(March 31, Hong Kong, Sri Lanka Guardian) Over the past four months, the Union Law Minister, Mr. M. Veerappa Moily, has been claiming that his ministry wishes to propose a law, on the 'right' to justice, which would guarantee justice to every citizen. While the minister's wish is noble, the country lacks the means and administrative will to assure what the minister has proposed, even at the notional level to the ordinary people. In that, Moily is like Hammurabi, who believed that mere laws would ensure fairness and guarantee welfare of the subjects. In the current Indian context, there is nothing convincing to believe that the proposed law would meet the last commandment postulated by Fuller in his "Principles of Legality" for the proper functioning of a legal regime, since such a regime hardly exist in the country.

The problem with the concept of justice is that, the people would not believe in its existence, unless it is visible. Justice is a tangible impression directly proportional to the diverse means in which it is experienced. None would believe in the existence of justice without having directly or indirectly experiencing it. On that count, a legislation, good or bad, is similar to justice, that its intend could only be met should there be a means for implementation. In the Indian context, even to conceive that an enabling law in itself would deliver constitutional guarantees, which the country has so far failed to fulfil, is in itself a preposterous ambition.

India has a façade of legal and procedural framework that could guarantee justice to a reasonably higher degree. The 'theoretical framework', legitimised by the constitution and further by the procedural laws, concerning the fundamentals of fair trail, like the presumption of innocence; right to remain silent; an independent investigative, prosecutorial, and adjudicatory mechanism for civil and criminal proceedings; a reasonably watertight compartmentalisation of legislative, executive and adjudicative functions of the government are all there in the country. India has in theory a free legal assistance programme, not only built-in into the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 concerning criminal prosecutions but also provided through the National and State Legal Services Authorities. Into this superstructure, that has no support of any functioning foundation, dropping a new legislation like the proposed right to justice law could hardly bring new strength.

For the ordinary citizen justice is not a commodity that she could or would seek at the High Courts or at the Supreme Court, and as it is in most cases, in any of the lower courts. Justice is visible when the postman to the prime minister delivers services without demanding or accepting bribes. Today, India is regarded as one of the most corrupt countries in the world. It has remained in the bottom rankings for the past several years, as if the political parties holding fort in New Delhi are determined to keep the country in this shameful position forever, unfortunately at the detriment of its entire citizenry. Despite having ministers, judges and clerks, throughout the country exposed of engaging in corruption, nothing much have been done since the past three decades to contain it.

It is a barren reality today that even to obtain the free ration a starved and malnourished villager is entitled for, that poor man would have to part with his paltry grains with the public food distribution shop licensee as bribe. The much-lauded rural employment guarantee programme is ridden with corruption, that today, the programme resembles the very same torn 'dhoti' the poor Indian wears, which the programme intended to change. India today has the highest number of malnourished people in the world, that agencies like the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) have said more than five years before, that conditions in India is worse than Sub-Saharan Africa and has repeatedly called for change of this unacceptable status quo. When ministers, judges and bureaucrats are corrupt, why should a village officer be different or can he?

The regime of corruption and injustice like the proposed law to guarantee justice cannot survive by itself. It requires an enabling environment. Caste and other prejudices based on religious, tribal, political and regional identities that are determinedly enforced in the country have to be understood in this context. Sectarianism is one of the lead threads with which a social fabric that is vulnerable to destructive ideals is woven. Often poverty forms the strong frame in which the factionalist society is held. In that, forced eviction that leads to distress migration, ruthless exploitation of natural resources to the acute detriment of thousands of villages and myopic implementation of industrial programmes in the ruse of development becomes the tools with which poverty is maintained in rural India. No one should be surprised that if rural poverty in the country has in fact increased within the past two decades. Indeed what is in reference here is not skewed statistics that the government of India has been projecting since the past one year as its indicator to the success story concerning the realisation of the Millennium Development Goals. What is suggested is a reality check, not writing or reading fiction.

The monstrosity of the forces that keep India within this cesspool of unacceptable conditions is most visible in the resistance to the Right to Information Act, 2005. During the past 14 months at least six right to information activists were murdered and at least 11 seriously injured for nothing other than seeking information that would expose corruption at all levels in Maharashtra state alone. It is not a phenomenon exclusive within that state, but is widespread in the country. In other words seeking truth has today become suicidal in India. In such an environment justice is the last one could expect.

Making of complaints and expecting it to be impartially investigated is an equally dangerous task. The country's police is not only one of the worst in the world, but is the state agency that enjoys almost absolute impunity. Even today, there is no sensible and functioning framework in the country that would require the police to abstain from criminal acts, including the unabated use of torture. It is only in an environment where the use of torture is promoted as a tool for social control, extrajudicial executions could be justified as a legitimate means to reduce crime. Justice or fair trail has no place in a country where torture and extrajudicial executions are widespread. The decade-long delay in adjudication, and the pathetic state of prosecutors who are mostly incapable in discharging their duty only function as catalysts in further deteriorating the environment.

It is into this environment that Moily is proposing a law to guarantee justice. It is impossible to address all of the above, or at least some of the most important issues like corruption and torture, with a law. What is required is an overall change in the nature of debates in the country that could work as a catalyst to bring about essential changes in the existing state of affairs in the running of state institutions, particularly those that are pivotal to the realisation of democracy and the rule of law. It is elementary that in this debate the functioning of the justice institutions would find a prominent place.

