Presidential Commission

By Sharmini Jayawardena

A Presidential Commission is to be set up to probe into corruption, fraud and misuse or abuse of power in the past five years it is said.

Firstly why only in the past five years and secondly how competent are these members of this commission to investigate these issues?

Why not like Wigneswaran’s genocide probe look into such issues coming down from after Independence?

Those in power today act as if they are morally squeaky clean, exclusive and free of having committed any misdeeds and corruption. The truth is their hands are sullied even as we speak.

In the first instance they are in power by nothing but abuse of power at the highest level: By disenfranchising the people of Sri Lanka. None of them are elected by the people. Only the President was elected.

“The current Prime Minister of Sri Lanka is Ranil Wickremesinghe, he was appointed by President Maithripala Sirisena on 9^th January, 2015.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_Minister_of_Sri_Lanka

The ‘Prime Minister’ has appointed a person who’s already under investigation in the Colombo High Court for money laundering charges as his Finance Minister.

http://www.lankanewspapers.com/news/2015/1/92239_space.html

This is not forgetting the fact of how he swindled Sathosa, the government owned wholesale establishment in Sri Lanka.

“A fire at the Sathosa Building at Vauxhall Street, Slave Island early yesterday caused damage to the building’s seventh floor and destroyed several offices of the Cooperative and trade Ministry. The damage was estimated at Rs 30 million. Documents belonging to the CWE pertaining to court cases that deal with CWE dealings in the time of Ravi Karunanayake, were also destroyed along with other vital documents, our sources said.”

http://www.dailynews.lk/?q=local/sathosa-fire-30-m-damage-vital-documents-burnt

The Governor of the Central Bank appointed by the ‘Prime Minister’ is another hoax. His issuing of Treasury Bonds in an irregular manner to his son-in-law is definite cause for concern.

“The statement added that former Singaporean resident, Arjun Mahendran, had been appointed as Central Bank chairman by the UNP led by Ranil Wickremesenghe after he obtained Sri Lankan citizenship as dual citizen overnight.”

“….about the corruption involved in the issuing of Treasury bonds. Although family favouritism had no room in good governance, the allegation against Arjuna Mahendran is that he had issued Treasury bonds in a manner favourable to his nephew…”

http://www.dailynews.lk/?q=political/allegations-boomerang-unp-nimal

So are a host of similar appointments made by the current ‘Prime Minister’: Suspect. Though himself possibly not guilty of corruption, by turning a blind eye to it in his rank and file and by directly encouraging such activity amongst them he is nothing but guilty of furthering corruption and misconduct.

Furthermore, what of the on-going acts of corruption, fraud, misuse and abuse of power? Apparently the offspring of politicians presently in power are already running amok in the Colombo hotspots.

Shouldn’t these charges be investigated first, before delving into alleged similar acts of the past?

May be it is time we filed a case in the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka: The People vs The Prime Minister and Cabinet of the present Government.

The current government is also said to have sought the help of the Indian government to probe into and uncover alleged secret accounts of officials of the former government.

How can India possibly help when their own cabinet members are said to be operating their secret accounts elsewhere, while evading taxes in their own country which has a gross percentage of its population living below the poverty line?!

“Brothers, sisters,” Modi cries. “Enough poison, enough of the politics of poison. We need the politics of development, so the poor need welfare, the young get jobs, mothers and sisters get respect.”

“He pauses, then calls out: “Time is running out. Promise me you will change this nation. Clench your fists. Say it with all your might: ‘Vote for India.’”

“One evening, a few days later, Modi makes an appearance at a society wedding reception at a five-star hotel in Delhi’s diplomatic quarter. It is a gathering of Delhi’s power elite. Cabinet ministers, chief ministers, the senior ranks of the BJP, millionaire businessmen, famous academics and newspaper editors have gathered to gossip, eat and drink”

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/06/narendra-modi-india-bjp-leader-elections

http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2014/10/07/indias-millionaire-ministers/

Stop playing Big Brother with Sri Lanka

Padma Rao Sundarji

Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s recent visit to Sri Lanka was replete with ‘firsts’. He was the first Indian PM to visit the island nation in 28 years. He was the first PM to travel to Jaffna, the capital of the Tamil-majority Northern Province. And he was the first to embellish his trip with carefully-crafted gestures, like praying at a Bo tree sacred for the Sinhalese majority, participate in inaugural ‘pujas’ while handing over houses to members of the Tamil minority.

But one aspect of Modi’s visit was a jaded repeat of what successive Indian PMs have parroted for nearly three decades. Like them, Modi too insisted on the full implementation of the 13th Amendment to the Sri Lankan constitution, which envisages maximum autonomy for Sri Lankan Tamils in the north and east, where a 30-year separatist war killed 120,000 people.

Modi’s efforts to reach out to Asian neighbours, to counter China’s growing territorial and strategic ambitions, are welcome. However, the new Sri Lankan President Maithripala Sirisena’s motley coalition contains a crucial ‘first-time’ element too. Unprecedentedly, it is supported by both Sinhalese chauvinists and Tamil nationalists — and therefore stands the best chance of eking out an autonomy package for Tamils which is acceptable to all sides.

