Wednesday, May 1, 2013

Queen faces conflict on Sri Lanka summit

TELEGRAPH.CO.UK

The Queen is set to get conflicting advice on attending November's Commonwealth summit in Sri Lanka as divisions within the organisation grow between member governments over human rights abuses in the host country.

(File photo) There are allegations that up to 40,000 civilians were killed by Sri Lankan troops in the final phase of its war against Tamil rebels Photo: EPA

Diplomats said the Government had not yet decided to attend the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (Chogm) because of concerns over human rights abuses in the country but that the Palace must also take into account the views of 15 other countries where she is head of state on her presence.

"The Queen does consult the prime minister on travel to the Commonwealth but she also seeks the wider advice from her other realms among Commonwealth governments," an official said.

Major Commonwealth members have taken opposite stands on Sri Lanka fitness to hold the meeting. Canada has demanded a credible inquiry into allegations that up to 40,000 civilians were killed by Sri Lankan troops in the final phase of its war against Tamil rebels in 2009 before the summit can take place but Australia has condemned boycott proposals as "wrong".

Sir Malcolm Rifkind, MP, the former foreign secretary, said divisions in the Commonwealth should be resolved in the coming weeks so the Queen does not receive different views. "I think that the next few weeks should be used to force a sensible debate, so that at the very least, we can force the Sri Lankan government to take some serious measures to address the criticism that is being levelled," he said. "The Queen will never exercise explicit pressure on the governments where is she is head of state. She has an honorific role in the literal sense and is in a delicate position."

The Government hopes the summit can heap pressure on the Sri Lankan government to embrace

"In general the government believes that the UK can engage with the country under the spotlight and them to change," said one Whitehall official who said a decision on David Cameron, the Prime Minister, attending would be made before parliament rose for the summer recess. "The British prime minister has historically attended the summit.

A Foreign Office spokesman said diplomats had demanded Sri Lanka demonstrate its commitment to the rule of law and respect for human rights.

"We will look to Sri Lanka to demonstrate its commitment to these values," he said. "We have made clear to the Government of Sri Lanka that we expect to see progress by the end of the year."

Lord Williams of Baglan, a Chatham House fellow, said the differences between Commonwealth members would not be easily resolved, even if Mr Cameron decides to attend.

"The dilemma is very substantial given the differences within the Commonwealth are so open and so marked," he said. "Inevitably there will be concern about the position of the Queen as head of the Commonwealth."

Amnesty International yesterday joined other activists, including Human Rights Watch and Tamil groups, demanding a boycott of the meeting over the antics of the government of President Mahinda Rajapaksa.

An Amnesty report published yesterday said Mr Rajapaksa was violently repressing dissent, attacking independent institutions and had overseen a climate of fear.

Colombo has defied UN resolutions to investigate allegations of war crimes in its brutal assault on the Tamil Tiger rebellion, allowing alleged perpetrators to escape justice.

A fierce debate has raged on the backbenches of the House of Commons since Sri Lanka was chosen as the host of the gathering for 54 heads of government.

James Wharton, a Conservative MP, said the government should not allow domestic political divides to detract from cooperation between Commonwealth countries.

"There is an ongoing debate over what is happening in Sri Lanka and what has happened in the past," he said. "The Commonwealth Summit and the spotlight it places on Sri Lanka is a welcome opportunity for the governments and the press to see for themselves and emerge better informed."

But Siobhan McDonagh, a member of the All Party Parliamentary Group, said it would be "appalling" if the government allowed the Rajapaksa government take legitimacy from a visit from the Queen.

"There is nothing in the history of the Rajapaksa government that suggests they will change in response to pressure," she said. "This is one of the most dangerous countries that has oppressed its Tamil population, kills journalists, sacks judges for a streak of independence and uses rape as a means of control. It will take the Queen's visit as an endorsement."

Chris Nonis, Sri Lanka's High Commissioner, defended the plans for the meeting and dismissed the allegations as a "fascinating piece of fiction".

"We are a sovereign country just as Britain is. After we achieved peace in the country, we have a wonderful opportunity to reconcile," he said. "We have absolutely nothing to hide."

Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird talks to members of the media, during a news conference in central London, following the G8 foreign ministers’ meeting on April 11.PHOTO: LEFTERIS PITARAKIS/THE ASSOCIATED PRESS/FILES

Lee Berthiaume

Published: April 30, 2013, 3:10 pm

Updated: 16 hours ago

OTTAWA — Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird says the Commonwealth is failing its greatest test by letting Sri Lanka host this year’s leaders summit — but that Canada has no intention of leaving the organization.

Canada has been alone in threatening to boycott November’s Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Colombo unless Sri Lanka improves its human rights record and moves towards post-civil war reconciliation with the country’s Tamil minority.

In addition to hosting the summit, Sri Lanka is also in line to serve as the institution’s chair for the next two years — which Canada and other critics believe would seriously undermine the group’s moral authority and its ability to persuade other errant regimes to mend their ways.

Days after expressing frustration that Sri Lanka and the upcoming summit were not on the agenda of a Commonwealth foreign ministers’ meeting, Baird appeared before a parliamentary committee and reiterated his criticisms of the Asian nation.

“We’re tremendously concerned about the deteriorating and authoritative trend of the government in Sri Lanka,” he told the Commons’ foreign affairs committee.

Speaking to reporters afterward, Baird said the fact Canada is the only country speaking out reflects poorly on the Commonwealth as a whole.