The proposed law to guarantee the right to justice, though would not bring any inspiring colour into the present collage, it is expected to provide the vital steam for a dead discussion to revive, concerning a concept that many Indians today find nonexistent in the country, justice. In that Moily can take pride that he has taken the initiative which nobody else have dared to speak about. The attempt could breath life into a dead subject of debate in the region.

The AHRC hope that Moily will not become Fuller's fictional Rex in the process.

The Statement issued by the Asian Human Rights Commission. the AHRC is a regional non-governmental organisation that monitors human rights in Asia, documents violations and advocates for justice and institutional reform to ensure the protection and promotion of these rights. The Hong Kong-based group was founded in 1984.

(March 31, Washington DC, Sri Lanka Guardian)  Libya was not fated for an Arab Spring. As Aijaz Ahmad once put it, “every country gets the fascism it deserves.” In that spirit, every country gets the rebellion it deserves. Libya did not deliver the uplifting spactacles of Tunisia or Egypt. Its rebellion had a history that stretches back a hundred years, and one that was not so easy to shake off. That east-west divide smothered any attempt by the working-class in the western cities to rise to their full potential. Zintan was lost to Qaddafi briefly, but he took it back easily and then crushed the rebellion.

The upsurge from below enthused the lower orders of Qaddafi’s army in the east. They defected to the Benghazi rebels. Popular councils emerged in the cities and towns of the east. The east had sent a disproportionate number of its young to fight in Iraq. They did not go solely for the purposes of jihad, or only because they had admiration for al-Qaeda. A U. S. embassy official reported in 2008 (thank you Wikileaks) that the young men who went to Iraq did so in part because they could not effectively protest against Qaddafi.. The official went to Derna. Upon his return to Tripoli, he filed this memorandum for his superiors (08TRIPOLI120),

The Benghazi council chose as its leader the colorless former justice minister Mustafa Abdel Jalil. Jalil’s brain is Mahmoud Jibril, a former head of the National Economic Development Board (NEDB). A U. S. embassy cable from May 11, 2009 (09TRIPOLI386) describes Jibril as keen on a close relationship with the U. S. and eager “to create a strategic partnership between private companies and the government.” Jibril’s NEBD had collaborated with Ernst & Young and the Oxford Group to make the Libyan state more “efficient.” Jibril told the ambassador that “American companies and universities are welcome to join him” in the creation of new sectors outside hydrocarbons and that “we should take him up on his offer.” His Ph. D. in strategic planning from the University of Pittsburg is useful in this context.

With Jalil and Jibril are the February 17 movement’s men. They take their name from an uprising in Benghazi on February 17, 2006 that was crushed by Qaddafi. These men (Fathi Boukhris, Farj Charrani, Mustafa Gheriani and All Ounes Mansouri) are all entrepreneurs. Gheriani told Jon Lee Anderson that they are “Western-educated intellectuals” who would lead the new state, not the “confused mobs or religious extremists.”

In December 23, 2010, before the Tunisian uprising, Boukhris, Charrani and Mansouri went to Paris to meet with Qaddafi’s old aide-de-camp, Nuri Mesmari, who had defected to the Concorde-Lafayette hotel. Mesmari was singing to the DGSE and Sarkozy about the weaknesses in the Libyan state. His man in Benghazi was Colonel Abdallah Gehani of the air defense corps. But Gehani would not be the chosen military leader. The CIA already had its man in mind. He would soon be in place.

By March 14, the military wing of the Benghazi rebellion had been turned over to an ex-Colonel of the Libyan army, Khalifa Heftir and to the former interior minister, General Abdel Fateh Younis. Heftir made his name in Qaddafi’s war against Chad in the 1980s. At some point in that conflict, Heftir turned against Qaddafi, joined the Libyan National Salvation Front, and operated his resistance out of Chad. When the US-supported government of Chad, led by Hisséne Habré fell in 1990, Heftir fled Chad for the United States. It is interesting that an ex-Colonel of the Libyan army was able to so easily gain entry into the United States. Also of interest is the fact that Heftir took up residence in Vienna, Virginia, less than seven miles away from Langley, Virginia, the headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency. In Vienna, Heftir formed the Libyan National Army. In 1996, Heftir’s Army attempted an armed rebellion against Qaddafi in the eastern part of Libya. It failed. But that did not stop his plans. History called him back fifteen years later. In March 2011, Heftir flew into Benghazi to take command of the defected troops, joining Younis whose troops had been routed from Ras Lanouf on March 12. They faced the advance of Qaddafi’s forces toward Benghazi. It was in this context, with the uprising now firmly usurped by a neo-liberal political leadership and a CIA-backed military leadership, that talk of a no-fly zone emerged (Resolution 1973 went through the Council on March 19, and the bombing began immediately). The U. S. and France provided crucial air support for the rebels.