Indeed, Sri Lanka’s Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe confirmed to this writer in January that recent months had seen these very disparate partners discuss and come to a near-agreement on Tamil autonomy based on several proposals available, including those endorsed by prominent Sri Lankans such as former president Chandrika Kumaratunga. The end result, even if not labelled the ‘India-engineered 13th Amendment’, would not deviate from the latter’s key aspects in essence.

Consequently, India’s PMO, which has taken the lead in foreign policy and sidelined the able diplomats of the MEA, should have kept its ear closer to the ground in Sri Lanka, ahead of Modi’s visit. Had it done so, it would have sensed the deep resentment among moderates and nationalists of the Sinhalese majority for India’s erstwhile role in Sri Lanka: Its ‘authorship’ of the 13th Amendment during Rajiv Gandhi’s time in 1987 as well as its dispatch of the IPKF troops thereafter to the keep the peace.

If there is one thing that unites the Sinhalese, it is a dislike for India playing the role of Big Brother over domestic matters in Sri Lanka, especially under pressure from politicians in Tamil Nadu. Dayan Jayatilleka, Sri Lanka’s former ambassador to the UN in Geneva during the last two years of the civil war that ended in 2009, warned in a recent article that Modi’s remarks on the amendment ‘may not have been the best conceivable projection of soft power’ on Sri Lankans. Importantly, Jayatilleka points out that President Xi Jinping of China made no ‘intrusive or potentially contentious’ references of the kind during his visit to Sri Lanka in late 2014. Importantly, both the JHU and the JVP — two Sinhalese nationalist parties in Sirisena’s coalition — have voiced similar sentiments.

Given these resentments, Modi’s invocation of the ageing amendment is a mystery, particularly since the Centre is currently under no pressure from Tamil Nadu. Was Modi merely posturing keeping his party’s political ambitions in Tamil Nadu in mind?

If New Delhi is seriously interested in winning Sri Lanka’s confidence after a long spell of indifference and inactivity, it would do well to step back and let Colombo get on with the question of Tamil autonomy.

Padma Rao Sundarji is a senior foreign correspondent and author of  Sri Lanka: The New Country

The views expressed by the author are personal

Courtesy:

The Great Neighbor Tilts- Lessons in Geopolitics

 

by Dayan Jayatilleka

“…Contiguous polities, in Kautilya’s analysis, existed in a state of latent hostility. Whatever professions of amity he might make, any ruler whose power grew significantly would find that it was in his interest to subvert his neighbor’s realm…The wise ruler would seek his allies from among his neighbor’s neighbors.” – Dr. Henry Kissinger, World Order (2014)

“Common to all countries of Southeast Asia is the existence within each state of an ethnic majority that forms the core, alongside numerous ethnic minorities. These latter are made up of groups that are more or less indigenous, as well as groups of people that arrived later as a result of history or migration”. – Huu Ngoc, Wandering through Vietnamese Culture (2006)

Up close and personal, India’s Prime Minister Modi has a presence, even a bit of an inner radiance born of confidence. This is the shared observation of my wife and me after the gracious introduction and handshakes at the India House reception two evenings back. Asia is lucky to have produced such a leader. We were lucky to meet him. That said, Sri Lankans were taught a firm lesson in Realism, in geopolitical realities and the balance of power, over the last few days.

No sagacious foreign leader on his visit to a neighboring country with a contentious, polarized domestic situation would make public remarks which implied or could be perceived as a tilt to one side. This is more so, if the side that is being tilted towards, is a numerical minority and the side that may perceive itself as being tilted against, is a large majority. There is only one set of circumstances in which a neighboring leader on a visit would actually say something that came across as a tilt. That is if there is no competition or counterweight.

China is regarded as having lost the game in Sri Lanka. India and the US are seen as having won. Mahinda Rajapaksa leveraged China for economic, strategic/security and diplomatic advantage for Sri Lanka. He used China as a counterweight to the West and India. He lost and China lost, and taken together that meant Sri Lanka lost something. Several weeks after, with Sri Lanka wide open and the playing field no longer level, the leader of our giant neighbor visited and shifted the goalposts by calling for a political solution beyond the status quo. He even mentioned the f word- federalism.

“ On the second and final day of his visit to Sri Lanka, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi bonded with the Tamils of the Northern Province with aplomb…The audience went into raptures when Modi began his speech with a full throated “Vanakkam” (greetings) in Tamil. They clapped lustily as he unreservedly acknowledged the sufferings the Tamils had gone through during the 30 year war, and assured them that India is committed to alleviating their sufferings and will never let them down…At the ceremony to lay the foundation stone of the India-funded Jaffna Cultural Centre, Modi …recalled that he told the Lankan parliament that “cooperative federalism” is necessary for the all-round development of a country”. (Modi Bonds with Lankan Tamils with Aplomb, PK Balachandran, New Indian Express, March 14, 2015)

All of this was picked up by the Northern Tamil politicians:

‘…Northern Province Chief Minister C.V. Wigneswaran …praised Modi for advocating “cooperative federalism” as a model for Sri Lanka. “Modi has implanted the idea of cooperative federalism and devolution in the minds of Lankan leaders,” the CM said.’(‘Mixed Feelings in Sri Lanka on Modi visit’, PK Balachandran, New Indian Express, March 15, 2015)