“I think this is a test,” he said, “and by all accounts at this stage, the institution isn’t responding well to the challenge.”

But aside from threatening to boycott the next Commonwealth leaders summit, Baird did not say what other steps Canada might take.

Asked if the government was contemplating leaving the organization, he replied: “Not at this time.”

NDP foreign affairs critic Paul Dewar said “if anyone should be leaving right now, it’s Sri Lanka.”

Canada is the Commonwealth’s second-largest donor, and the institution would be in dire straits if Canada were to withhold the $25 million it contributes every year.

Dewar said the government should review all options, but the first step is declaring categorically that Canada will not be attending November’s leaders summit.

“We should not participate, period,” he said. “Remember apartheid? We led strongly in that. That’s what we should be doing. Not a little bit here, a little bit there. Just be very strong and say ‘We’re not going to participate.’”

Baird said the government and Canadian diplomats have been pressing other Commonwealth countries on the issue, but he would not comment on why those efforts have been unsuccessful.

“This is a tremendously difficult file,” he told the committee. “And if Canada is the lone (country) to stand up and speak truth to power, we can all be tremendously proud.”

Liberal international co-operation critic Mark Eyking, however, described the Conservative government’s failure to get other countries onside as a diplomatic “failure.”

— With files from Chris Cobb, the Ottawa Citizen

lberthiaume@postmedia.com

Analysis: The assault on freedom of expression in Sri Lanka

By Ruki Fernando-May 01, 2013

In the early hours of April 12, 2013, armed men entered the office and printing press ofUthayan, a daily Tamil language newspaper published from Jaffna in northern Sri Lanka. Men torched the printing press and newspapers that were about to be despatched for sale.

But in Jaffna, and indeed in Sri Lanka, this was just the latest of such incidents. The Uthayanknows this probably better than any other publication. Just a few days earlier, on April 3, the same newspaper’s Killinochi office was attacked and several employees were injured. On March 20, an Uthayan reporter was threatened by the military. In mid-January the editor ofUthayan was interrogated by the Criminal Investigation Department about an article implicating senior army officers. The list goes on.

Burnt newspapers lie on the ground after an attack on the printing press office of the Tamil-language Uthayan newspaper in Jaffna, Sri Lanka in mid-April. Pic: AP.

It is widely believed that the recent wave of attacks on Uthayan is due to the newspaper continuing to publish stories critical of the military and the government ahead of the upcoming elections in the north of the country, particularly about occupation of land by the military. Uthayan is owned by a member of parliament from the opposition Tamil National Alliance, at whose hands the government had suffered heavy defeats in all elections held in the north after the end of the war in 2009.

Uthayan offices and press, as well as editors, reporters and distributors have been subjected to repeated attacks and threats, particularly since the advent of the Mahinda Rajapakse government. At least five staffers have been killed or disappeared and many have been injured. Predictably, nothing has been done about any of these incidents.

Attacks on freedom of expression

Attacks on freedom of expression in northern Sri Lanka are not limited to Uthayan. On March 8 a journalist attached to Valampuri, another Jaffna-based Tamil newspaper was attacked and had to be hospitalized.

While the Tamils in north have borne the brunt of attacks on freedom of expression in recent weeks, months and years, such attacks and restrictions continue in all parts of the country. In March this year the government-owned Sri Lanka Broadcasting Corporation censored the retransmission of the BBC Tamil-language broadcasts, leading the BBC to suspend retransmission citing interference as a serious breach of trust.

(READ MORE: Sri Lanka blocks BBC reports as UN condemns violence)

Several journalists and employees of pro-opposition news websites were arrested in 2012. In 2012 the government also resorted to blocking websites that publish news critical of the government. A well-known investigative journalist was almost abducted. Another senior investigative journalist was subjected to repeated questioning and intimidation. Yet another journalist working for a Sinhalese news website critical of the government was questioned and intimidated. The list is endless.

A culture of impunity

Impunity for such attacks and restrictions continues. No prosecutions or convictions are known to have happened in relation to any of the attacks on Uthayan, the killing of Sunday Leader editor Lasantha Wickramatunga, the disappearance of cartoonist and journalist Prageeth Ekneligoda, or the brutal assault on journalist and press freedom activist Poddala Jayantha, among others. The police, courts and the National Human Rights Commission have steadfastly refused to take decisive action on attacks and restrictions on freedom of expression and opinion.

Sri Lanka Missing Journalist Prageeth Ekneligoda

Sandya, wife of missing journalist Prageeth Ekneligoda, front, holds a poster depicting her husband along with media rights activists during a protest in Colombo, Sri Lanka in 2011. Pic: AP.

The head of the government’s official delegation to the UN Committee Against Torture Mohan Peiris told the committee that disappeared journalist and cartoonist Ekneligoda was living overseas, and when challenged to disclose what he knew refused to do so. When he was finally compelled to appear before a Sri Lankan court he said he didn’t know anything. No one knows which was the truth or which was the lie, but he got away scot free. Indeed, he was appointed Chief Justice by the President earlier this year after the previous Chief Justice was removed from office illegally.

Several journalists who were threatened have told me that they had been approached by government supporters with offers of money, jobs and guarantees of safety if they were ready to spin a pro-government line. Many Sri Lankan journalists have subjected themselves to self-censorship out of fear. More than 50 journalists, including prominent and well-known press freedom activists, have gone into exile in the last four years.