With the hands on the political and military tiller firmly in the U. S. camp, it is no surprise that the armed response has escalated. UN Resolution 1973 (March 19) created a no-fly zone to protect civilians. Within hours it was clear that the no-fly zone was used to provide air support for the rebel army. The U. S. and France said that no ground forces would be used. Technology has rendered the idea of “ground forces” redundant. The U. S. brought its AC130 gunships and A10s into operation over the skies of Libya. These are not designed to help patrol the sky, but are capable of hovering in the sky and firing at ground troops and at heavy machinery with its cannons (including a 40mm Bofors cannon) and machine guns. The AC130 is essentially “boots in the air,” and its presence shows that the U. S. arsenal (even under NATO command) is no longer patrolling the skies, but is actively engaged against the Qaddafi forces on the ground. In addition, the U. S. inserted a phrase in Resolution 1973 that opened the door to eventual arms provision to the rebels (the phrase is notwithstanding paragraph 9 of 1970, which essentially means that Resolution 1973 will allow member states to “take all necessary measures” including arms delivery, notwithstanding the arms embargo of Resolution 1970).

On March 26, White House spokesperson Jay Carney told the press that the resolution provided the U. S. with “flexibility within that to take that action [supply military equipment] if we thought that were the right way to go.” In other words, the arms embargo is flexible. On March 27, U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates told NBC’s David Gregory that on the question of arms supply, “No decision has been made about that at this point.” Escalation is on the horizon.

The troops of Qaddafi and of the rebels swing back and forth between Ras Lanuf and Ajtabia like a pendulum. U. S. and French air strikes have degraded the forces of the regime, but they have not yet destroyed them. The civil war continues. If the U. S. and France start to supply the rebels, it is likely that in the long haul Qaddafi’s troops will dissolve into an insurgency. In which case, Libya is likely to enter a protracted period of deep instability. The figures in place in Benghazi from the political and military side would hope to ride into Tripoli on their own tanks, but under NATO air cover. They have many to whom they owe much. People like Mahmoud Jibril and Khalifa Heftir will be more accountable to their patrons in Paris and Washington than to the people of Libya, whose blood is being spilled on both sides for an outcome that is unlikely to benefit them.

Vijay Prashad is the George and Martha Kellner Chair of South Asian History and Director of International Studies at Trinity College, Hartford, CT His most recent book, The Darker Nations: A People's History of the Third World, won the Muzaffar Ahmad Book Prize for 2009. The Swedish and French editions are just out. He can be reached at: vijay.prashad@trincoll.edu

(March 31, Toronto, Sri Lanka Guardian) The widely publicized steps and measures taken by the Government of Srilanka to win the hearts and minds of the Tamil Diaspora has utterly failed and has not produced any positive results, proves the wrong policy of the ruling President Rajapakse Government. Instead of winning the hearts of the Tamil Diaspora, the Government of Srilanka policy makers have not only miserably failed to achieve a success but also losing the support of the moderate Tamils though few in numbers, once considered to be staunch supporters of the Srilankan Government at the critical stages of war and took bold initiatives to save the face of the Srilankan Government internationally and in the Diaspora are turning critical towards the Srilankan Government.

After the end of separatist war, moderate Tamils in the Diaspora strongly felt that a new political chapter will begin in Srilanka and the vacuums will be filled by moderate Tamils, who were committed to build a strong relationship with the majority community and lead the country to a new era. The enthusiasm and hope of the moderate Tamils was shattered when the GOSL decided to allow the leader of the International Operations of the LTTE, Kumaran Pathmanapan alias K.P for rehabilitation and reconstruction work in the North. The reason given by the GOSL at that time, as a very tactical step to bring the overseas assets of LTTE to Srilanka and would be used to rehabilitate the affected people by war and especially to rehabilitate the LTTE cadres.

Not just the moderate Tamils, the Sinhala masses were also fooled and misdirected by the GOSL and the Srilankan Government itself was fooled by its own wrong policy. Not just the moderate Tamils But instead the whole Tamil Diaspora has gone against the GOSL for using Mafia K.P whom they consider as a worst traitor of all times. The Diaspora even would forgive Muralitharan alias Karuna Amman of East for his opposition or disassociating with LTTE leader V.P but would not forgive K.P for his act of stabbing back against his close friend and leader acting as a close associate. At least Karuna Amman has a respect within his own Eastern cadres and people for rescuing the East from Northern dominance and opposed or challenged V.P to his face but never stabbed him back. In the case of K.P it’s just the opposite. Therefore the anger against K.P has turned against the GOSL, which the Tamil Diaspora has taken the betrayal and back stabbing of the once high command leader K.P very seriously.

Most notably the Tamil Diaspora which was fed up by the activities of the LTTE and expecting a change, took the defeat of LTTE as a chance to transform itself was really shocked to know the Srilankan Government initiative of installing an LTTE again as its lieutenant. The fear of LTTE in the Diaspora which was scaling downwards again took upwards in the installation of K.P and many Tamils, who were planning to visit Srilanka, became silence in the fear that LTTE’s influence with Srilankan Government. Their bitter experience of the past visiting Vanni under LTTE control, ruled by the support of UNP has never faded in the memories of the overseas Tamils. Most of Diaspora Tamils who were angered of the treatment by LTTE and their activities of forced money collections, involving their children in political activities and spoiling their education were expecting a chance to get relieved from this act, showed a little courage to question the LTTE leaders at different occasions and events were made silenced by the betrayal of Srilankan Government engagement with K.P and his supporters in the Diaspora.