Before (in the interview given to Meera Srinivasan of the Hindu), during (in his welcome speech) and after (in remarks to the media) Prime Minister Modi’s visit, Chief Minister Wigneswaran had clearly articulated the political perspective of departing from and moving beyond the 13th amendment. In his speech welcoming the visiting Prime Minister, he clearly flagged the powers of an Indian state, in “internal security, law and order, policing and protection pertaining to lands and so on within the state” as the desired immediate objective, saying:

“…Thirteenth Amendment can never be the final solution. The current 13th Amendment Framework and the existing Sri Lankan constitutional architecture that had evolved since the first Republican Constitution of 1972 without the consent and participation of Tamils of North and East of our Country, poses formidable challenges and hindrances in realizing the quantum of devolution required to fulfill the needs and aspirations of the Tamil Speaking People of North and East of Sri Lanka. Indian Constitution provides for the facilitation of sustainable development, internal security, law and order, policing and protection pertaining to lands and so on within the State…

…Especially the inadequacies of the Thirteenth Amendment. Even when the Indo-Lanka Accord of 1987 was signed there was a historic communication by our leaders to the then Indian Prime Minister, late Shri Rajiv Gandhi on 28 October 1987, pointing out hollow and inadequate the 13th Amendment had been. They sought the then Indian Government’s intervention on behalf of the Tamils of North East Province of Sri Lanka. When Indo Lanka Accord was negotiated ostensibly as a solution to the Tamil Question, India whilst addressing Indian Security and Strategic concerns, stood as a guarantor on behalf of the Tamils of North-East. That situation prevails in North-East Provinces in Sri Lanka even today. We need the services of a guarantor and it is our considered view that the Government of India under your stewardship is best suited for this role!

The emaciated Thirteenth Amendment has not brought the required and expected devolution to the North and East. Even today parallel administrative structures exist one directed by the Centre and the other by the Province despite the appointment of an amiable Governor!

…We seek positive action to be taken to resolve our problems. May I suggest Sir, that there be talks among the Indian Government, Sri Lankan Government and the NPC and the EPC without taking refuge under the current constitutional provisions and protocols to find ways of resolving the central problem of the Tamil speaking people in an innovative and creative manner bearing in mind the root causes of our ethnic conflict and post war needs and priorities of the people of the Northern and Eastern Provinces?…” (Excerpt from Welcome Speech by Chief Minister Wigneswaran, Saturday March 14th 2015)

After Prime Minister Modi’s remarks which have been construed as an endorsement and a guarantee of support to “never let them down”, Chief Minister Wigneswaran and the Northern Provincial Council have more political space and are demonstrating a greater propensity to behave as an autonomous third player in Sri Lankan politics and more dangerously, in relations with the outside world. The visiting Indian Prime Minister’s political signal has strengthened a new assertiveness in the Northern Tamil political discourse, and to mix the metaphor, lifted the bar of Tamil expectations. This would not be an intrinsically bad thing except for the fact that the bar of expectation would be raised well beyond the achievable. Therefore, the entire shift would be damaging rather than conducive to the task of political reconciliation through the accommodation of those Tamil aspirations that are compatible with the overall national interest.

The slogan of going beyond the 13th amendment and the introduction of the term federalism runs up against the most obvious of obstacles, namely how it would get past a referendum. Given that the 19th amendment didn’t quite make it past the Cabinet in its undiluted form, it is wildly utopian to expect something qualitatively beyond the 13th amendment and invested with a federal spirit, i.e. something that goes beyond the unitary framework of the state, can get a two thirds majority in parliament, and secure a majority at a referendum.

Even if the UNP and the SLFP Right wing (CBK-Sudu Nelumites) unite to guarantee the passage through parliament, it is just the kind of single issue that can trigger a grassroots radical nationalist-Statist movement to successfully oppose it at a referendum. On an issue this emotive, it would take a foolhardy administration to attempt a JR Jayewardene 1982 type coercive Referendum, with political opponents jailed on trumped up charges. (Vijaya Kumaratunga was arrested, allegedly with a nod and a wink from then Opp. Leader, a Bandaranaike, on the charge of being a ‘Naxalite’).

The slogan of “going beyond” the 13th amendment with Indian-model federalism as the stated goal is most likely to achieve its exact opposite, namely a buildup which results in the scrapping of the 13th amendment itself or a political atmosphere after the referendum which makes the 13th amendment so radioactive as to be unworkable. There is after all, a direct line of political and ideological descent between the Tamil call for 50:50 (50% for the Sinhalese who constitute three quarters and 50% for those minorities who comprise a quarter of the citizenry) in 1947 and Sinhala Only in 1956.

With Chief Minister Wigneswaran’s stinging, insolent rebuke to Prime Minister Wickremesinghe after the latter’s free and frank interview with Indian TV, we have a lesson to learn. While a President and a Prime Minister from two traditionally opposing parties may be a good thing for balance, it can, in the specific political circumstances of Sri Lanka, provide a dangerous gap for manipulation. The North is politically ambitious and therefore needs to be contained. In order to close the gap in the field placing as it were, that would permit a politically restive North to play off one power center against the other, the citizens need to pick at the upcoming parliamentary election a Prime Minister from the same matrix as the President. Obviously that cannot be Mr. Wickremesinghe. Nor can the present Leader of the Opposition beat Mr. Wickremesinghe, and is therefore also not an option.

