sicilian town during World War 2 (1943)

(December 31, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) The Government has laid to rest doubts some had that the final report of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission would not be released to the public, or only selected parts, if at all. President Rajapaksa did the right thing in releasing it in full. But public scepticism about the political will to implement the recommendations of the LLRC still remains. The LLRC made interim recommendations over fifteen months ago. A committee under the chairpersonship of Mohan Peiris, then Attorney General, was appointed to oversee the implementation of those interim recommendations. That committee appears to have been largely ineffective. The Friday Forum, in a statement, noted that they had written to the chairperson of the committee inquiring about the progress made in implementation of the LLRC’s interim recommendations and had received no response. The LLRC itself in its final report lamented that in respect of one of their interim recommendations, no concrete action appears to have been taken. It is this lack of a will to take action on the interim recommendations of the LLRC that gives rise to doubts as to whether LLRC’s recommendations will be implemented at all.

A diversionary tactic

There is a further reason for anxiety. The JHU, a constituent political party of the governing coalition, has gone public stating that the LLRC has exceeded its mandate by proposing that political steps be taken to devolve political power to further the cause of reconciliation. It is not a question of the JHU and its cabinet minister in the government misreading the mandate of the LLRC. The question is simply that the JHU does not recognize that there is any need to devolve power to the regions and thereby give political strength to areas where the minorities are in a majority.

The President’s mandate to the LLRC was clear. Every single one of the five items in the mandate would have justified the LLRC making the recommendations they made for national unity and reconciliation. But specifically, the LLRC was asked to recommend institutional, administrative and legislative measures needed to ‘prevent a recurrence of such concerns (arising from the events in the last phase of the war) in the future, and to promote further national unity and reconciliation among communities.’ The warrant further gave the LLRC a blanket authority to make any recommendations in respect of any matter that they had inquired into in respect of the warrant. The JHU, and the other narrow-minded nationalists on all sides of the ethnic divide, who unable to have a broader vision for Sri Lanka, must know that there was general agreement in the country when the President stated in the warrant that a need had arisen for the country to learn from its recent history, lessons that would ensure that there will be no recurrence of any internecine conflict in the future and that people are assured of an era of peace, harmony and prosperity. As the LLRC commented, their mandate was not just to ‘look back at the conflict Sri Lanka suffered’ but also to ‘look ahead for an era of healing and peace building in the country.’

It is in this spirit that the Commissioners stated in their preamble that "Sri Lanka now faces a moment of unprecedented opportunity. Rarely does such an opportunity come along without equally important attendant challenges. This is especially true of any meaningful effort towards post-conflict peace building following a protracted conflict. Sri Lanka’s case is no exception. Terrorism and violence have ended. Time and space have been created for healing and building sustainable peace and security so that the fruits of democracy and citizenship can be equitably enjoyed by all Sri Lankans. To this end, the success of ending armed conflict must be invested in an all-inclusive political process of dialogue and accommodation so that the conflict by other means will not continue."

The Commissioners further noted that if the people’s expectations were to become a reality in the form of a multi-ethnic nation at peace with itself in a democratic Sri Lanka, the Government and all political leaders must manifest political will and sincerity of purpose to take the necessary decisions to ensure the good-faith implementation of the Commission’s recommendations. "Based on what it heard from the people, the Commission is confident that the citizens are ready and willing to support consensual approaches advancing national interest, national reconciliation, justice and equality for all citizens, so long as the political leaders take the lead in a spirit of tolerance, accommodation and compromise."

Another source of concern regarding the implementation of the LLRC recommendations is the veiled attempt being made to divert attention to other issues. Dayan Jayatilleka writing in The Island this week seeks to introduce a new element. He says, "Two of the three major players in the last stage of the Sri Lankan conflict have undertaken and undergone a preliminary audit of sorts—the Sri Lankan state and the Norwegians– while the third (and the second in importance) has not, and not even thought to. There has been no equivalent from within the Tamil civil society or the ‘Tamil nationalist movement’. The country knows and Jayatilleka knows that the third major player in the conflict was the LTTE. Does Jayatilleka equate the LTTE with Tamil civil society or the non-LTTE Tamil nationalist movement? We are aware that before their demise, the LTTE claimed to be the sole representatives of the Tamil people. From what he writes now, does Jayatilleka accept that claim which many Sri Lankans, Sinhala, Tamil and Muslim, rejected outright? Or is it a case that since the LTTE is defeated, it pays politically to equate the Tamils with the LTTE? Of course, over the thirty years, very few of the political parties, and many individuals in civil society, were willing to take a public stand to reach out for reconciliation across the communal divide. In many cases, this was due to the fear of being humiliated and labeled a ‘traitor’ by one side or the other.