Most media institutions are controlled by the government and ownership can be traced back to allies and family members of President Mahinda Rajapakse. State-owned and controlled media have regularly been used as a political tool to discredit anyone critical of the government, including the 43rd Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake, who was illegally removed from the office.

In 2006, Sri Lanka made a voluntary commitment to invite the Special Rapportuer on Freedom of Expression and Opinion, but to date the government has not honored this commitment despite repeated requests. Presently, there are eight UN rapportuers who await invitations.

(READ MORE: Amnesty: Sri Lanka government cracks down on critics)

In March 2013, the UN Human Rights Council expressed concern about violations of the right to freedom of expression and intimidation of journalists in Sri Lanka. Earlier, the government’s own Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission said it was “deeply disturbed by persistent reports concerning attacks on journalists and media institutions and killing of journalists and the fact that these incidents remain to be conclusively investigated and perpetrators brought to justice” and went on to condemn “the deplorable attack on the editor of the Uthayan newspaper in Jaffna, which occurred while the Commission’s sittings were still in progress”.

Sri Lanka is on Reporters Without Borders‘ list of “countries under surveillance” and is ranked 162nd out of 179 countries in the 2013 Reporters Without Borders Press Freedom Index. TheCommittee to Protect Journalists lists Sri Lanka as the fourth worst country in the world in its 2012 impunity index.

Signs of hope

Amidst this bleak and fearful situation, there are still signs of hope for freedom of expression in Sri Lanka.

Uthayan stands out as a small local paper that is a symbol of resilience, courage and fierce commitment to go on reporting. It is this spirit that has made it continue to publish throughout the war and after, despite repeated attacks and threats. Many other publications, in both Sinhalese and Tamil, have continued to stand up to government and military intimidation.

Websites and blogs run from within Sri Lanka and by exiled journalists have become a major platform to publish reports and columns mainstream media do not want to carry. Significantly, many of these are Sinhalese bloggers.

Despite continuous threats, media organizations in Sri Lanka have continued to campaign for freedom of expression and opinion. Support from human rights activists, civic organizations, some opposition politicians, religious clergy, lawyers and international press freedom and human rights organizations continue to play an important role in strengthening those in Sri Lanka who dare to exercise their freedom of opinion and expression. Ultimately, it will be up to Sri Lankan citizens to show whether they value the right to know different kinds of information and opinions, and what they are ready to do for that.

About the author
Ruki Fernando is a Sri Lankan human rights activist and press freedom advocate. He is particularly active in the protection of journalists who are threatened and intimidated because of their work. Ruki is also known for his reporting of human rights issues in northern Sri Lanka both during and after the war.

‘Marshall Plan’ And Sri Lanka

By S.Sivathasan -May 1, 2013

S.Sivathasan

What a war devastated nation needs most is resource for rebuilding. What Sri Lanka lacked most was the requisite capital. When local resources cannot be fully mobilized recourse is necessary for infusion from abroad. Both strategies have been employed by the present regime. No doubt adding to debt, but permitting of first world expenditure in a third world economy. Public debt of Rs. 2.222 trillion in 2005 has risen to Rs.6.000 trillion in 2012. Year on year increase alone was Rs. 867 billion in 2012. The GDP which grew by Rs. 1.038 trillion in the same year, has the resilience to accommodate this debt.

What the people are peeved about is the uneven spread smacking even of profligacy. What the Tamils cry for is equity in distribution to make amends for past misfortunes. In desperation, they direct their sights to foreign countries and institutions for their initiative and assistance. What they can look forward to from the government is proactive response. Their experience of the Tokyo Pledge of 2003 for Sri Lanka and of Marshall Plan of 1947 for Europe is particularly comforting.

Marshall Plan

What is most striking about the Marshall Plan (MP) is the speed with which initiatives were taken for the economic reconstruction of Europe after the War. It was considered a prelude to political stability. Both placed together were seen to ensure the health of Europe and as importantly, the economic well-being and growth of the United States. The pace is a contrast to the failure of the Sri Lankan Government even four years after the end of the war. There is not even a thought of it. Launching of a redevelopment programme to get over war devastation was perhaps wished for. As culpable in this lapse are Tamils, failing to press forth the concept of a ‘Marshall Plan’ as an effort at redemption. The idea of political solution now with reconstruction to follow will be realized in the Greek kalens.

The MP was enormous in scope and vast in geographical spread. The amount US spent in three years 1948 to 1951 was$ 12.7 billion. To get the perspective clear, it may be observed that the GDP of US in 1948 was $ 258 billion. In comparison the GDP of 2012 was $ 15.65 trillion. The beneficiaries of MP in Europe were 16 states of which, UK, France, W.Germany, Italy and Netherlands received nearly three-fourths. All five are among the top in the world in state GDP as well as per capita. Timely aid was as important as the volume disbursed. Grants to all 16 countries composed 90% and the balance was loans.

Benefits of the MP did not come easily to the recipient countries. The plan may be said to have originated with Marshall’s speech at Harvard in June 1947. The US was to assist in normalizing economic health in the world. No political stability or peace was assured otherwise. This was the germ of his thinking which was elaborated on. There were however reservations, criticism and even opposition. From conception to delivery to the affected, the path was tortuous. Some had illusions of relegating Germany to a ‘pastoral state’. Statesmanship overwhelmed such ideas. Realization eventually prevailed that when Germany’s industrial capacity remained idle, Europe’s economic recovery can only get delayed. Germany’s economic recovery was deemed central to Europe’s progress. Pragmatism was more compelling than antagonism.