Courtesy:

dbsjeyaraj.com

(This article was titled “Chief Minister Wigneswaran and Northern Council Trying to Behave Like an Autonomous Third Player.” in dbsjeyaraj.com)

Beyond The 13th Amendment…Where To?

By Dayan Jayatilleka –

“Somewhere over the rainbow…” – The Wizard of Oz

Three vital questions arise from Prime Minister Modi’s recommendation that Sri Lanka goes beyond the 13^th amendment. The first is: has India changed its stance? The second is: if beyond 13A, ‘where to?’ The third is: ‘why?’

New Delhi’s stance in the post war period was early and full implementation of the 13^th amendment and “building on it”. Now Mr. Modi urges us to “go beyond” 13A. There is a crucial difference between “building on” and “going beyond”. “Building on” is a vertical increase while “going beyond” is a horizontal one. The latter is not “stretching” the 13^th amendment; it is a framework other than the 13^th amendment.

It is understandable to suggest “building on” the 13^th amendment. Veterans of the negotiations of 1987 will recall that there were “residual issues” which President Jayewardene agreed would be resolved at a later date, but were not because they couldn’t be, with a war on and a two-thirds majority lost. If these residual issues were resolved, then the 13^th amendment would be built on, because the architects of the accord did not envisage a framework other than the 13^th amendment; one that went “beyond” it.

What would “building on” the 13^th amendment have looked like? It would have entailed re-opening negotiations on the concurrent list. It may have also entailed an upper house, a Senate. (President Rajapaksa was amenable to both, but after Mr. Wigneswaran’s public pronouncement that Prabhakaran was a “great hero”, not so much). Swaps of the powers in the concurrent list and the construction of a Senate, i.e. ‘building upon” the 13^th amendment so as to address the “residual issues” is as far as we should have gone and been requested to go by Prime Minister Modi.

Instead we have been asked to go beyond the 13^th amendment, but where to? Mr. Modi, a most intelligent man, dropped a heavy hint in his address to the Parliament– a hint that was promptly picked up by the TNA and the international media. An AFP report reads:

“…Modi told the Sinhalese-dominated parliament in Colombo that “cooperative federalism” was working well in India and suggested it could be a model for Sri Lanka too…India has long supported greater autonomy for the minority group, but Suresh Premachandran, a Tamil lawmaker from Jaffna, said Modi’s comments were the strongest in a long time. “He is going to be very welcome after the powerful message he sent,” Premachandran told AFP.” (‘India’s Modi to visit Sri Lanka’s Tamil heartland’, Lakruwan Wanniarachchi, AFP, March 14, 2015)

The Hindu noted the same point:

“…Commenting on the Indian Prime Minister’s speech in Parliament earlier on Friday, TNA parliamentarian M.A. Sumanthiran said Mr. Modi made an “excellent speech” with a strong case for greater devolution in a manner that was not “overbearing”. “I am firm believer in cooperative federalism,” Mr. Modi said in his address.” (‘Be Patient with Sri Lankan Government: Modi to Tamil Leaders’, Meera Srinivasan, the Hindu, March 14^th 2015)

Now to the ‘Why’ question. When, by Prime Minister Modi’s own admission, the 13^th amendment has not been fully implemented, what could make him think that it is at all necessary to go beyond it? It is necessary or advisable to go beyond something or some point, when that has been proved inadequate, i.e. when its potentials have exhausted themselves. When the full potential of the 13^th amendment has not been experienced, on what basis could it be thought necessary to go beyond it? Is that not a matter to be raised, if at all, at a subsequent stage? And should it not emerge from a national i.e. Sri Lankan consensus at least in parliament if not in society at large?

Given the spillover of Sri Lanka’s Tamil issue into India, our Tamil Question has long been an “intermestic” one (to use Dr. Kissinger’s coinage about issues at the interface of the domestic and the international) rather than a purely domestic concern. Therefore, one cannot realistically take exception to the Indian Prime Minister’s references to it. However, those references should be general and not publicly prescriptive. Mr. Modi should be hailed for his commitment to India’s (quasi) federalism and moving it in a fuller federal direction is entirely an Indian prerogative. However, he doubtless knows that many societies, especially in the Global South and most especially within Asia, have preferred not to opt for ‘cooperative federalism’, and to remain precisely within the parameters of the unitary state while devolving power in a manner that makes way for limited local autonomy while avoiding the dangers of centrifugalism and/or irredentism.

The model of state—the state structure– is entirely a sovereign national decision. If it is not, what is or could be?

 

Courtesy:

Modi’s visit, Chinese projects, the baby and the bathwater

The visit of Narendra Modi, Prime Minister of India, to Sri Lanka brings into focus complex issues that stretch beyond the limits of Indo-Lanka relations. It brings into relief the importance, like it or not, of Sri Lanka in the geo-politics of the region. It is vital for Sri Lanka to understand some of the current developments in their wider international context so as to protect its national interest.

PM Modi in his address to Parliament stressed the interconnectedness of histories of the two countries and said Sri Lanka’s success is of great importance to India. He spoke of India’s commitment to advancing peace and prosperity in the region ‘including our common maritime neighbourhood.’