The inter-ethnic conflict has existed since Sri Lanka’s independence from colonial rule, even though the war might have been fought over the last thirty years. Two weapons were used during the war and the wider conflict. The war was fought using military strategy and weapons. The wider conflict saw the use of psychological abuse and hate to beat down anyone or any group advocating accommodation and goodwill in resolving the conflict. This happened before the defeat of the LTTE and it is happening now as well. Anyone or any party representing the minorities advocating rights for the minorities or devolution was immediately termed as representing ‘the LTTE rump’; any Sinhala person doing so is an LTTE-lover and a ‘traitor’. Unfortunately leadership for this communal abuse came from parties and individuals allied to the governing coalition. We still have to travel a long way for national reconciliation. As the LLRC report acknowledges: "The Commission was also reminded that despite the lapse of two years since the ending of the conflict, the violence, suspicion and sense of discrimination are still prevalent in social and political life. Delay in the implementation of a clearly focused post-conflict peace building agenda may have contributed to this situation."

The overriding need then is to set up a credible mechanism (not on the model of the Mohan Peiris Committee) to implement the recommendations of the LLRC. It must be a mechanism that will work within a defined time-frame and have authority to ensure that the recommendations are carried out, It must function in an open and transparent manner.

The failure of all political parties

The LLRC finds all political parties and their leadership failing in their duty to promote national reconciliation, justice and equality for all citizens. They are collectively responsible for the violence that had and continues to envelop our society. We would suggest that our religious leaders, with a mere couple of exceptions, are also culpable in this regard. Martin Luther King’s words ring so very true of our society: "We shall have to repent in this generation not so much for the evil deeds of the wicked people, but for the appalling silence of the good people." The Commissioners suggest that all parties, not just the Tamil civil society as Jayatilleka suggests, engage in self-appraisal of their complicity in promoting this conflict over the years.

The LLRC says the need is for a political solution to the National Question. This can come about only if there is a political will on the part of all. In the light of the government and the TNA both seemingly having "non-negotiable" conditions for their negotiations, it may not be a bad idea,, as happened in Northern Ireland, to have an independent mediator acceptable to both parties and to the SLMC, who also need to be brought into the negotiations as the largest party representing the Muslims. But negotiations can succeed only if there is a political will on the part of all sides to find a solution that will ensure justice for all.

It is appropriate to end with this final recommendation of the LLRC: "A collective act of contrition for what happened would not come easily to either party. It would come only if they are ready to make a profound moral self appraisal in the light of the human tragedy that has occurred. Seeds of reconciliation can take root only if there is forgiveness and compassion. Leaders of all sides should reach out to each other in humility and make a joint declaration, extending an apology to innocent citizens who fell victim to this conflict, as a result of the collective failure of the political leadership on all sides to prevent such a conflict from emerging. Religious leaders and civil society should work towards it and emphasize the healing impact it would have on the entire process of reconciliation."

Making LLRC Report Meaningful

| by Col. R. Hariharan

9December 31, Chennai, Sri Lanka Guardian) The Rajapaksa government should be happy with the report of the Commission of Inquiry on Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation (LLRC) presented to the Sri Lankan parliament on December 16, 2011 as it has not pinpointed responsibility on anyone (other than political and systemic weaknesses and the LTTE) for the mess Sri Lanka finds itself after the Eelam War.

The report provides badly needed breathing space for the government, as the Commission has done a fairly good job if one goes by the President’s mandate given to it. The well written report analyses in detail the reasons for past and present discontent of Tamils and has drawn the government attention to a number issues that had triggered Tamil insurgency.

The LLRC report is constructive and covers almost all issues that relate to aberrations in governance, lack of transparency and the need to take speedy action on restoring confidence among Tamil minority. However, the LLRC has tripped on allegations of war crimes and killing of civilians by the army during the last stages of Eelam war.

The semantics of its analysis while discussing LTTE’s actions disregarding civilian safety shows clarity. However, in its discourse on the accusations against the army, there is a reluctance to come to grips with the issue. The LLRC was “satisfied” that the military strategy adopted had given highest importance to avoid “civilian casualties or minimising them” based on the evidence given by the military representatives and the Ministry of Defence despite recording evidence to the contrary!

The broad brush given to the issue in the LLRC report has defeated the very purpose for which it was appointed – to get at the truth in the allegations and pinpoint those responsible (if any) so that the government can establish its credibility.

Sri Lanka media has been full of articles critically analysing the report. Almost all of them have touched upon the need for follow up action. And this has been picked up by the opposition also. If the government is smart enough to take quick follow up action on the wide array of LLRC recommendations, it can untangle itself from the post-war mess. Will the government and the ruling coalition be smart enough to do that remains the moot point?

It is difficult to be optimistic if we look at the circumstances under which the LLRC was constituted. The government’s decision to appoint the LLRC was neither spontaneous nor part of the post war action plan. It was in response to international pressure after the UN focus on its alleged lack of accountability during the last phase of the Eeelam War in May 2009 started gathering support. The UN representative in Sri Lanka and a number of international NGOs had accused the army of inflicting heavy casualties upon civilians trapped in the war zone, including the so called “no fire zone.”