Other Aid

In passing, reference must be made to US grants and loans in Europe amounting to $14 billion outside MP. This was between 1945-1947. Britain alone received $ 3.75 billion. Post war Asia too received sizeable aid. Japan, Taiwan, South Korea and Phillipines were principal beneficiaries. In the period 1945 to 1953, grants and loans given by America to the world totaled $ 44.3 billion. This was a huge amount and it had a tremendous impact on the recovery of Europe not to mention the countries of Asia.

Inner Vitality

There is something very significant to be observed however. Six major powers fully involved in the war, both allied and axis, are now among the topmost economic power houses. Five of them barring US – Germany, Italy, Japan, UK and France – had experienced severe destruction. With a little moistening the seeds have sprouted. There was hardly a spell when they remained dormant. Their inner vitality and entrepreneurial spirit explain. Perhaps their elan vital pushed them to the top even before the war. What is noteworthy is that physical destruction did not cause despondency, but infused a new vigour. Even before the MP went into implementation, they had launched their recovery programmes with their own resources. This is not to discount the very important part that MP played in providing the initial spurt and then maintaining the momentum. Timeliness was of the essence.

Sri Lanka

Lending a helping hand to lift a prostrate people is all what the concept of ‘Marshall Plan’ is invoked here for. The parallel ceases thereafter. The five nations were able to do so since the nation building process was completed decades earlier. They moved ahead single mindedly as a single polity. The situation in Sri Lanka is distinctly different. The Tamils fought and lost. What they lost in war they cannot gain in peace. If what they want is equality, it is only inequality that we will give. This is the official attitude of the government. Reducing the North East to a ‘pastoral state’ will take the country nowhere.

“Come and see” is the oft thrown challenge. Having seen two there is no appetite for more. The no. of industries in the country is 4,816 in 2012. In the Northern Province-NP- it is 11. The no. grew by 470 in the last 4 years island wide. In the NP it grew by 6. The GDP of the Province is 3.68% of the nation’s. What is seen is enough.

The initiative of the donor community is necessary for a wholesome change. A country cannot prosper when a segment is impoverished. Russia spurned US aid and mulcted East Germany almost to the tune of MP aid. Unified Germany’s mission was to bring East and West to a level of parity. Same ethnicity one would say. If for the benefit of reconciliation and unity ethnicity blindness is called for, embracing it may be compulsive to all.

Tokyo Pledge

The Tokyo Pledge of 2003 drawn up with a magnitude of $ 4.5 billion is a little bit of a Marshall Plan. With a tenth implemented and nine-tenth remaining, it is a viable entry point to resume the redevelopment programme. The Needs Assessment Report of 3,400 pages encompassing the North East and the adjoining Provinces is appropriate for an immediate beginning. The Report has identified projects. As funding becomes available, they are picked up, detailed estimates are worked out and projects are implemented. Even as this segment gets under implementation, a Needs Assessment survey can be carried out for the subsequent period up to 2009. Mid – course revisions are practicable.

Future

A future of promise should firstly enable those in governance to see the sentiments of all citizens in objective light. Those thrown aside have to be facilitated to come back to mainstream economic life. Local and foreign resources have to be mobilized and utilized for this purpose.

Editorial: Sri Lanka’s travesty of democracy

The coming of peace in Sri Lanka has done nothing to moderate the autocratic behaviour of a regime which displays the worst features of a dictatorship

Tuesday 30 April 2013

At best, this makes it a forum of impassioned and significant debate, in which mutual understanding can be enhanced. But when tolerance of alternative ideas gives way to indifference or cynical acceptance of what should be loudly denounced, the organisation risks sliding into irrelevance or worse.
Sri Lanka is a functioning democracy and has been at peace since the end of the Tamil Tigers’ insurgency four years ago. But the coming of peace has done nothing to moderate the autocratic behaviour of a regime which displays many of the worst features of a dictatorship. Mahinda Rajapaksa and his clan see criticism as treachery and dissent as a hostile act.
Life for conscientious journalists has long been extremely hazardous in Sri Lanka, but their ranks have now been joined by many others: student leaders, university lecturers, trade unionists, human rights activists, lawyers and judges are among those who have been subjected to vilification, intimidation and physical attack, as a new Amnesty International report published yesterday, entitled Sri Lanka’s Assault on Dissent, spells out.
Only three months ago, the Chief Justice was quite wrongly impeached and sacked. Persistent critics of the regime can vanish without trace: as The Independent’s new online campaign, Voices in Danger, reported on Monday, Prageeth Eknaligoda, a political journalist and cartoonist, disappeared in January 2010 and has not been seen since.
It is against this backdrop that Canada has threatened to boycott the November Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) in Colombo, unless the regime mends its ways. Canada’s should not be a lone voice. Democracy by itself is not enough: without respect for the right to dissent and criticise, it is but a fig leaf for tyranny.

New Delhi’s Dilemma Since Geneva Resolution On Sri Lanka

SOUTHASIASPEAKS

What exactly is New Delhi working on after voting for the second time with the US sponsored resolution at the UNHRC Sessions in Geneva, to diffuse separatist Thamilean agitations and tensions in Tamil Nadu ? TN politics funded and backed by different Tamil Diaspora groups, will not lie low though subdued for now, on their demand for a separate Tamil Eelam in N-E SL. Congress as a political party can not afford to get totally submerged in such extremist and separatist politics in TN or elsewhere.