Against a background of unease that had developed over Sri Lanka’s perceived pro-China tilt, and more recently the docking of a Chinese submarine in Colombo, it is significant that he said regional security was a ‘shared responsibility.’ “The security of our two countries is indivisible. Equally our shared responsibility for our maritime neighbourhood is clear.” He said the Indian Ocean is critical to the security and prosperity of the two countries.

Media reports
Modi’s visit comes barely two months after a new government assumed office in Sri Lanka, and in the shadow of media reports alleging involvement of India’s spy agency RAW (Research & Analysis Wing) in effecting the regime change. On Friday the Hindu newspaper quoted former president Mahinda Rajapaksa himself making this claim in an interview. But he did not accuse Modi, saying “… he only came in less than a year ago. It was a long term plan.” Rajapaksa told the Hindu “They misunderstood me over the Chinese question. And that is why they planned this.”

The Chinese, separately, have expressed shock at the suggestion that the docking of their submarine was motivated by strategic or military considerations. In fact they are deeply distressed by the misunderstandings this idea has caused. At a meeting with a select group of journalists this week the new Chinese Ambassador Yi Xianliang was emphatic that the submarine’s mission was entirely ‘technical and logistical’ in nature.

India a friend
“I was shocked by the controversy and misleading comments on the Chinese submarine’s docking
at Colombo Port for logistical replenishment last year” the ambassador said. “Actually the Chinese submarine came to the Colombo Port on its way to and back from the Gulf of Aden and the waters off the Somali coast to carry out escort missions for the merchant vessels, from both Chinese and other countries.The dockings were regular port calls for replenishment of supplies and is a common practice of navies of all countries.” The ambassador said the activity was transparent and received prior approval by the Sri Lanka government. “China has no intention to use Sri Lanka to threaten any other country’s security” he added.

It’s relevant to mention that Ambassador Yi was the Chinese Governor to the Asian piracy-combating agreement body ‘ReCAPP’ before he came to Sri Lanka. Noting that China followed the rules he explained that when a submarine enters the territorial waters of another state it travels above the water and displays its national flag. “I need to have a frank dialogue. India is also our friend” he said. Trilateral cooperation among China, Sri Lanka and India was most welcome, as Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi had told his Sri Lankan counterpart Mangala Samaraweera in Beijing.

Port City project
On the troubled topic of the Port City project and its suspension by the new government, the Chinese view is that a ‘small problem relating to a project’ should not have a significant impact on long term bilateral relations. Officials were hopeful that the issue would be resolved before President Sirisena’s state visit to China.

The Chinese have said on previous occasions too, that their company had complied with the relevant laws when launching this project. On questions relating to Environmental Impact Assessment reports they have asserted that these are the responsibility of the Sri Lankan government. These arguments are hard to refute. The claim that they have complied with the rules can easily be checked. Regarding controversial aspects of the deal such as the outright sale of 20 hectares of strategically located land, here again wasn’t the onus on Sri Lanka, as a sovereign state, to reject any clauses that went against its national interest?

Different values
The Chinese seem genuinely puzzled over the objections being raised. The ambassador said however that China’s cooperation with Sri Lanka is “geared to its entire people, regardless of who or which party rules this state.” President Sirisena now faces an extremely delicate diplomatic challenge. In order to avoid throwing out the baby with the bathwater, he needs to address the corruption charges levelled against the Rajapaksa government with regard to the deal and reverse or renegotiate its negative aspects, without offending China.

It’s relevant to note the concern shown by China over the possible negative fallout of the project’s cancellation on Sri Lanka. It was observed that the controversy over the $1.4 billion project sends a signal to the outside world that could create doubts about the attitude of the new government towards investment. Sri Lanka needed FDI for infrastructure and industry. As a mainly agricultural country it needed communications, and steel, to put infrastructure in place. This was the rationale behind Chinese infrastructure projects in Sri Lanka.

The ambassador’s media interaction on Tuesday was one among some 40 meetings with politicians, journalists, representatives of think tanks and others, held during his first two weeks in office in an effort to better understand issues. China’s approach to bilateral relations with Sri Lanka draws on important moments in history that such as the Rubber-Rice Pact. The element of gratitude makes it similar to that of Japan, a democracy. Compare this attitude with that of the UK, reflected in Prime Minister David Cameron’s pompous little homily published as an Op-Ed piece in the Daily Mirror to coincide with President Sirisena’s visit to London. Clearly there’s a difference in the values at play here. It’s a difference that should help Sri Lanka recognize who its friends are.

 

Courtesy:

 

Modi’s clarion call

The Island Editorial,  March 15, 2015

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has returned home after a successful overseas tour, of which the Sri Lanka leg had been very well planned. It was a diplomatic masterstroke. He paid a floral tribute to the statue of Anagarika Dharmapala at Mahabodhi Viharaya, Colombo, visited Anuradhapura and offered alms to the Buddhist monks before getting down to business.

PM Modi, making a speech couched in very diplomatic terms on Friday, made his position very clear on Sri Lanka’s ethnic problem. He said Colombo should not only implement the 13th Amendment fully but also go beyond it to achieve true reconciliation.