The growing unpopularity of LTTE after their defeat and death of its leader V.Pirapaharan was given a facelift in the Diaspora by the GOSL itself by the engagement with K.P. A golden opportunity at hand to make use of the decreasing popularity and opposition to the LTTE leadership in the Diaspora was let purposely go fail by the GOSL. The International wing of K.P and his mafia operators got an upper hand over other groups within LTTE which angered them to gear up their opposition and forced them regroup against Srilankan Government. Instead of weakening and dismantling their network, GOSL has been the force behind to reorganize and regroup of former guerillas for its own political gain and to keep the emergency regulations to rule the country. In fact it’s a personal victory to President Rajapakse but a miserable failure to the whole country.

The defeat of LTTE also put a cap on Tamil Nationalism which was promoted by the TNA. Most of its popular leaders and elected representatives were in fear to come to the fore front, but secretive talks and negotiations with TNA have encouraged the Tamil Nationalist forces within Srilanka and abroad have increased their strength to the greatest extent. As a result, this has ultimately weakened the positions of moderate Tamils in Srilanka and abroad and also very much strengthened the LTTE and its front organization which were paralyzed due to the lack of support from the Tamil community. The well known fact is the Tamil Diaspora support to LTTE comes from the support of Tamil Nationalism, which was cultivated by decades by Thamil Arasu Katchi, former Federal Party which converted to TULF and presently baptized in the name of Tamil National Alliance the TNA.

The objective of weakening the separatist and Terrorist has not only weakened by the wrong policy and the method of implementation by the Government of Srilanka but has helped to strengthen the destroyed forces and its grass root elements of Tamil Nationalism. Sri Lanka has shifted from supporting moderate Tamils to a clear preference for TNA’s position.

Rather than criticizing and destabilize the LTTE and its political front, the destructive political force the TNA, ruling Sri Lankan Government and its ministers puts the fault on Diaspora which is handled improperly is contradicted by its staunch and uncritical support to K.P. More than that the secret talks with TNA clearly establish the nature of Government intentions that it is ready to compromise with LTTE and its allies to cling on to power to avoid international pressure that it is negotiating with elected Tamil party. The image of President Rajapakse as a bold and strong person who will not give up to any separatist has been tarnished and the real face of the President has been established that he will be ready to give up the country’s security to secure his own political power. Undoubtedly the ruling Government under President Rajapakse is trying to win the hearts of the Terrorist and Separatist by all means, rather than winning the hearts of the ordinary Tamils. This could lead to a personal victory for the ruling President now but will be a concrete defeat to Sri Lanka and its people forever.

by A Political Commentator in Colombo
 (The views expressed here are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Sri Lanka Guardian)

(March 31, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) When it comes to political promises, Sri Lankans are born suckers. From S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike’s ‘Sinhala Only’ Utopia to his wife Sirimavo’s ‘Rice from the Moon’ to J.R. Jayewardene’s ‘Dharmishta Society’ to Chandrika Kumaratunga’s ‘Eradication of Dooshanaya and Beeshanaya’ to maestro Mahinda Rajapaksa’s ‘Miracle of Asia,’ Sri Lankans from all walks of life, rich and the poor, educated and the uneducated, have all fallen for what has almost always been, crap.

To expect this situation to change would be akin to expecting the sun to rise from the West. Which is why Maestro Mahinda is at it again. Hardly had the volume of the call for the Rs. 2500 salary increment promise to be granted dropped a notch or two, he sent his mouthpiece Minister John Seneviratne to ‘announce’ that the President never made any such promise. And this in a day and age when every word that is said by the President is recorded and reported in some form or the other.

And it gets better. On Saturday, January 8, President Mahinda Rajapaksa addressing a meeting at Temple Trees is reported to have said, “this government does not have any faith in privatization and it would not sell state property.”

The audience no doubt in typical Sri Lankan fashion lapped it up and probably gave a thundering round of applause to the Presidential pronouncement. It is highly unlikely that the President was unaware that his Treasury Secretary, P.B. Jayasundera was at that very moment making arrangements to list some high profile government owned establishments in the Colombo Stock Exchange. If that is not privatization then heaven help our Finance Minister.

How does one get away, and even get a round of applause, after resorting to such blatant, in your-face deception? Only two requirements – the speaker obviously needs to be an absolute maestro at his game and of course the audience, a bunch of suckers.

Privatization is now taking an ugly, hitherto unseen face. It has been the practice that when foreign investors seek state land, be it in Colombo or anywhere else in the island for that matter, such land is given to the investor on a maximum 99 year lease. State land has never been sold outright to foreign investors.

This policy for some reason is no longer practiced. It was announced recently that Shangri-la had been ‘sold’ 12 acres of land at Army Headquarters opposite Galle Face. Days later, last Thursday it was announced that Cabinet had approved the sale of another huge block of land, again at Galle Face to China National Aero Technology Import and Export Corporation to build a multifunctional complex comprising of a five star hotel and a shopping mall.

It is an open secret that the days when powerful countries fought wars to conquer other less powerful countries are long gone. Now the same goals are achieved through the use of economic firepower. The Chinese have already got a firm foothold in Hambantota through the port it is now building there. From this vantage point they can easily monitor the shipping traffic in the Indian Ocean – the veritable jewel in the Chinese’ ‘String of Pearls.’ What the Chinese lacked was a firm foothold in the commercial capital and now it seems the Government of Sri Lanka has given it too, on a platter.