New Delhi certainly can not say, it’s relations with Colombo will be redefined to suit the fancies of these TN agitators. It has to go on saying, relations with the Rajapaksas are as good as they were and India has always been a close ally of Sri Lanka. So says Colombo too. They both use historical and cultural statements as proof. Neither is wrong, though neither speaks the truth. After Jayawardne became Executive President of Sri Lanka in 1978, relations between the two countries were never as before. Indira Gandhi as Prime Minister resented Jayawardne’s pro Western diplomacy. Since then, Indian duplicity in influencing the Colombo regime, though never openly spelt out after High Commissioner Dixit’s obtrusively intrusive diplomacy, never ended.

For now, New Delhi is not very comfortable with Rajapaksa despite Rajapaksa claiming he fought India’s war in eliminating the LTTE. He perhaps told that to Sonia Gandhi and not to India. He is not joking too. He is factually right on that. It was India’s war as well and New Delhi played its role without qualms. But, it is post war Sri Lanka, the two are rubbing knuckles against each other.

New Delhi politics regarding SL, carries with it a core national interest compromised where necessary with the political necessities of the ruling party and that of Tamil Nadu. This has often been a dichotomy with TN politics, except when M.G. Ramachandran was in tow with the Indira Gandhi line of intervention on Sri Lanka. In early 1980′s, they both nurtured and fostered all the SL armed Tamil groups, for two different reasons. Madam Gandhi to balance off Jayawardne in Colombo on his Western stance and MGR for his popularity, cultivating a Tamil voter bloc in TN.

Most unfortunately, for everyone on either side of the Palk Straits, ever since PM Gandhi’s decision in 1980 to arm, train and fund SL Tamil groups, all political decisions taken in New Delhi, have backfired. They have neither helped New Delhi, nor Colombo, nor even the SL Tamil people. All such arrogance in blundering diplomacy has given competing TN political leaders, good enough reasons to galvanise more Thamilean sentiments for their own electoral advantage. For those in the fringe, good enough reasons to keep them afloat as TN radicals.

On a very nostalgic note, one may question PM Indira Gandhi’s intrusive diplomacy in reining in Jayawardne on his pro American foreign policy, though Dixit has excuses and explanations in his biographical sketch “Assignment Colombo”. The Indo – SL Accord under PM Rajiv Gandhi that coerced Jayawardne to amend the SL Constitution to accommodate Provincial Councils (PC) remains a very unpopular intervention. Power sharing as a concept, nevertheless is still an accepted answer to Tamil political aspirations. The hastily pushed Accord in 1987 July, with the Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF) deployed in North-East Sri Lanka to back it, was a one way trip with many tragedies that denied a political discourse in SL in achieving social consensus, before it was made into law. The returns were pathetic and chaotic.

Thereafter, New Delhi worked on a single, undeclared assumption. No political solution would be allowed for the SL Tamils, with LTTE playing a pivotal role. India’s decision to keep out of all negotiations and facilitations worked out by the Norwegian government after the 2002 February “Cease Fire Agreement” (CFA) between the Wickramasinghe government and the LTTE, is open proof. New Delhi refused to participate at the SL Aid Forum in Brussels in 2002. A message, India does not accept the LTTE as the sole negotiator. Instead New Delhi cultivated a bizarre friendship with the pro war JVP, an avowed anti Indian Sinhala nationalist party. For the first time, JVP leaders were seen walking the corridors of “India House” at the Indian National Day celebrations in Colombo in 2002 and then in 2003. The Indian HC in Colombo not so covertly, cultivating an alliance that was hostile to the CFA and for a negotiated settlement.

It was later rumoured and quite strongly too in Colombo political circles, President Chandrika Kumaranatunge was given the nod in 2003 by New Delhi to bring down Wickramasinghe’s government and it was then she moved in to take over 03 ministries back in December 2003. In return, Kumaranatunge had to adopt a power sharing mechanism New Delhi was comfortable with. Her Post-Tsunami Operations Management Structure, better known as P-TOMS, was based on that Indian consent, but was pre judged a failure with the JVP dissenting.

All were manoeuvrings by New Delhi with the sole intention of keeping the LTTE away in working out a solution. Decisions in New Delhi that strengthened extremist politics on both sides of the ethnic divide in SL and on either side of the Palk Straits too. The only occasion in post independence SL Tamil history, when New Delhi and Prabhakaran saw eye to eye was when they both thought it was good for different reasons to have Wickramasinghe defeated at the 2005 presidential elections. India, New Delhi to be precise, is thus on a collision course now with the Rajapaksa regime that can not honour any promise on power sharing, having brought together a very strong Sinhala sentiment as its buffer, to be in power and to continue in power. In a post LTTE Sri Lanka, that New Delhi thought could make this Rajapaksa regime honour its own promise of implementing a “home grown” solution acceptable to “all” and is failing on its calculations once again.

The two UNHRC Resolutions clearly show, New Delhi and Colombo have diplomatically drifted quite far apart in their political calculations. Though TN keeps pressing New Delhi to adopt a still harder line, this UPA regime with its liberalised economic policy for the corporates, is duty bound to accommodate SL. In addition to long time investors like TATA, CEAT, Ashok Leyland, others like Airtel, Dabur, Britania and Piramals have also come to top up Indian banks that already have their branches operating. It has to continue with investments, the Rajapaksa regime is eager to have, to grease its own failing economy. Indian imports to SL in 2012 had bounced to a massive USD 3,483.7 million and India emerged the largest investor the same year in SL with USD 210 million in the first 09 months after investing USD 147 million, the previous year.