One is intrigued. What does Modi think is the solution? Going beyond 13A can mean anything—a federal state or even a confederation. Devolution cannot be an open-ended process if secession is to be avoided. Is it that New Delhi wants Colombo’s hold on the provinces weakened through devolution to such an extent that the strategically important North and East (with Trincomalee, which Indians are planning to develop as the region’s petroleum hub) will come under India’s sphere of influence?

Northern Province Chief Minister C. V. Wigneswaran reiterated his position on devolution when he welcomed PM Modi in Jaffna on Saturday. He lamented that his council was not vested with adequate powers to look after the needs of people unlike in Indian states, especially Gujarat, of which Modi was Chief Minster prior to his election as PM. Wigneswaran has made no bones about his party’s position that the 13A is no solution in itself; it is only a stepping stone. He said to Modi: “Thirteenth Amendment can never be the final solution. No wonder you referred to your firm belief in co-operative federalism yesterday in Parliament … Indian Constitution provides for the facilitation of sustainable development, internal security, law and order, policing and protection pertaining to lands and so on within the State. Our inability to function in our Province to the extent you were able to help Gujarat under the Indian Constitution needs to be understood.” And Wigneswaran called for India’s intervention to make this possible. “We need the services of a guarantor and it is our considered view that the Government of India under your stewardship is best suited for this role!”

Interestingly, Modi’s visit to the North would not have been possible but for the defeat of the LTTE. Not even the Indian army was safe in that part of the country while Prabhakaran and his combatants were around. India lost as many as 1,500 of its battle-hardened soldiers at the hands of the Tigers. If the previous government had succumbed to India’s pressure and stopped the war in its final stages Prabhakaran would have escaped and the North and East would still have been dangerous; no Indian would have dared visit those areas. It may be recalled that India could not protect Rajiv Gandhi on its own soil!

President Maithripala Sirisena, welcoming PM Modi in Colombo, took pride in the latter having accepted his invitation to visit this country. Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe told the Indian leader that the latter’s visit was long overdue. Now, they will have to face the political consequences of Modi’s go-beyond-the-13th Amendment call.

Meanwhile, the former government drew a lot of flak from its critics for ‘compromising Sri Lanka’s sovereignty’ and turning Sri Lanka into what they called a ‘Chinese colony’. How would they react to India’s interference with Sri Lanka’s domestic affairs? And what would the detractors of the Chinese-funded Colombo Port City Project say to India’s grand plan to make Trinco the region’s petroleum hub?

Former President Mahinda Rajapaksa, who was accused of blocking the full implementation of the 13th Amendment, tells us that India’s Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) engineered his ouster. Following Modi’s recent call for more devolution a question that arises in one’s mind is whether India engineered a regime change here as part of its strategy to make Sri Lanka adopt a solution that goes beyond the 13th Amendment.

The UNP-led government has been struggling to implement its 100-day programme with an eye to the next general election. Now, following Modi’s visit, it has another problem, a very serious one at that, to contend with. Having benefited from the TNA’s block vote to oust its predecessor, it will have to tell the public whether it is willing to ‘go beyond the 13th Amendment’. It will be interesting to see what the JHU and the JVP which is represented at the National Executive Council have got to say to Modi’s call.

 

Courtesy:

 

The Modi Visit & Sri Lanka’s Direction

By Dayan Jayatilleka –

Prime Minister Modi is much admired and rightly so as a charismatic, strong, visionary Asian leader. His visit to Sri Lanka and his speeches here could be said, at first blush, to be a triumph for India’s ‘soft power’ projection. The thing about ‘soft power’ however, is that it is uneven, and one must draw the distinction between how it works at the level of the elite and how it works or fails to at the level of the masses. Prime Minister Modi’s public pitch in the presence of Sri Lanka’s President, for “the early and full implementation of the 13th amendment and going beyond” may not have been the best conceivable projection of soft power, at the level of the Sri Lankan masses.

True, he and his predecessor have said the same thing to President Sirisenaand his predecessor. But it is one thing to say this at bilateral meetings and another to (a) say it in public (b) on your first visit to a neighboring country (c) in which the matter is regarded as a contentious internal issue and (d) your own country’s involvement and the reaction it has generated have been complex to say the least.

A despicable and dangerous Genocide Resolution was passed by the elected Northern Provincial Council and handed over to the UN’s Jeffrey Feltman by Chief Minister Wigneswaran. This act alone should have caused the dissolution of the Northern Provincial Council –while retaining, not abrogating the 13th amendment. “Early and full implementation of the 13th amendment and going beyond it” would only reward such treacherous anti-national conduct, give the impression that the Sri Lankan state is susceptible to this kind of contemptible pressure from Northern ultra-nationalists and most dangerous of all, transfer more power to those who have clearly shown a lack of moderation, responsibility and loyalty to this country. It is not for this that our soldiers fought and died.

Of course Prime Minister Modi’s remark was precise and parsimonious. Not for him was the boorish hectoring that Prime Minister David Cameron engaged in on his visit to Sri Lanka’s North during the Commonwealth summit. Then again, the majority of Sri Lankan people would take note that China’s leader, President Xi Jing Ping made no remarks whatsoever of a potentially contentious or intrusive nature on his recent visit to Sri Lanka.