State land does not belong to the Government of Mahinda Rajapaksa to dispose as they please. State lands belong to the people of Sri Lanka and it is held in trust on their behalf, by the government of the day. How does selling, for example, say the Timber Corporation differ from selling a part of Galle Face to the Chinese? How does this government define the word ‘privatization’? When one of the most prime assets of the country such as a part of Galle Face or Army Headquarters is sold to a foreign government is that not privatization of a key state asset?

One can just imagine the wailing cardboard ‘patriots’ such as the JHU and its Champika Ranawaka, Wimal Weerawansa, Vasudeva and such others would have resorted to had Ranil Wickremesinghe and his UNP decided to sell Army Headquarters to a foreign company to build a five star hotel. They would be screaming from the rooftops of a ‘threat to national security,’ ‘sovereignty has been surrendered for a few million dollars,’ ‘traitors of the nation’ etc. Today, their silence is deafening. So it was when the Casino Bill was introduced.

It will be intriguing should some selective activists like Vasudeva Nanayakkara, like he did in the case of the Insurance Corporation, initiate public interest litigation at least for the purpose of defining whether the two Galle Face deals are indeed instances of privatization. Part two can then begin where part one ends.

It is also interesting that former President Chandrika Kumaratunga in an interview last week had said that 40% of every government deal was shrouded in corruption. When asked as to how she came about this figure she had replied it was through experience she had gathered as head of state for two consecutive terms. What it means in terms of the colossal projects undertaken by this regime, which incidentally consists of the very same ministers that served under her watch; we leave it to the imagination of readers.

It will be recalled that until last year the Galle Face area in its entirety was closed to the public of Sri Lanka for ‘security reasons.’ Should there be a security issue in the future will the seven star Shangri-la and the other Chinese five star hotel be told to pack up and leave due to security reasons? After all that was what the citizens of this country were told until a few months ago when they were denied access to even park a motorcycle in this area.

It won’t be long when some Indian company also demands a piece of Galle Face if one is to go by recent events. When that happens Sri Lankans who come from such faraway places as Mahiyanganaya and even the city folk who have enjoyed this open space for centuries, will have no option but to jump right into the Indian Ocean while the high and mighty can wine and dine in Shangri-la style at Galle Face. To hell with national security etc. etc.

This has already happened. On 11, March 2011, the Colombo Hilton Hotel that was acquired by the Govt. last week had been sold to Delta Corp. Co. owned by an international Casino King, Jayadev Mukunda Moody an Indian National yesterday night secretly and under cover of darkness for 121 million US Dollars, according to reports.

The bottom-line is this. A key part of Sri Lanka’s capital city has been sold outright to China – for USD 250 million – by a government that claims to be against privatization. And the people of Sri Lanka? Well, they are cheering! What then, is the word that describes such a people?

What Abraham Lincoln said was "ask not what the country has done for you but you have done for your country"

Guess what we have done for the country.... You voted idiots into power and let them plunder our country & we will continue to do so.

(March 31, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) Predictably, Alalvi Moulana and friends, after last Friday’s prayers in their mosque nearby, did their thing opposite the “Satanic” US Embassy in Colombo. Above all, they wanted to capture the eye and the imagination of fellow Muslims in Sri Lanka – now a tempting political asset. They screamed, printable and unprintable, epithets against Obama (whom many Muslims in the world consider one of their own – for good reason) the US, British and French governments and just about everybody else around. The Agenda for the noon also included burning of effigies, the US flag for good measure. Their message to both local and world Muslims is clear – they are with their Muslim brethren in Libya.

But what does the rest of the Arab world think of their cousin within their fold?

The suave former diplomat and Egyptian Foreign Minister Abu Moussa – days before the UNSC took action – insisted “Gadaffi has lost his legitimacy and must go. He has already killed many Libyan civilian citizens peacefully demonstrating in the street. He must be stopped before he slaughters many thousands more” were the crux of his many public outcries. He was speaking as the Secy-General of the Arab League that represents 22 member States in 5.4 million kilometers and 360 million Muslims. While many Arab States have provided resources to the Coalition against Gadaffi covertly UAE is the 2nd Arab State that has provided till now over 13 jet-fighters to bring him down and save the Libyan people from his four decades of total oppression and familial rule.Today. Gadaffi’s own favoured Foreign Minister Moussa Kussa arrives in London and declares “he is cutting off all ties with the dictator” which can have far reaching consequences to the Libyan regime. Julian Assange vide his celebrated Wikileaks exposes the duplicity of regimes in the region who are privately at each others throats. One major power pleads with the US “to cut the neck of the serpent among us”- referring to another Islamic power.

Sri Lankans from across the religious and racial divide watch the scenario in some form of confusion. Are the Arabs and Muslims closer to the Libyan desert less Islamic than our lot, is course, the question most in their minds?

(March 31, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) A senior Sri Lankan journalist and the News Editor of Lankaenews website, Benett Rupasinghe, has been arrested today (31) by the Sri Lankan Police, dealing yet another blow to the already worsened media freedom and human rights situation in the country. Journalists for Democracy in Sri Lanka (JDS) condemns the outrageous arrest of Mr.Rupasinghe in the strongest terms while urging for his immediate release.

This is yet another act of intimidation against media freedom in general and Lankaenews in particular by the incumbent government of Sri Lanka.