Early this year, a 13 member business delegation from New Delhi visited Colombo representing the Confederation of Indian Industries (CII). Apart from Chinese labour, SL have even imported South Indian labour for numerous projects funded by Indian credit. Cheap South Indian labour in the Colombo Dockyard, in steel companies, working in the Northern railway constructions and in many similar projects, is now said to exceed 5,000 brought in without any legal status for employment. There were even seasonal agricultural labour from South India working on SL rice cultivations, a few months ago. It is now known, the Rajapaksa regime has asked the Labour, Immigration and the SL BOI authorities to amend law to regularise labour imports to SL. For more cheap labour to be brought by Indian contractors.

Obviously, the UPA government in New Delhi has to openly live with the Geneva Resolution it voted for and can not afford to give into TN demands in cutting out SL completely, for three other good reasons. One, it can not help promote a political demand that works round a separate Tamil State. Two, it can not oppose the needs of big Indian businesses and is very much influenced by the corporate world. Three, it can not allow the Chinese dragon to roam free in SL.

This leaves New Delhi with two diplomatic options. One, an overt option that would not contradict the Geneva UNHRC Resolution and the other, a covert manipulation to see if it could diffuse tensions in TN. The first, it could pressure the Rajapaksa regime to engage the TNA in particular and all other Tamil political parties, in working out a permanent power sharing solution, if New Delhi is prepared to talk about the “All Party Representative Committee” (APRC) Final Report. The second is to provoke a regime change that could facilitate a reasonable solution to the Tamil national question that could help diffuse TN protests and demands.

The best would be to have the APRC Final Report thrust upon the Rajapaksas that would not make India look the old “Air dropping” invader over SL skies. The advantage is, the APRC Final Report carries with it a Sinhala consensus on power sharing, with all the Sinhala political parties with the Rajapaksa regime having consented to this final report. This incidentally is why Rajapaksa fights shy in making this report public. Once officially out, not only President Rajapaksa, but his Sinhala allies too would feel trapped within a power sharing mechanism, recommended by them and on their own, on a broad consensus.

New Delhi instead seems to be out hunting on the other option to find an alternate leadership. Recent two day hurried visit to New Delhi by the SL Opposition Leader Wickramasinghe, also points to such dialogue, with former President Chandrika Kumaratunge peddled in Colombo as a probable candidate from the joint opposition. Urban middle class sentiments, perhaps what the Colombo Indian High Commission gets its feedback from, is now discussing Chandrika Kumaratunge as one who could deliver on the never delivered promise of abolishing the Executive Presidency. A rejuvenated slogan presented by Ven. Maduluwawe Sobhitha thera, a popular “middle of the road Buddhist monk” and his group of urban middle class Sinhala professionals. New Delhi no doubt could feel better supporting the better known Chandrika Kumaratunge for such common candidacy, than a common candidate backed by a Buddhist monk.

The unanswered question yet is, with Rajapaksa having the Constitutional right to decide when he would call for elections, that would have to be after 2014 November, would he ? What if he opts for another Constitutional Amendment to give him another term, with this same 2/3^rd majority parliament that Wickramasinghe argued is supreme, when the 43^rd Chief Justice was being impeached ? Even if Rajapaksa does call for elections after 2014 November for the Indian choice in Chandrika to contest yet again, has the Tamil people to wait that long for a solution favoured by India ?

Worst is, the Rajapaksa regime is officially in no mood to go with the UNHRC Resolution, perhaps expecting the US to compromise too, on Chinese presence in Sri Lanka. The paper by the Sri Lankan Ambassador for US seeing the US differently with much favour, was definitely no personal note. Now, is India in the know ?

(Originally written for “The Hindu” news paper and slightly edited for SAS, writer Kusal Perera is a Sri Lankan journalist and a political commentator based in Colombo.)

The May Day message of the JVP

WEDNESDAY, 01 MAY 2013

Today is May Day. Its history is the bitter, protracted struggle carried out by the working masses sacrificing their lives, shedding their blood and sweat and making boundless sacrifices to win an eight hour working day.

However, the world economic depression that has entangled the capitalist world is depriving the working masses even the rights they won in the past. It is under such an environment the working masses all over the world are commemorating the May Day today.

On this May Day, the working masses in Sri Lanka, with the leadership of the JVP, clasp their hands with the working masses throughout the world who are amassing their strength and sharpening their militancy to win rights capitalism is denying to them and to create a better future for all.

Under Mahinda Rajapaksa's pro-imperialist, capitalist regime Sri Lanka is confronted with a number of massive social, economic and political crises. The country is faced with a massive foreign exchange deficit. As such, the country is trapped in a foreign debt snare. The government that depends on loans by imperialist institutions such as the IMF has fallen to the level of begging more loans to pay the interest of loans already obtained. As a condition for such loans Sri Lanka rupee has been depreciated against foreign currency including the US dollar. Meanwhile, local industries, businesses, agriculture and services breakdown rapidly. Under these circumstances the government raises its income by levying heavy taxes and imposing heavy fines that are unbearable for the masses. Meanwhile, the government, without any sympathy, has burdened the masses with the losses at state institutions due to its own frauds, corruption and its wrong economic policies as well. The increase in electricity tariffs is the latest example. The masses have reached a state that they no longer could make the ends meet due to the rapidly increasing cost of living though their salaries and incomes do not increase.

Mahinda Rajapaksa regime, that has failed to protect sovereignty and dignity of Sri Lanka, has belittled the country especially before US imperialism and Indian hegemony; Imperialists have been given a leeway to interfere in the internal affairs of the country. This has created a risk of Sri Lanka becoming a prey for the imperialists.

Mahinda Rajapaksa regime that wrests democratic and human rights of the masses is systematically suppressing its opponents and those who do not tow their line, has unleashed government goons and is bringing the country and the masses under the yoke of Rajapaksa oligarchy.

The government that failed to fulfill basic needs of masses in the North and the East and establish national unity, equality and reconciliation is laying out an environment to strengthen communalism and separatism.

It continues to maintain a semi-military administration forced on the masses in the North and the East and in addition to stirring up communalism has begun aiding groups to kindle religious extremism throughout the country.

As Rajapaksa regime has been unable to provide the basic needs of the masses such as food, water, shelter, clothes, medicine, education employment etc social issues have escalated and crime has increased.

Unable to create an environment for the masses to live without fear or mistrust, Rajapaksa regime has failed to prevent crime and has dragged the country towards an abyss of immorality.

It is certain that UPFA led by pro-imperialist SLFP that has teamed up with IMF and other imperialist institutions to make the country bankrupt economically, politically socially and ethically, or the UNP and groups that flock for opportunistic needs would never be able to drag the country back from the precipice it has been pushed to. Sri Lanka could be liberated from the crises it is confronted with at present and from imperialist intervention only by the victory of the anti-imperialist and anti-capitalist struggle carried out by a broad anti-imperialist people’s movement. The working people in Sri Lanka led by its working class should take the lead in strengthening such a broad anti-imperialist people’s movement. This should be the resolution of the working people on this May Day.

The JVP invites the working masses, farmers, fisher-folk, women, youths, students, professionals, technologists, artistes, journalists, democrats, humanitarians and environmentalists to ideologically and organizationally rally around the anti-imperialist, anti-capitalist broad front that is already being created with the leadership of the JVP and to struggle until victory.

Down with imperialism – liberation for the people!

Down with capitalism – Victory for Socialism!

A May Day thought

Editorial-April 30, 2013

The International Workers’ Day is commemorated world over today. But, in this country May Day is the day of politicians who make use of workers as a cat’s paw to pull out political chestnuts out of the fire. All trade unions, save a few, are affiliated to political parties responsible for suppressing workers’ rights. Their show of servility on this day dedicated to the memory of labour leaders who laid down their lives for the workers’ cause is toe-curling, to say the least.

Today, there will be a number of political circuses with workers trailing and entertaining politicians who parade streets in colourful processions where hosannas are sung in their praise. Time was when overenthusiastic rank and file of trade unions affiliated to the late Mrs. Sirimavo Bandaranaike’s government (1970-77) marched in a state of inebriation shouting slogans such as ‘Methini apita kiyanawanam, seeni nethuwa the bonnam’ and ‘Methini apita kianawanam miriis nethuwa hodi kannam’—If Methini (Sirimavo) tells us, we will have tea without sugar and gravy without chilles! But, what really took the cake in those of scarcity when the transport of rice and the like were curbed was this: ‘Methini apita kiyanawanam haal nethuwa bath kannam’—If Methini tells us, we will have ‘cooked rice’ without rice grains! This shows how workers blinded by partisan politics hero-worship their political leaders and even dupe themselves into enjoying a Barmecide Feast.

The tradition continues. Hardly a day passes without a strike or a protest by trade unions against their long neglected grievances. But, some workers taking part in processions carry pictures of government leaders responsible for unleashing brute force on workers, causing death and injury, in a bid to ram an ill-conceived private sector pension scheme down their throats and ordering a ruthless crackdown on fishermen crying out for a fuel subsidy. Some of these workers even stoop to the level of gyrating on the streets and chanting pro-government slogans with gusto shamelessly in return for meals and rotgut in May Day rallies. Only a few trade unions remain truly independent and others offer their services as palanquin bearers to the Opposition politicians responsible for sacking over 50,000 workers for demanding a daily pay hike of ten rupees in 1980s.

Trade unions cannot operate in a watertight compartment devoid of all-pervasive politics and its corrupt influence. But, the heavy dependency of most of them on politicians to look after their interests has prevented the trade union movement from evolving as a formidable force. The polticisation of their agendas has been at the expense of their unity.

Burke—some believe it was Carlyle—called the Press the Fourth Estate, but Churchill thought it was the trade unions that deserved the catchy epithet because of their power and influence. But, trade unions in this country have degraded themselves over the years. When some workers’ unions opposed a pay hike parliamentarians granted themselves way back in 2006, while welcoming their position we urged them to turn the search light inwards. They have been doing basically two things—putting forth demands and resorting to trade union to win them. We posed the following questions to them: Do they ever inspire/pressure their members to step up national productivity? In what way, have they cooperated with their employers to develop the institutions on which they are dependent for a living? What action do they take against errant members who have become confirmed freeloaders? Are they aware that in other countries trade unions take pay cuts during crises and consider it their duty to take action against their members in the wrong?

The time has come for workers to wean themselves from wily politicians masquerading as liberators and question their leaders with political agendas. The need has long been felt in this country for a truly workers’ May Day.

Caste, Religion And Fragmented Societies

By Latika Chaudhary -

Dr. Latika Chaudhary

The subject of education and human capital is among the most neglected in Indian economic history, even though recent decades have clearly established the importance of education to economic growth and development. An educated labour force has been linked to greater worker productivity, a faster ability to adopt new technologies and lower crime. Understanding the economics of India’s schooling record is important in and of itself, and also because it can inform debates surrounding the Indian economy under the Raj. This post uses quantitative data and examines specific factors that hurt the expansion of mass education in the late nineteenth and twentieth century in India.

Caste, religion and fragmented societies: Education in British India

Editor

Latika Chaudhary explores how colonial policies interacted with local conditions to influence the trajectory of Indian education. This is the second of two blogs on public goods provisions in colonial India.

Despite various political changes – including the decentralisation of education to provincial governments, and the transfer of education oversight to provincial legislative councils composed of elected Indian representatives – enrolment and literacy rates remained stable and disappointingly low for most of the colonial period. Total enrolment as a percentage of the population from 1850 to 1940 illustrates a picture of steady progress; that said, the increase is not particularly significant because India moved from an extremely low level of 0.014 per cent in 1853 to four per cent in 1940, which was still a low level.

The aggregate enrollment patterns provide strong evidence of India’s limited achievement at the primary level, but relatively superior performance at the secondary level. As late as 1891 only one out of 10 primary school-age children were enrolled in any type of school. The number of students enrolled steadily increased in the twentieth century, but even by 1941 only one-third of school age children (35 per cent) were enrolled in school, with sharp regional differences. Secondary and collegiate level enrolment was more remarkable—enrolment more than quadrupled between 1891 and 1941 with more than 6 per cent of school-age children attending secondary school by 1941.

However, these enrolment levels mask the tremendous regional heterogeneity within India. At every level, the more advanced coastal provinces of Bengal, Bombay and Madras out-performed the interior provinces of Bihar and United Provinces. Tremendous variation across social groups was also evident: Certain religions such as Christians and Jains were among the most literate in colonial India. At the other end of the spectrum, tribal groups living in geographically remote parts of the country had the lowest literacy, less than one per cent. Average Muslim literacy at 6.4 per cent was below Hindu literacy at 8.4 per cent, but there were significant regional differences. Among Hindus, there were large differences by caste—Brahmans at the upper end of the caste spectrum averaged 33 per cent, while depressed castes averaged 1.6 per cent.

Although the British created a new system of education, public investments in education were very small: Education accounted for a small share of the total budget averaging 3.5 per cent between 1881 and 1941. Official reports suggest British administrators were aware that spending was perhaps inadequate to meet the needs of expanding basic education, but they were also very critical of more spending leading to better outcomes. Official rhetoric often emphasised low demand as the primary constraint on educational development. This position may reflect colonial strategy to absolve the Indian government from any blame for the low level of investment. On the other hand, Congress leaders and Indian nationalists bemoaned the low public spending and advocated higher spending as the key to better outcomes.

Using a new district-level dataset on spending and literacy, I found that public investments on primary education had a positive and significant effect on male literacy. However, there were no similar effects on female literacy. Official British opinion and Indian opinion were thus both partially correct: higher public spending would have increased male literacy, but building more public schools was not the answer to the severe and persistent problem of female illiteracy. For any significant literacy gains across the population, the Indian government needed to substantially increase public spending on education.

By underinvesting in public education, colonial rule did constrain the development of primary education in India. But, this does not imply India would have enjoyed better outcomes as an independent state. If anything, the slow progress after 1947 underscores that inadequate funding was not the only problem. The presence of numerous castes and religions combined with the hierarchal divisions in Indian society seriously undermined private and public attempts to expand basic education.

Indian elites, defined by caste, wealth and occupation, were among the chief beneficiaries of English education. But, many of these same elites actively blocked schemes for public expansion of primary schooling. Landed elites were reluctant to support public education because they had to bear a disproportionate cost in terms of land taxes, the main source of local revenues for public primary schools. Educated elites belonging to the new urban intelligentsia were unlikely to promote mass education because it would increase competition for the much sought after Indian government jobs. Such resistance frequently occurred at different levels of government, either through the actions of local boards where landed and educated elites were disproportionately represented, or through direct lobbying of colonial officials.

The effects of caste and religious heterogeneity were even worse in the private sector because the government had limited control over private schools, even those that received public subsidies. Brahmans and other educated upper castes successfully directed private and, to a smaller extent, public resources to secondary schools for their children. Districts with a greater share of Brahmans had more public and private secondary schools plus a smaller ratio of primary to secondary schools. Districts with high levels of caste and religious diversity had fewer private primary schools and a smaller ratio of primary to secondary schools. However, upper castes were unable to completely co-opt the public policymaking process because districts with larger proportions of lower castes and Muslims also had more public secondary schools.

Official attempts to circumvent the local politics of school provision were not particularly effective at increasing literacy. In addition to caste problems, a heavy reliance on religious schools hurt the progress of Muslim literacy. Muslims in heavily Muslim-dominant districts had worse literacy because they had experienced a more recent collapse of Muslim political authority and hence had more powerful and better funded religious authorities. The religious authorities established religious schools, which were less effective at promoting literacy on the margin than public schools.

Colonial policies did not do much to ameliorate these long-standing inequalities between groups. Public spending was too low and susceptible to elite capture at many levels. Given the lack of emphasis on human capital development, it would appear that education was an important constraint on economic growth in colonial India.