On the eve of visit of India’s Prime Minister Modi to Sri Lanka, the Chief Minister of the Northern Provincial Council who is hardly an angry young man or wild-eyed radical, expressed the long held view of the ‘moderate’ Tamil nationalists, that the 13th amendment is no solution and indeed the unitary state form is no solution as well. He does not argue for the full implementation of 13a or even for 13 Plus, but precisely for a new start line, somewhere beyond the 13th amendment and the unitary state itself.

The transcript of correspondent Meera Srinivasan’s interview with Chief Minister Wigneswaran as published inThe Hindu, yields some crucial insights. The Chief Minister opines that “…Thirteenth Amendment can never be the final solution…We would recommend to him that it is time to reconsider the 13th Amendment, which was a fall out from the Indo-Sri Lanka Accord of 1987 and to replace it with a more dynamic system, which would ensure maximum power sharing for the North and East…Under our unitary constitution there is no chance of our performing the way Hon’ Modi performed…Especially the inadequacies of the Thirteenth Amendment would no doubt be understood by him. His visit and understanding would be very vital in the ultimate finalization of our constitutional problems.” (The Hindu March 12, 2015)

Mr. Wigneswaran attempts to turn the issue of devolution into a trilateral negotiation between New Delhi, Colombo and Jaffna, which is precisely the mistake that fuelled the backlash in the South   and catalyzed the dissolution of the Northern Council by President Premadasa in 1990. He urges that “…There should be talks among the Indian Government, Sri Lankan Government and the NPC, without taking refuge under protocols…” (Ibid)

For a former member of Sri Lanka’s Supreme Court, the Chief Minister shows a disconcerting capacity for contradicting himself—and advancing contradictory arguments- within a single paragraph when he says that:

“…We expect him to take cognizance of the evolution and changing contexts since the signing of the Indo-Lanka Accord of 1987 particularly taking into consideration the historic communication late TULF Leaders Amirthalingam and Sivasithambaram and present TNA Leader Sampanthan had addressed to the then Indian Prime Minister, late Shri Rajiv Gandhi on 28 October 1987, pointing out how hollow and inadequate the 13th Amendment promulgated by the former Sri Lankan President J R Jayawardene had been and sought the then Indian Government’s intervention on behalf of the Tamils of North East Province of Sri Lanka…In my opinion, the situation prevailing in North-East Provinces in SL today is almost akin to the context that prevailed then, meaning July 1987!” (ibid)

So is the context “changing” or is it “almost akin” to the context that prevailed in July 1987? If it is the former (“change”), what are the new factors—in the wake of a decisive military defeat, mind you– that would make for qualitatively enhanced devolution? If the perception is the latter (“continuity” with ’87), there is a serious lack of grasp of manifest reality. This is a problem of collective mentality; a problem of social psychology.

Whichever it is, the Chief Minister recalls a quintessential continuity of the stance of moderate Tamil nationalism, namely that the 13th amendment, which was in point of fact the best deal that Delhi could secure for the Tamils of Sri Lanka under conditions far more favorable to the latter, was simply not enough even at the get go, in ’87 itself. So the problem was never that successive Sri Lankan administrations did not fully implement the 13th amendment. The 13th amendment making for provincial semi-autonomy was seen as inadequate before it had been tried out! The critique of the 13th amendment was a priori! How is that even possible? That is because it didn’t correspond to the collective political self-image of the northern Tamil community. What we have therefore is a permanent political condition and mindset, that of hyperinflation of Tamil expectations.

What will be the outcome of the long, continuous Arunachalam-Wigneswaran Tamil project? In order to retrace the trail of causation, let us revisit Sir Ponnambalam Arunachalam’s founding statement of the Ceylon Tamil League, in 1922: “…It has far higher aims in view, namely to keep alive and propagate these precious ideals throughout Ceylon, Southern India and the Tamil Colonies, to promote the union and solidarity of Tamilakam, the Tamil Land. We should keep alive and propagate these ideals throughout Ceylon and promote the union and solidarity of what we have been proud to call Tamil Eelam…All this requires heavy outlay of money for which I trust the Tamil Community, and especially its wealthier members here and in the Federated Malay States, will contribute liberally.”

What are the implications for this island and its ethnic majority the Sinhalese of a project that explicitly links Ceylon, Southern India, the ‘Tamil colonies’ and the ‘Federated Malay Tamil states’? Is this not a global strategy of marshaling the global Tamils not merely to countervail natural Sinhala preponderance on the island but also to hegemonize and dominate them? Is it not to create a global Tamil bloc with and for the Ceylon Tamils, that vastly outnumbers the Sinhalese, is capable of bringing overwhelming weight and force upon them, rolling back their natural status as the majority on the island—their only home base? Is this not a strategy of swamping and politically burying the Sinhalese under a globalized, demographic and geopolitical ‘human wave’?

Will the trajectory not be to return to the colonial social compact? Will it not be to install a de-nationalized elite in power in Colombo (wearing a native mask), backed by a multinational power consortium led by the West in which the Tamil Diaspora has an electoral stake-holding? Will it not be to cut the island off from its staunch allies, the Eurasian powers China and Russia, which enhanced the island’s autonomy? Will it not be to make Sri Lanka dependent on precisely those external powers—or an axis of such external powers– which have a large embedded Tamil population, indigenous or expatriate? Will it not be to weaken the strong, moderately centralized Sri Lankan state through the 19th amendment? Will its final outcome, visible on the horizon, not be to reduce the Sinhalese to a subaltern status (to use Gramsci’s term) in their own land?