Mr. Rupasinghe was arrested when he turned up at the police station on the invitation of the police to record a statement. This clearly shows the government is misusing police and judicial powers in addition to extra-legal methods against independent media in order to stifling dissent.

The office of the Lankaenews in the very outskirts of capital Colombo, was burnt down last month by an “unknown group” of people. No one has been arrested to date in this regard. The Chief Editor of Lankaenews, has already fled the country and is living in exile, fearing persecution.

The JDS appeals to all concerned groups and individuals to take necessary action to demand for immediate release of journalist Benett Rupasinghe.

Please act - Make phone calls and send emails to:

Inspector General of Police Mahinda Balasuriya

Call: +94 1128223788 / +94 1128548865

Email : telligp@police.lk

Executive Committee

Journalists for Democracy in Sri Lanka

(Courtesy: The Sun)

Hit in the chest ... little Thusa Kamaleswaran

(March 31, London, Sri Lanka Guardian) The bandana-wearing thugs - thought to be aged 13 to 15 - chased two rival gang members before the hunted pair dived into a shop for cover.

The pursuers clambered off their bikes. And one fired indiscriminately through the door of the food and wine store with a silver handgun.

Little Thusa Kamaleswaran - on a social visit with her family to the owners of the shop - was hit in the chest, with a bullet missing her heart by less than an inch.

Another innocent bystander, 35-year-old Roshan Selvakumar, was shot in the face.

The pair were taken to hospital for life-saving surgery.

Thusa had two operations and underwent a third last night. Her parents - Sri Lankans living in London - were at her bedside. Both victims were in a "critical but stable" condition.

The girl's uncle Vicknes Mahadevan, who was among the family visitors, said: "I was at the back of the shop, then heard something. I rushed out and could see the shooting.

"Thusa was hit on the right side of her chest. There was blood everywhere. She was flat on the floor. It was horrible."

The gun thugs fled on their bikes after the shootings in Stockwell, South London - chased by their intended victims.

A local man who gave his name as George said: "They looked like schoolkids and were only aged around 13 to 15."

Paramedics were called. And witness Sandra Rossetto, 45, said: "One was stroking the girl's forehead over and over. She was awake. They were pushing on her chest for ten minutes trying to stop the bleeding.

"The other person was on the floor being treated. There was a lot of blood."

A local businessman named Das said: "I went inside the shop and saw a little girl lying face down like she was asleep.

"There was a hole on the right side of her chest, up near her heart. The mum was crying and screaming."

A neighbour told how paramedics took Thusa on to the street outside the shop "and began operating on her there".

He said: "I saw an ambulance officer had something like a small piece of metal. It could have been a bullet."

CCTV footage from a nearby shop showed the two intended victims milling around the food and wine store. Occasionally, they went out into the street and walked up and down. Three minutes before the attack one of the thugs - in a dark hoodie - rolls past on a metal-coloured bike. The intended victims left the scene, only to return being chased by the gang.

The shooting of Thusa stunned the neighbourhood even though it has become hardened to tit-for-tat violence between rival gangs.

Local cycle shop owner Barney Stutter, 45, said: "The truth is the gunman is probably about 15 with a mentality of about five.

"I am sure they'll all be caught but we are disgusted at what happened."

Detectives from the Metropolitan Police's Operation Trident, which tackles gun crime in London's black community, were last night hunting the teenage gangsters.

The attacked shop and the bookmakers next door, which has a bullet hole in its front window, were cordoned off as officers searched the scene.

Anyone with information should call police on 020 8247 4553 or Crimestoppers anonymously on 0800 555 111.

Twenty young men and a boy of 15 were arrested in raids across London yesterday by police targeting drug pushers linked to gangs.

(March 31, Hong Kong, Sri Lanka Guardian) These days there is considerable discussion about investigations into some NGOs in Sri Lanka. The president himself is talking in public about this issue and already implying that there is some kind of wrong doing on the part of some NGOs. This has also been followed by several media channels. Therefore some simple reflections on the issue are in order.

There is a vast difference between prosecution and persecution. This difference may not be quite so clear in Sri Lanka anymore. There is a great deal of persecution going on under the name of prosecution and the public may be very much confused about what is a legitimate prosecution and what is, in fact, a terrible persecution.

Leaving aside this contextual situation in Sri Lanka for a moment let us go into a basic reflection on what, under a rule of law system, is a legitimate prosecution and what is, in fact, a persecution. A legitimate prosecution begins with an existing law in the country. The law clearly lays down some act which may be considered a crime. A complaint about the commission of a crime by someone is the beginning of a path that may lead to a prosecution before a court of law.

The subject matter of the present controversy on NGOs is the allegation that they may be illegally benefiting from funds received from donors for public purposes. Basically the allegation is that there is some form of corruption going on. Such perceptions exist in the country not only regarding NGOs but also many other persons. Throughout the country one of the main complaints is about corruption and the Illicit Enrichment of persons who misuse funds which belong to the public.

A clear basis for dealing with such situations is to have a law that clearly defines Illicit Enrichment and other laws that have been adopted in other countries for the purpose. Like the public servants who use public funds others who also use funds from donors could easily be brought within the category of persons who come under the purview of such a law. In Bhutan for example, the Illicit Enrichment law applies to all public servants and others who use public funds including NGOS. In India also there is room for persons other than public servants to be included under similar legal provisions.

The importance is that whenever investigations begin they should begin within the framework of a clearly defined crime and that the persons being investigated must be clearly told of the crime for which they are being investigated. The Sri Lankan Constitution clearly provides the right of any person who is being investigated to be told the reason for such investigation on the basic of whatever crime he is alleged to have committed. Arbitrary investigations without clear accusations about what the suspicions are and the wrong that has been committed is a clear infringement of the rights of persons, whether the persons are public servants or citizens, including those persons belonging to NGOs.

Besides, all investigations need to be conducted under the provisions of criminal law. All citizens are equal before the law. (Unfortunately, even this basic legal premise is not valid in Sri Lanka as the executive president is placed above the law by Article 35 of the constitution). Investigations outside the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code amount to an arbitrary action.

To talk sanctimoniously about the prevention of corruption without taking action to enact proper laws to enable prosecution of all violations is pure hypocrisy.

Prosecutions require an impartial prosecution agency. How far Sri Lanka can claim to have such an agency now is very doubtful.

Under these circumstances what appears to be taking place under the guise of an investigation into some NGOS appears more like a persecution rather than a legitimate action.

The Asian Human Rights Commission has been calling for a long time now for the reform of the country's corruption laws and the development of an effective corruption control agency similar to that of Hong Kong's Independent Commission against Corruption (ICAC). While reaffirming our position on this matter we also call for the reform of the country's prosecutor's office which the Attorney General's Department. These measures are necessary for many reasons including the prevention of persecution under the guise of prosecution.

(March 31, Chennai, Sri Lanka Guardian) So I wrote in my paper of March 15,2011, titled "Is it Possible to Visualise A Shared Future for India & Pakistan? ". This paper was written by me at the request of Prof.Stephen Cohen of the Brookings Institution, US, for an edited volume on Pakistan's future that he intends bringing out.

In the background of these suggestions, it is gratifying to note that the two concrete outcomes of the wide-ranging "conversations" between visiting Prime Minister Yousef Raza Gilani and our Prime Minister Dr.Manmohan Singh at Mohali on March 30,2011, have been exchanges of visits by parliamentary delegations of the two countries and an invitation from Mr.Gilani to our Prime Minister to visit Pakistan. The invitation has not yet been formally accepted by our Prime Minister, but during her media briefing at Mohali on March 30 , our Foreign Secretary,Mrs.Nirupama Rao, gave an indication that we are having an open mind on this issue.

How to give a forward push to the relations between the two countries without creating an euphoria which may prove to be unwarranted and may come back to haunt us should there be a fresh terrorist strike originating from Pakistan organised by elements determined to derail the "re-engagement" and "re-connecting" process at the top political level set in motion by the two Prime Ministers? That is the question that has been sought to be addressed by the two Prime Ministers during their "conversations". The Foreign Secretary underlined that what the two Prime Ministers had during their interactions at Mohali were "wide-ranging conversations" and not "talks" .

The apparently deliberate attempt to avoid a joint statement or a joint media briefing at the end of Mr.Gilani's visit was to create and maintain an air of relaxed informality about the process of "re-engagement" started by the two Prime Ministers without giving it an over-projected formal cloak that could have proved counter-productive.

What one saw at Mohali was a refreshingly different approach to the exercise to impart a strategic new dimension to the bilateral relations. There are two defining characteristics of this new approach---- a carefully calibrated "re-engagement" process begun and taken charge of by the two Prime Ministers themselves and the continuation of the resumed dialogue process agreed upon by the two Prime Ministers when they met in Thimpu last year under the watch of concerned Ministers and senior bureaucrats.

The first stage of the resumed dialogue process was completed just before the two Prime Ministers met at Mohali when the Home/Interior Secretaries of India and Pakistan met at New Delhi and reached some positive agreements on issues arising from the 26/11 terrorist strikes in Mumbai and decided to set up a hotline between the two of them to enable faster and direct communications as part of a joint approach to internal security.The Home/Interior Secretaries' meeting is expected to be followed by a meeting---possibly in July---between P.Chidambaram, India's Home Minister, and Rehman Malik, Pakistan's Interior Minister.Thus, the two Prime Ministers have left it to their Ministers responsible for Internal Security the responsibility for finding mutually acceptable solutions to the issues relating to terrorism that could come n the way of the "re-engagement" process.

The resumed dialogue process set in motion at Thimpu would continue with forthcoming meetings between the Commerce and Foreign Secretaries of the two countries followed by meetings at ministertial level. The strategic "re-engagement" process and the tactical "dialogue process" will move side by side with the two Prime Ministers focussing on the "re-engagement" proces and concerned Ministers and officials focussing on continuing the dialogue process.

To prevent an attempt to derail the "re-engagement" process by elements which are against it, it is important that the "wide-ranging conversations" initiated at Mohali are kept moving forward by the two Prime Ministers by taking an early decision by our Prime Minister on his acceptance of the invitation from Gilani and by quick follow-up on the visits of parliamentary delegations.

The goodwill and the benign interest in each other generated by the World Cup cricket semi-final was taken advantage of by our Prime Minister to make the "re-engagement" and "re-connecting" process possible. He should readily accept the reported suggestion of Gilani for a friendly cricket match between the two teams in Pakistan in the near future and visit Pakistan to keep this process of strategic discovery of each other going forward.

(The writer is Additional Secretary(retd), Cabint 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 )

(March 30, Sri Lanka Guardian) In his present lengthy piece (March 30) Izzeth Hussain takes far too much than he can chew. As to my earlier intervention, I took exception to his baseless charge Tamils here back India when the National team takes them on Cricket. I also pointed out to his earlier aberrations on the Tamil issue where he uncharitably proposed that the Tamils in the North be starved - meaning the food the government was sending from the South should be stopped - to break the backbone of the Tamil resistance in the pre-May 19, 2009 period. His choosing not to comment on both tell their own tale – loud and clear. I will leave it there momentarily.

Mr Hussain has this penchant to make a short thing too long and assume the role of pedagogue on almost all subject he choses to impose his "expertise" on.. In his piece here he battles in many fronts simultaneously. Characteristically, he takes on the role of teacher in several subjects and pontificates – leaving large holes in his “arguments”

Tarring all Pakistani cricketers with the same brush he dares “Pakistani cricketers as the greatest exponents of the art of match-fixing….unchallenged leaders of Casino cricket” and much more. Many will disagree and these are pernicious statements against a friendly country and people. The spoil sport was fugitive gangland chief Dawood Ibrahim – an Indian. Cricketing greats Imran Khan, Zaheer Abbas and earlier the great Hanif Mohamed, Fazal Mahmood et al certainly conducted themselves honourably. There could be dozens more. Shane Warne is unduly brought into the argument to strengthen Hussain's unsubstantiated argument “ Pakistan produced great cricketers but hardly ever performed to perfection” Surely, with what he knows of Cricket Husain could not be unaware the great Pakistani team won the World Cup in 1992 under Imran against exceptionally formidable opponents then. That is performing to perfection for me. While seeking to speak well of Pakistan one wonders why Hussain goes to say “an image of Pakistan as an irredeemable – and, in every way, a corrupt country” With all Pakistans troubles and faults, I think she is a vibrant and powerful country in the region and the world.

I do not think even Mrs.B’s government in 1971 would commit the faux pas he ascribes to her. Mrs. B in allowing Pakistan fighter jets to re-fuel during the East Pakistani War was acting to “preserve Pakistan’s unity” says this former diplomat In fact, this miscalculation in strengthening Pakistan’s war machinery was, arguably, to lower Mrs B’s image in Delhi with Indira and with every administration since.

To say Pakistani fans in Lahore backed Sri Lanka in 1996 in gratitude to this contested position is a new and strange one. Anyone familiar with Pakistan knows the average Pakistani who goes for Cricket matches and who forms the bulk of the huge crowds is unlikely to remember - 25 years after the event - the nitty gritty of one of the many wars between India and Pakistan. They were cheering a friendly neighbour, a S.E. Asian friend and an underdog – a parvenu in Cricket then, if you will - against an established superpower in Cricket playing the game for nearly two centuries. They were rooting for a small country that had gained Test Status recently - thanks also to Pakistan. That they were about to defeat a Cricketing giant that produced Bradman, Lindwall, Miller, Benaud, Harvey, O’Neill and hundreds more of highly esteemed Aussie Cricketing stars added to the enthusiasm of the Pakistani crowd that day cheered on by Benazir Bhutto herself. . Political or religious preferences had nothing to do with a Pakistani cricketing crowd expressing their delight in our favour in the finest spirit of sports.

For the want of space, I will not get drawn into the divisions he tries to create among the Muslim community here – Coastal Moors, Moors etc – or even his characterization of the 1915 Sinhala-Muslim events other than to point that a Moor is one of North African Berber origin. Whereas the vast majority of our Muslims came from South India – as he seems to reluctantly admit. He has here also denigrated the Muslims of Dematagoda and appears to portray them as some form of poor cousin. I will leave to them to meet this unprovoked comment

I must again point out his comments – this time that the Diaspora Sinhalese are better than their Tamil counter-parts is unfortunate and needs to be dismissed with the contempt it deserves. I might remind him that the SLMC, representing probably the largest composition of Muslims in the country, have already – and appropriately – taken steps to unambigiuos terms re-assured the majority where they stand in the Cricket issue. They stand solidly with our National Squad lads. Her I must make a distinction. If an individual or a group - racial, religion or otherwise - want to cheer any side they want this should not be viewed as unpatriotic or racial. I have gone to matches at Lords and the Oval in London and cheered the Lankan side joined by my English friends when our lads played England. The English took no exception to this and is unlikely to take a narrow position. It is, however, possible some Muslims here - suffering a sense of insecurity against minorities that cannot be put under the carpet - may have allowed their feelings to spontaneously come out. The way to meet is not to view them in hostility but get the government to ensure they are made to feel part of all of us. It also cannot be denied that some talented Cricketers from the Muslim community have been left out for reasons that appear to be other than merit.

One cannot hide the fact that some talented cricketers from the Muslim community have chosen to come under the names of other communities merely to get into representative cricketing squads.

However, I am with Mr. Hussain all the way “we cannot allow racist jokers to go on wrecking this country” I will also agree with him “our immediate need is ethnic reconciliation and to build a multi-ethnic nation” This has to be done without making attempts to set one community against another or hurting the feelings of other communities. Being a man of letters he will remember the wisdom of Will Rogers “the advise we give others is the advise we ourselves require”