There were also allegations of Sri Lankan army killing some LTTE leaders after agreeing to accept their surrender. Channel 4 TV beamed a number of visuals showing alleged killing of LTTE prisoners by Sri Lankan soldiers adding yet another dimension to the allegations. And this created uproar among Tamils everywhere, many demanding an international inquiry into the allegations. There were also calls for an international inquiry particularly from the West while the US demanded greater accountability from Sri Lanka for its actions during the war.

Sri Lanka was disturbed by the decision of UN Secretary General Ban ki-Moon’s to appoint an advisory panel of experts to advise him on the war crimes issue under lot of pressure. When the issue came up at the UN Security Council Interactive Briefing in June 2009, Sri Lanka’s Permanent Representative spoke about his government initiating a mechanism for fact finding and reconciliation.

However, the President took a year to decide on appointing the LLRC. There were probably unarticulated reasons for this delay. The President had a real problem in coming to terms with the war crimes allegations as they reflected upon his responsibility as the supreme commander of the armed forces. Moreover, any action against the victorious army and its heroes (of course General Fonseka became an exception as he decided to contest against the President) could have adversely affected the massive popular support the President gained after the war.

On other hand, the UN experts’ panel recommendations and international campaigns demanding an international inquiry into war crimes triggered nationalist sentiments and xenophobia in the island nation. And these feelings were cleverly used to garner votes when the President went in for a series of elections. Evidently, considerations of political gamesmanship prevailed over the government’s need for accountability for all its actions during the war.

Sri Lanka was in a piquant situation when constituting the LLRC became inevitable. Locally, it had the unenviable task of carrying out a face saving exercise to sell the idea. It struck upon the strategy of giving the LLRC an omnibus mandate that included human rights issue. It was not surprising when the war crimes issue did not specifically figure in the LLRC mandate. Its inclusion could have resulted in a moment of truth and contradicted the strong stand already taken by the government against such a probe.

The ambit of the LLRC’s inquiry covered the signing of the ceasefire agreement (CFA) and the circumstances that led to its failure and the sequence of events during the Eelam War between February 21, 2002 (when the CFA came into being) and May 19, 2009. The LLRC was also tasked to inquire whether any person, group, or institutions directly or indirectly bear responsibility in this regard.

In an apparent bid to make the LLRC relevant to the post war situation, it was asked to draw up lessons learnt from the events, recommend methodology for institutional action to help those affected by the events and advise on institutional, administrative and legislative measures to be taken to prevent recurrence of such ‘concerns’ in future.

This mandate had the advantage of weathering international criticism while making such an inquiry acceptable to the people, who have been fed on theories of international conspiracy to deny Sri Lanka the credit for its victory against the LTTE.

The boycott of the LLRC hearings by the opposition leader Ranil Wickremesinghe, the largest Tamil party - the Tamil National Alliance (TNA), the Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International probably suited the government as their counter arguments never does not find a place in the proceedings of the Commission. Sri Lanka’s strategic mistake in dithering on inviting the representatives of the UN experts’ panel to the LLRC hearings deprived it of external perspective that would have added to its credibility. Notwithstanding these short comings, the LLRC’s interesting analyses brings out a few home truths on some of the larger issues relating to mediation and decision making process in insurgency situations.

Human rights and war crimes

The LLRC's recorded evidence on alleged human rights violations and war crimes is useful in two ways. Firstly, it has on record details of complaints on which the government has to take follow up action if it means business. If we go by political reality, such action is unlikely. Secondly, if the government fails to act upon these complaints, the evidence would come in handy for civil society groups and victims to seek the help of judiciary to force the government to act.

In the contemporary global scene, human rights and war crimes issues are likely to be a perennial feature when armies are involved in operations against own citizens or enemy. So the army and the administration should have clear cut policy and structural framework to take action on complaints. Army should also formally take follow up action. And armies have to think beyond including human rights issues as a subject in training programmes. They should be transparent in taking act and provide easy access to information to the public. Such action is not easy because armies have king size egos and governments have political priorities overriding humane concerns.

However if they assume it as a command responsibility and governments show the will, it can be done. India provided a shining example of such commitment when the All India Radio beamed oral messages from each of the 93,000 Pakistani prisoners of the 1971 war for the benefit of their families in Pakistan. Although it is more than two years after the war was won in Sri Lanka, a commission is needed to advise the government on action to be taken after recording evidence of such cases!

Mediation issues

The analysis of circumstances leading to the ‘hasty’ signing of the CFA has clearly brought out the disastrous consequences when the Prime Minister from the majority party in parliament did not see eye to eye with the Executive President. Even under limitations of his office, the Prime Minister was able to sign an important agreement affecting the nation without taking the President into confidence! This resulted in lack of consensus, coherence and continuity in national policy making on the issue. The reasons given for this aberration are not clear as the Prime Minister of the period Ranil Wickremesinghe did not record his statement before the commission. Sri Lanka’s political history is replete with such instances when partisan interests of rival parties had derailed each others’ effort to find solutions to major national problems. Basically it was the inability of the two seasoned rival leaders of the time - President Chandrika Kumaratunga and Ranil Wickremesinghe - to learn from history that contributed to the failure of the peace process 2002 to move forward.

As this phenomenon is firmly established in Sri Lanka politics, the Tamil issue continues to be subject to round robin games of rival parties and coalitions. Can such a political environment bring a bipartisan solution as suggested by the LLRC? I have my reservations. Some political soul searching about finding permanent solution to bring the Tamil issue to a logical closure is long overdue. If a leader with huge popular support like Mahinda Rajapaksa shows reluctance to act firmly to resolve the issue, the chances of it happening in the near future are bleak. Unless the national leadership makes up its mind, tinkering with the Constitution and other exercises are likely to end up only as cosmetic solutions.

The analysis of the failure of the CFA provides useful inputs for peacemakers everywhere. Both the warring sides in Sri Lanka accepted the CFA because of their own compulsions. Probably Norway had not understood the skewed balance of power between the two sides. Sri Lanka’s elected government had greater need to be accountable to electorate, while the autocratic LTTE did not suffer from such democratic niceties as it operated under Prabhakaran’s writ. Treating both sides on par would find no political acceptance in the country unless the insurgent group sheds its violent methods to negotiate a settlement (the decisions of Mizo National Front - MNF in India and the Provisional IRA to sue for peace are examples of this). Unfortunately Norway, which has never faced any insurgency first hand, had not understood this simple truth. As a result the CFA was doomed to die when LTTE did not show visible commitment to the CFA. On the other hand, it used the CFA to expose the weaknesses of Sri Lanka’s political process to work out a solution acceptable to all ethnic segments.

Conceptually and structurally the CFA was flawed. As Prabhakaran was chary of giving up his Eelam dream in favour of a federal solution, the LTTE systematically exploited the built-in weaknesses of the CFA. Compounding Prabhakaran’s reluctance, Norway’s keenness to push through the lopsided CFA draft, and the Sri Lankan failure to read the fine print of the CFA had sowed the seeds of CFA’s failure.

Similarly, the monitoring process had conceptual limitations; it failed to shore up the CFA as it depended upon the sincerity of both sides in preference to using a neutral military interface to ensure the scrupulous observance of CFA. The Norwegian experience clearly shows how ineffective monitoring can scuttle the whole mediation process.

After action on LLRC recommendations

The LLRC’s well meaning recommendations are too sketchy to constitute a framework for action by all stakeholders, “in particular the Government, political parties and community leaders.” So it is doubtful whether they would help in “constructing a platform for consolidating post conflict peace and security as well as amity and cooperation within and between the diverse communities in Sri Lanka” as stated by the commission.

If Sri Lanka’s past approach is any indication the government would opt for committee solutions than clear executive action to take follow up actions. This is the reason why many members of civil society and sections of international community including India and the U.S. are keen to see Sri Lanka speedily give form and content to the recommendations. As far as the Tamil community in Sri Lanka is concerned the government suffers from a huge credibility gap; there is a lot of cynicism on government pronunciations. These will be further reinforced if the government drags its feet in taking follow up action.

So it is difficult to share the expectation of Indian external ministry spokesman for Sri Lanka to “act decisively” to achieve meaningful devolution of powers to its provinces. To quote him, “The LLRC report has underlined that the present situation provides a great window of opportunity to forge a consensual way forward towards reconciliation through a political settlement based on devolution of power.”

But windows of opportunities are not open forever; they are fleeting while political opportunism is established firmly. In Sri Lanka the latter has shown an uncanny a knack of walling up such windows. The disastrous ending to earlier “windows of opportunity” - the sabotaging of Ms Chandrika Kumaratunga’s constitutional reform effort and consigning Dr Tissa Vitharana’s All Party Representative Committee report to the archives – are two recent examples of purposeless politics.

If Sri Lanka fails to act upon the latest window of opportunity, the whole effort put in to produce a useful LLRC report will be an exercise in futility. There had been enough talk in Sri Lanka about what it should be doing; it is time only for action now.


(Col R Hariharan, a retired Military Intelligence specialist on South Asia, served with the Indian Peace Keeping Force in Sri Lanka as Head of Intelligence. He is associated with the Chennai Centre for China Studies and the South Asia Analysis Group. E-Mail: colhari@yahoo.com Blog: www.colhariharan.org) 


2012—HERE I COME

| by B.Raman

( December31, Chennai, Sri Lanka Guardian) It is 27 months since we started living together---my present mistress and I.

I have accepted my new mistress. I have learnt to live in peaceful co-existence with her. She has helped me get rid of the fear of pain and death.
I had known other women in my life. I met them somewhere, somehow. We drank, sang and danced together. We spent nights wandering in the streets of Paris, Geneva,Amsterdam, Rome, Venice,Naples, Montreal,Jerusalem, Tokyo, Bangkok, Vientiane, Copenhagen,Athens, Damascus,Kampala, Istanbul.We spent hours, days and weeks in the Islands of Greece, Bali, Angkor Wat.

We developed a liking for each other, a love for each other. We started living together---live-in companions. When we could live together no longer, we said adieu to each other. A painful adieu, but the pain lasted only till I met someone new. I was like Claude Francois’ vagabond of no importance. Like George Moustaki’s gypsy.

One night in 2009, as I was sleeping alone in my bed, I woke up to realise I was not alone. I had a new live-in companion---one I had not met or known before. She had unnoticed, unfelt, unsensed ,uninvited moved in to live with me.

She has been there all the time---a part of me. She follows me wherever I go like a shadow. She sleeps with me. We have no love for each other. Yet, we are destined to live together . Hang out together. Only death can part us.

How to describe my emotions when I found her inside me? Not happiness----definitely not. Sorrow? I don’t think so. Shock? A little bit.Fear, possibly.

Whatever were the predominant emotions, I managed to bring them under control. I managed to rid myself of the fear of pain and death. Blood coming out of my body---like water from the fountains of Versailles--- no longer unnerves me.

I have lost my initial fears of this unknown mistress. Disappointment lingers. That after having spent my life with wonderful women, I should be condemned to spend the last years of my life with a mistress whom I do not love.

But I had no choice. What cannot be cured has to be endured. What cannot be shaken off has to be accepted.

I have accepted my new mistress. I have learnt to live in peaceful co-existence with her. She has helped me get rid of the fear of pain and death.

I was born again in 2011. I have re-discovered the zest for life. I live and travel again. I do once again all the things which I had always loved doing---reading, writing, listening to music, fraternising with people, loving wonderful women.

I feel young again. I feel the best of me is yet to come. 75 is not an old age---an age of philosophical resignation with nothing more to look forward to till I die. It is an age of re-discovery of myself. An age of new thoughts and new love. Like the vagabond, I have started singing again---songs of life, love and tears.

2012---- Here I come

Indian Lolly Cow: Re-run of the Native

| by Farzana Versey

“The place became full of a watchful intentness now; for when other things sank brooding to sleep the heath appeared slowly to awake and listen. Every night its Titanic form seemed to await something; but it had waited thus, unmoved, during so many centuries, through the crises of so many things, that it could only be imagined to await one last crisis—the final overthrow.”-  Thomas Hardy, ‘Return of the Native’

(December 31, Mumbai, Sri Lanka Guardian) They strip the whole mansion that belonged to the royal courts in a re-telling of history. The Hindujas, a prominent business family, buys a £100 million huge mansion near Buckingham Palace and renovates it in the East meets West fashion, Victorian balustrades with ancient patterns sourced from the monarchies of their homeland.

A once-reigning Bollywood diva returns ‘home’, bags, hubby, children and new accent in tow. She touts the tired excuse of wanting to inculcate Indian values in her children. She, who used to sing praises about a suburban life in Denver, grocery shopping without being mobbed, is seeking the crowd. In a sad Fedora-like account, she wanted to perform at one of those many New Year’s Eve shows where people pay to watch others dance. There were no takers; her style was passé. But there is hope. Her spouse, a cardiac surgeon, is being wooed by the best hospitals. This is what the return is for – to make the best of India’s wealth. It is not xenophobia that they run away from or values they run to, but the lure of a lifestyle without mortgages where celebrity is still worshipped. The famous in India live in a time-warp where no one must know about their botox, their rehab, their crimes.

Both these examples are two aspects of the same story. Even as the value of the dollar makes the rupee go soggy with remorse, India continues to smile beatifically. This is not part of the old fatalistic paradigm. We still have elephants, but they are now in the room, and on the doors of sprawling London houses.

The India Shining story was a sorry little slogan that simulated glitter, but that has made way for the heavy metal. India probably remains the most ‘untouched’ nation in terms of financial meltdown. How can any country be measured by its economic situation alone? The answer lies in the query. India’s monetary power cannot be measured. Those who make it to the Forbes list are only the showpieces.

Indian industrialisation is steeped in guilt. Guilt does not mean empathy, which was so sharply delineated by Chaplin in ‘Modern Times’. Group guilt is guile camouflaged. Jawaharlal Nehru wanted to dress free enterprise with the garb of socialism. In this case, the clothes became the first impression, the label the nation was tagged with. Added to that, it had to live with the looming shadow of Mahatma Gandhi and his spinning wheel yarn. In many ways, when Indian business people bribe, the psychological dimension to it is of generosity, charity. The peon is given money for ‘chai-paani’ (tea and water, literally); those slightly higher up are advised to “buy something for wife and kids”; the big powers are given the ultimate – familiarity and an opportunity to be equal. The dress of socialism covers all ills. Gandhi’s shadow is like graffiti on walls, designed for a nervous chuckle, a release of tension.

* * *

He threw his hands up in the air as though waiting to catch a ball. “India!” he muttered under his breath, like a whispered secret, as he nodded his head. The imported shrug and nonchalance could not quite take away the yes-no combination gesture.

"India!" the one word muted by arrogance was also the destination of the whitewashed brown man. We were seated next to each other on a flight from Dubai; he had travelled a longer distance from New York so he seemed to believe his stake in India was greater.



He thought it was mandatory to abuse the system because he was accustomed to a more streamlined work ethos. "I am a financial consultant, but I have explored opportunities to set up my own business. I will bring my expertise to the venture." It was his Indian education that had given him the expertise; he worked for some of the best firms here before he got his green card. So, what did he learn in the United States that he could superimpose on the system here? Why did it take him so many years to make that leap of faith? It was not easy for him to admit that he feared for his job and that he could do in India what he was otherwise chary about.

It reminds me of Raj Rajaratnam, the hedge fund billionaire involved in what was billed as “history’s biggest insider trading”. When writer Suketu Mehta interviewed him, a stray sentence caused quite a stir. He wrote:

“The Rajaratnam case can be seen as a metaphor of the difference between immigrants from South Asia, who have a more elastic view of rules and a more keenly developed art of networking, and their children, the first generation, schooled to play by American rules. Preet Bharara came to the U.S. when he was an infant. Yet for all his complaints about unfairness, Rajaratnam, surprisingly, still believes in American justice. ‘In Sri Lanka I would have given the judge 50,000 rupees and he’d be sitting having dinner at my house. Here, I got my shot. The American justice system is by and large fair’.”

My co-traveller quite happily meets lobbyists for his company, and the company donates funds to political parties. He would not do that in India. “Politicians in our country are odious.” I was struck by the reference to “our” country, but I knew that despite a foreign passport he would get through immigration quicker than I would. I was furious with him and his linen jacket, coolly opening a packet of ‘gutka’ and pouring it into his mouth like a hick-town buffoon. They would let him go through, as he’d click his red tongue to sound just slightly agitated over the time wasted. “Time is money, no, Sir?” He will hear this often and will hasten his stride to make that money walk faster.

He is returning because he has watched the country of birth and the one that sustained him in his growing years transform to his specifications. There are parts of it that are now called “gora (white) town”. He will not miss his other ‘home’. In fact, like some westerners, he too will think of this move as a calculated risk, although he knows exactly where to park his funds and his car. The initial days of living abroad had filled him with some nostalgia that found solace in the stores that sold the smells he once loved. Today, he wants non-smelly foods.

If you live in a place that has a past in its quaintly-named lanes and the shops that were lined with glass bottles brimming over with strong-scented foods that made you hungry, you now have to often place an order for those. Or, they come packaged differently. Instead, you have international herbs. Every fruit has a label. I was sick of New Zealand apples and felt ridiculous asking for Indian apples in India. The store guy was unruffled and quite amused as he replied in perfectly-enunciated English, “You mean you want desi apples?” Yes. And I do not want my oil to be a virgin.

* * *

International retail chains like Wal-Mart and Tesco were to enter the market under the FDI, but there was opposition to it. The neo Quit India movement is not about freedom or fear, but its own superpower dreams.

Beneath all the arguments about overdoing free enterprise, there is the canny knowledge that a large segment of people are already being catered to by the local malls. The middle-class has travelled overseas, and pushing a trolley along alleys and falling prey to impulse buying is not an Indian trait where most households above the poverty line has some form of domestic help. In a decade or so, the malls too have lost their sheen. When the first one had opened in Mumbai, families would make it a holiday outing, the children taking joy rides on the escalators. The Swarovski and Patchi chocolate showrooms were mainly window-shopping destinations. Would Indians who could afford expensive baubles buy it here? The exclusivity principle is at play. You cannot have an insignia of ‘By appointment with Carrefour’.

The executive on the flight is the equivalent of Wal-Mart. He too comes with the offering of more jobs, healthy competition, better infrastructure. Curiously, on the same flight, the man across the aisle had another story. He was a recruiter and was hoping that this time he would get lucky. “Young qualified people do not want to leave India. I am surprised. A few years ago, I had to reject so many applications. These days, I am the one rejected. It is impossible to compete because they have salaries I cannot match.” He sells them a better lifestyle and they smirk. They are carrying the latest gadgets, wearing high street fashion, if not designer labels, have gone overseas, and are not ignorant about the concept of weekends. They are willing to work late, as long as they can party late too.

Pico Iyer had said about immigrants, “...it does involve, for some of us, the chance to be transnational in a happier sense, able to adapt anywhere, used to being outsiders everywhere and forced to fashion our own rigorous sense of home. (And if nowhere is quite home, we can be optimists everywhere.)” For the native, returned or revived, it is about creating an outside world inside. Nationalism is a pleasant hangover. They are doing their own country, touring it, a form of counter-escapism where kitsch makes culture into hyperbole.

A song 'Kolaveri Di' that has gone viral with several spinoffs is a wonderful analogy. It uses heavily accented English words, was written and sung spontaneously; there is apparently no purpose to it, but it has broken records. It tells a simple story of a man dumped by his girlfriend. He expresses it as the rage of angels, as it were. One of the lines goes, “Girl white, heart black, eyes meet, future dark”. Some have called it racist. It really is about how this pitching of the tent optimism and pessimism cleaves the world into black and white. Without the intrusion of colours, the space is magnified.

This is an India that has broken the barriers while remaining caged with too much of too little. Indeed, the best little hoard house in town.


Uighurs strike again in Xinjiang

| by B.Raman

(December 30, Chennai, Sri Lanka Guardian) At least eight persons----seven Uighurs and a senior police officer of the Chinese-controlled Xinjiang province --- were reported to have been killed on the night of December 28,2011, in Hotan's Pishan county. Pishan county lies on the southern edge of the Taklamakan desert near the border with Pakistan.

2. According to available details from reliable Uighur sources, a police party tried to stop a group of Uighur youth who were about to enter Pakistan near village Mukula. One of the Uighur youth allegedly stabbed Adil Abduveli, the leader of the police party. The remaining members of the Police party allegedly shot dead seven of the Uighur youth who were trying to cross over into Pakistan.

3. The police have alleged that the Uighurs who were killed were terrorists who tried to take hostage two police officers. This led to an exchange of fire during which, according to the Police, the Uighurs were killed. Uighur sources have denied this version.

4. Earlier this month, one Han Chinese was reported killed and several others were injured when an Uighur attacked a group of people with a pair of shears in the streets of Dolebagh township in Kashgar city. Following this, the police rounded up 50 Uighurs of the area for questioning. Thirty of them were released and allowed to go home after the questioning. About 20 remained unaccounted for. There was speculation that they managed to escape from police custody during the questioning and that the police had intensified border patrolling in order to prevent them from escaping into Pakistan.

5.There have been a number of stabbing incidents in the province this year. On April 18, a young Uighur stabbed six Han Chinese and then stabbed himself to death. Four days later, another Uighur allegedly stabbed to death a 39-year-old Han woman. On July 30 and 31, at least 14 persons were stabbed to death in the Kashgar area by two groups of Uighur youth. Previously, there was a ban on Uighurs possessing fire-arms. Now a ban has been imposed on their possessing their traditional knives too, which has added to their resentment against the police.

6.Doletbagh is a small town located in the southeast part of Kashgar with a population of about 14,000, 97 per cent of whom are Uighurs. Most of them are unemployed due to preference given to Hans from outside in recruitment. Unable to get jobs locally, the unemployed youth try to escape into Pakistan. Reliable Uighur sources allege that the youths trying to escape are killed either by the Han Police before they cross over or by the Pakistani security forces after they cross over.

7.Officers of China’s Ministry of Public Security, which is responsible for internal security, are attached to Pakistani security posts on the Pakistani side of the border to prevent illegal crossing of Uighur youth into Pakistan.


( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai, and Associate of the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com Twitter : @SORBONNE75 ) 


Political reconciliation of Myanmar and its neighbor Bangladesh


l by Swadesh Roy


(December 30, Dhaka, Sri Lanka Guardian) Some days before Myanmar was an isolated country of the world. It is neighbor of Bangladesh but it was not much open to Bangladesh. The relation was running in some short of trading between Bangladesh and Myanmar. Myanmar is also a neighbor of India, they had some trade with Myanmar but the people of India and Bangladesh were going to forgetting the historical relation with Myanmar or the then Burma. 

We the people of Bangladesh, Myanmar and India, have a long cultural and historical bondage. We fought for our freedom against British and we wear same gems in the occasions. But we were going to forget it, and it is not for the people of these three countries, it is for the military ruler of Myanmar. The military ruler of Myanmar did isolate the country from the rest of the world. The people of Myanmar did not accept it through their mind besides they did a long struggle against the military ruler. The students, the Monks and the common people gave more blood for an open Myanmar, a democratic Myanmar. But it was true the people of Myanmar did not get a whole hearted support from its neighboring people or the people of democratic world; on the other hand the autocratic China used to help the Junta of Myanmar for their trade facilities. 

All of it is now the history of the past. The present Myanmar is a country which has started walking on the way to democracy. The political reconciliation of Myanmar is now being recognized by all over the world. Foreign minister of United State of America Miss Hilary Cilinton has visited Myanmar last month. Hilary’s visit was very much significant. Her visit gives recognition that; Myanmar is walking on the way to democracy. On the other hands, her visit established that, Myanmar is open to the world; now it is not a country which is only a friend of China. It is proven immediately because after the visit of Hilary, the Prime Minister of Bangladesh has visited Myanmar within a week. During the visit in Myanmar foreign minister of USA said that, they are concerned about the oil, gas and the timber of Myanmar. The world knows that, Myanmar is a resourceful country. Its main three resources are oil, gas and timber. Besides that, Myanmar is a huge rice producing country and they have another resource that is gems. 

Aung San Suu Kyi welcomes Hillary Clinton to her home. Photograph: Paula Bronstein/Getty Images
Myanmar has huge oil, gas and timer but the country considered as an agricultural economic based country. Only ten percent of its population is working in the industrial sector, rest ninety percent is working in the agricultural sector. At the time of Hilary’s visit she had told that, USA is concerned about the natural resource of Myanmar. It indicates that, they want a proper use of the natural resource of Myanmar. So now, it could be thought that, World Bank and other monetary organization will think about investment in the natural resource of Myanmar; besides that world renowned company will be interested in Myanmar for investment.
We know that India has an arms trade relation with Myanmar. China is the number one arms exporter in Myanmar and India is second one. Besides that, India is trying to buy gas and oil through pipe line from Myanmar. They will do it now. The present government of Bangladesh is very much cautious about regional economical cooperation. This government of Bangladesh has another quality that, it responds quickly. Having taken power, this government has done many things promptly with Nepal, Sri Lanka, Bhutan, The Maldives, and India is in favor of regional peace and economical cooperation. In fact Bangladesh responds promptly to build up an economical and peaceful relation with the new Myanmar. 

The Prime Minister of Bangladesh has visited Myanmar from 5- 7 December. It was totally an economical and regional peace cooperation visit. There is a long unsettled issue with Bangladesh and Myanmar. A large number of minority citizen of Myanmar have taken shelter in Bangladesh more than on decades. They complain that, they are tortured by the military ruler. We know that any type of minority community is not safe in under any type of autocratic government. Only a liberal democratic government can give a confidence and a safe and secured life to the minority community. Myanmar has taken political reconciliation so with a due respect and expressed happiness the Prime Minister of Bangladesh has discussed with the president of Myanmar about that issue and the president of Myanmar Mr. U Thein has given assurance also to the Prime Minister of Bangladesh that they will cooperate with Bangladesh to resolve this issue. In the MoU the two countries said that, ` Both the Heads of Government noted that, Bangladesh and Myanmar are going to enter into a new phase in bilateral relations with pragmatic and practical approach based on sovereignty, equality, friendship, trust and understanding for the mutual benefit of their people and collective prosperity of the region,’ Myanmar has huge oil and gas resources on the other hand Bangladesh has deficiency of oil and gas; but Bangladesh needs a lot of energy for the future. The trend of economy is expressing that, within a very short time Bangladesh will be a hub of small industries. That is the way Bangladesh has a need for huge energy. Bangladesh is already going to make an agreement with Bhutan for hydroelectric power. On the other hand Bangladesh is trying to make same joint venture with north east India. Bangladesh is also seeking power from Nepal. So it is obvious that, Bangladesh will try to import oil and gas from its neighbor Myanmar. President of Myanmar also conceptually agreed that, they will export oil and gas to Bangladesh in future. Besides that, Prime Minister of Bangladesh has given a vital proposal to Myanmar for setting up an Asian Clearing Union (ACU). If ACU is set up then Bangladesh and Myanmar will be able to establish direct banking arrangement and LCs can be opened between two countries directly. This system will be increased the trade between two countries hundred times. Besides oil and gas Bangladesh can import from Myanmar rice, onion, garlic and others agricultural product and different kinds of gems. There is a large Myanmar’s gems market in Bangladesh. On the other hand Bangladesh can export to Myanmar readymade garments, pharmaceutical products, Knitwear, jute and jute goods, ceramics etc. 

Apart from the two countries relation, Bangladesh and Myanmar can play a vital role in this South and East Asia. Myanmar is the chairman of ASEAN now . On the other hands, between SAARC and ASEAN the geographical position of Bangladesh is very much strategically important. So Bangladesh and Myanmar can play a key role to make closer to ASEAN and SAARC and that will be great achievement for the future peace and economy of the Asia.

Swadesh Roy, Executive Editor, the daily Janakantha, Dhaka, Bangladesh.