 

Courtesy:

Modi’s visit – too much, too soon?

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Sri Lanka — historic in the sense that it is the first by an Indian PM in 28 years — comes at a time Sri Lanka’s political landscape is in a state of flux. With a general election looming on the horizon, discussions are going on between the government and opposition on a range of issues — its timing, the electoral system under which it should be held and important constitutional reforms. Signs of a comeback by former president Mahinda Rajapaksa present further ramifications and fresh divisions of loyalty.

 

A peculiarity of the prevailing situation is that the UNP which recently formed a government, and whose members hold most of the Cabinet posts, is heavily outnumbered by opposition UPFA members in parliament. The majority in the opposition coalition also belongs to the SLFP of President Maithripala Sirisena who, as party leader, has declared his intention to defeat the UNP in the upcoming election. In spite of the fact that some of its members face legal action on charges ranging from bribery to murder, the opposition has various bargaining chips at its disposal on account of these unique circumstances. The balance of power that may emerge by the time the election is called is hard to predict.

 

Unsettled backdrop

The impressive crowds attending rallies in support of Rajapaksa’s return to politics and the hundreds trekking daily to his Tangalle residence may be further reasons for disquiet in the Government. It walks a tightrope in its bid to maintain all-party support long enough to fulfil the promises of its 100-day programme. Is its latest move of offering the opposition a number of Cabinet portfolios in a ‘national government,’ a sign of the jitters? The JVP has roundly criticised the proposal — which smacks of horse-trading among politicians at the expense of constituents — pointing out that the resulting jumbo Cabinet will also be in breach of an election promise.

 

This is the unsettled backdrop against which the Indian prime minister arrives on his first official trip to Sri Lanka. It is the last stop on his ‘islands’ tour from 10th to 14th March which starts in Seychelles, followed by Mauritius. In Sri Lanka Modi is expected to travel to Anuradhapura, Talaimannar and Jaffna. He will be accorded the honour of addressing a Special Sitting of Parliament. “President Maithripala Sirisena will hold bilateral discussions with the visiting Prime Minister and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe will host a lunch in honour of Prime Minister Modi” says a statement from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The Indian External Affairs Ministry statement, however, says he will have meetings with “other senior leaders across the political spectrum” as well.

 

Countering China
Sri Lanka is said to be ‘at the top of Mr Modi’s agenda’ according to Reuters, which says he expects to ‘tighten defence and security cooperation’ on this visit, and ‘push for final approval’ of the Sampur power project in the strategic port of Trincomalee. It is fairly obvious that countering China’s growing influence in the Indian Ocean Region figures prominently in the calculations underlying the Indian leader’s tour. China has been growing its footprint in Asia and Africa through infrastructure development projects and maritime expansion. Delhi was angered by the docking of a Chinese submarine in Colombo last year. It is against the background of re-setting foreign policy to improve relations with India and the West, that the new Sri Lankan government is reviewing Chinese-funded mega infrastructure projects launched by the previous regime.

 

Indian Ocean security
According to Reuters, Modi will “offer island nations in the Indian Ocean a broad range of military and civilian assistance next week in a bid to wrest back some of the influence China has gained by spending billions of dollars in the region.” It quotes Indian officials as saying New Delhi is hoping to “tie the islands into a closer security embrace.” It cites defence officials involved in preparations for his trip as saying that “India has a role as a net security provider in the Indian Ocean region.” The idea of India as a ‘net security provider’ in the region has been around for some time; former Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh too gave expression to it in 2013.

 

Given the fluid political situation in Sri Lanka though, the wisdom of Modi’s visit barely two months after the government changed is being questioned by some analysts. A key political figure in the BJP who believes the visit is a mistake had tried hard to dissuade the Indian prime minister, it is learnt. As an observer constantly with his ear to the ground, he gathered that Modi would not be overly welcome in Sri Lanka at this time. This is partly because of the perception, right or wrong, that India’s spy agency RAW (Research & Analysis Wing) had something to do with Rajapaksa’s defeat. Rajapkasa in a recent interview told Dawn, a leading Pakistan newspaper, that “What happened in my country and the insurgency happening in your country, RAW … is behind it.” Even in government circles the initial relief over having gotten rid of a corrupt regime is being replaced by a sense of indignation, according to this assessment.

 

Building trust
A Sri Lankan analyst who concurred with the BJP leader’s view noted that “when you show so much enthusiasm over the new government, you convince that you had something to do with it.” He pointed out that after a hiatus of 28 years the first visit by an Indian head of state was taking place before even three months had passed since the regime change. From Sri Lanka’s perspective, it was as if ‘the bully was now being nice to us.’ He thought this would make Rajapaksa that much more popular.

 

It would appear that Delhi has a long way to go before it comes to be seen as a ‘net security provider’ in the region. To reach that level of acceptance it would perhaps need to first build up a greater degree of trust with its neighbours.

Courtesy: