Top UN Envoy on Sexual Violence was never here * Inclusion of Sri Lanka on list of shame

By Shamindra Ferdinando-May 21, 2014

The Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary General on Sexual Violence in Conflict, Zainab Hawa Bangura, said that she hadn't been able to visit Sri Lanka before the recent release of a new UN report which placed Sri Lanka among 21 countries, where rape and other sexual violence were committed in current and recent conflicts.

Communications Officer Ms. La Neice Collins said that Bangura had called for the appointment of a special person to handle the situation when she met Sri Lanka's Permanent Representative to the UN, Dr. Palitha Kohona subsequent to the launch of the report. Ms. Collins was responding to a query by The Island whether the UN representative visited Colombo since the end of the conflict in May 2009. Collins was also asked whether Bangura had consulted the Office of the UN Resident Representative here regarding rape and sexual violence.

The Office of the UN Resident Representative in Colombo, having declined to respond to The Island queries regarding the UN report that dealt with Sri Lanka, directed the questions to Bangura's office.

The media quoted Bangura as having said at the launch of the report: "Covering 21 countries of concern in Europe, Asia, Africa, South America and the Middle East, the report shows that rape is a global crime."Responding to a query as regards the situation in Sri Lanka, Bangura said that she was concerned and spoke with Dr. Kohona about the situation, urging him that Sri Lanka designates a focal person on the issue.

The report, covering 2013, dealt with sexual violence in the 21 countries including Angola, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cambodia, Colombia, Guinea, Liberia, Libya, Nepal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan and Yemen.

Responding to UN allegations, military spokesman Brigadier Ruwan Wanigasooriya said that the Sri Lankan military had never been accused of systematic rape during the conflict or post-conflict period, although various interested parties propagated lies. The Brigadier said that police headquarters as well as hospital authorities could provide data pertaining to rape in every district. Commenting on the latest UN report, the Brigadier pointed out that the Office of the UN Resident Representative was aware of the ground situation. The military spokesman insisted that the army had expeditiously dealt with anyone found guilty of sexual violence in former conflict zones or outside. The UN should reveal the circumstances as well as the basis under which Sri Lanka ended up among countries named in the report.

Sri Lanka's Deputy Permanent Representative at the UN, Maj. Gen. Shavendra Silva asserted that allegations of rape during the conflict as well as port-war period were meant to justify demands for withdrawal of the army from the Northern Province. The international community could examine the situation on the ground as all Northern and Eastern districts were accessible, the former General Officer Commanding (GOC) of the celebrated 58 Division told The Island. The Maj. Gen said that anti-Sri Lanka propagandists hadn't been able to sway northern opinion.

Questions, five years on

Image courtesy Tehelka

by Pulsara Liyanage 

- on 05/22/2014

Five years ago the demise of Velupilai Prabhakaran was a fast-spreading secret-on-the-block several days before it was made official and the war was pronounced to have ended. One felt a sense of relief yet mixed with apprehension. Finally terrorism was ended by Mahinda Rajapakse. Will he be statesman enough to take the next step and bring forth a political solution to usher in peace to this nation tortured by war for thirty years? Or will he prove to be a mere politician trapped in the limitations of his own identities of family, locality, race and religion?

Irrespective of left or right-of-centre, in Sri Lankan politics, racism was always political. The National Language Act of SWRD Bandaraneike and the subsequent oppositions to the Bandaraneike-Chelvanayagam and the Senanayake-Chelvanayagam Pacts are examples of this. The opposition to the devolution of powers to the north and east in more recent times is another example. So too is the failure to even propose a political solution five years after the vanquishing of the terrorism of the Tigers.

On the other hand, will a political package that is acceptable to the Tamil speaking people of the north and the east be acceptable to the Sinhalese of the south? So far anything less than that too  ( i.e. the 13th Amendment as it presently stands) is not tolerated in the south. After the victory over the Tigers, the political parties of the south will certainly not be willing to concede to any special rights, powers or privileges to the north and east. Today the main campaigner for the political demands of the Tamil people is the Tamil National Alliance (TNA). Though a terrorist organization to the world, to the TNA the LTTE was a political entity it strongly allied itself with. The TNA of course has the right to align itself with any political organization of its choice. However, it is unfortunate that it did so with the LTTE at a time when the LTTE’s targets for attack in the south were unarmed civilians. The list of such targets from Annuradhapura and Aranthalawa to Pettah, Fort, Maradana and Dehiwala, etc is inexhaustible. Therefore when the Sri Lankan Army defeated the LTTE in battle, in the eyes of the southern political parties it defeated not just a plague of a terrorist organization but the political aspirations/demands of the Tamil people as well.

Thus, five years after ending the war one sees not the working out of a political settlement but large scale infrastructure development in the north and east. True, that development activity did not bring in the votes for the southern based political parties or their allies in the Provincial Council election held recently in the north and east. The political struggles of the Tamil people were not about infrastructure development but political and democratic rights. None of these questions seem to be even on the agenda.

The enormous task to win over the minds of the southern political parties on the need to address these issues has not even commenced. Such is not in the discourse of the people either. How will the next five years be?

Democracy is a fine method of governance; developed in ancient Greece and greatly modified and adapted to the modern times. But how well can a modern democracy handle an ethnic question of this nature while avoiding the pitfall of majoritarianism? This is where statesmanship is called for and we find it sadly and seriously lacking in Sri Lanka presently.

The South too has suffered from the ‘victor-takes all’ syndrome. The heavy reliance on the military services to police society and democratic political activity of the people has lead to incidents like that which took place at Rathupaswala. Nepotism and corruption within and outside politics is the norm of the day. Although the executive President and Parliament rules the country according to the constitution, in actuality the Rajapakse Brotherhood, now going into the second generation, rules all. Why? It is so primarily because the opposition is ineffectual. While Wickremasinghe works hard at not-doing, that party’s ‘rebels’ have repeatedly been proven even unable to fight their own battles within the party. Many want the Rajapakses voted out. The Rajapakses too (to grant the devil it’s due) have provided many opportunities for the people to do so. But the people have no choice but. And so it goes.

However, a regime change in Sri Lanka cannot bring about a political solution to the north and east either by just being voted in. One does not detect a single paragraph in the UNP’s party literature of recent times that allude to the need for a political solution nor have they made any mention of the devolution of powers and their position on it.

It looks like this generation has nothing more to offer.

Let us hope the next generation, brought up in the north and the east without the insecurities of war and fears of abductions and knowing the taste of democracy in all spheres of life and brought up in the south without the insecurities of war and sudden explosions will get to know each other and create a better country.

Will there be devolution then? I really do not know!

HRCSL gets petition against blocking of websites

 Thursday, 22 May 2014 

The Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka (HRCSL) has been handed over a petition against the unofficial blocking of some websites by the government.

The petition was handed over by the Professional Web Journalists Association. Many politicians as well as members of media organizations were present at the occasion.

UNP General Secretary Tissa Attanayake said that the UNP will raise the issue in parliament of news and information websites being restricted access in Sri Lanka.

He said that some websites registered by the Media Ministry have also been unofficially banned.

About eight websites have been restricted in Sri Lanka by service providers following directives of the Telecommuncations Regulatory Commission (TRC) acting at the behest of the government.

Most of these blocked websites are seen as controversial ones that often report against the government.

Sri Lanka blocks two more websites critical of government: rights group

Wed May 21, 2014

(Reuters) - Sri Lanka blocked two more news websites critical of the government, media rights groups said on Wednesday, a move press groups see as intended to intimidate critics of President Mahinda Rajapaksa's administration.

Media rights groups said the blocking of www.srilankamirror.com and www.theindependent.lk violated basic rights guaranteed by the constitution. The government has already blocked at least eight news websites.

"We had news items criticising the government that would have been the reason for blocking our site," said Subash Jayawardene, editor of the www.theindependent.lk.

Sri Lankan authorities initially blocked news websites during and after the final phase of a 26-year war against separatists Tamil Tiger rebels, banning the rebels' main website in 2008.

The government is under heavy pressure to address rights issues and ensure media freedom after a U.S.-backed United Nations resolution was passed in March urging the country to prosecute war criminals.

"Our stories were credible and reported with responsibility. But the government may not have liked the stories we published," Kalum Shivantha, editor of the www.srilankamirror.com, told Reuters.

The websites were blocked by the state-run Telecommunication Regulatory Commission of Sri Lanka, which is overseen by Rajapaksa.

Officials at the commission were not immediately available for comment.

Media rights groups say least 14 Sri Lankan media workers have been killed since the beginning of 2006 and several media institutions have been attacked, but no one has been prosecuted.

Many media institutions are controlled indirectly by government proxies, media rights groups say.

In 2012 police raided and closed two news websites including www.srilankamirror.com, arresting nine people including eight journalists on charges of defaming Rajapaksa and reporting news in an "incorrect and vulgar manner". They were later released but their computers were confiscated.

Sri Lanka is ranked 165th out of 180 countries in the 2014 Reporters Without Borders press freedom index.

(Reporting by Ranga Sirilal; Editing by Shihar Aneez/Ruth Pitchford)

BASL to AG: Take punitive action against 

BBS fast ‘... impunity must end in the larger interest of people of this country.’

May 21, 2014

Alleging that the Bodu Bala Sena (BBS) has brought the country and Buddhism into disrepute, the Bar Association of Sri Lanka has urged Attorney General Palitha Fernando, PC to take remedial measures immediately.  

President of the Bar Association, Upul Jayasuriya said that law enforcement authorities had failed in their duty, therefore the AG should intervene without further delay.

 The following is the full text of the letter; the BASL chief has sent the AG:

"The Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASE) brings to your notice and immediate action, recent instances of open violations of the law, where the Police have failed to take appropriate action as required by law.

We refer to the forcible disruption of a press conference that Ven. Watareka Vijitha Thera was to hold at the Nippon Hotel, Colombo 2, on 9 April 2014, by a group identified in the presence of the media, the police and the public as comprising of leaders from the Bodu Bala Sena (BBS). The organiser of the press conference, Ven. Vijitha Thera had been forcibly prevented, according to reports recorded by the electronic and print media and complaints lodged at the Slave Island Police, under threat of death from holding the press conference. This is an open transgression of the freedom of speech and peaceful  assembly in violation of the Constitution of the country. In addition several offences have been committed under the Penal Code including unlawful assembly, criminal force, criminal intimidation, wrongful restraint, wrongful confinement etc. 

* On 12th April 2014, Ven. Gnanasara Thera, General Secretary of the BBS had made highly derogatory and offensive remarks about Islam and the religious text of the Muslims, allegedly misquoting the Quran, in violation of the Penal Code provisions relating to offences against religion. These remarks had been made in public in the presence of the media, the police and the public in the compound of the Slave Island Police Station. Evidence of these utterances were recorded by the print and electronic media and needs to be called for and examined for instituting appropriate prosecutions by your department.

* Some of the utterances made by Ven. Gnanasara Thera on 9th April and on 12th April constitute serious offences of causing feelings of ill-will and hostility between different communities and religious groups which are criminal acts prohibited by section 2(1) of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act, a non-bailable offence punishable with a minimum sentence of five years and a maximum of twenty years. 

* The offences committed on these and several previous occasions by the BBS and its officials have brought the country and Buddhism into grave disrepute. Since the state is constitutionally obliged to protect Buddhism, the Attorney-General must institute proper legal proceedings against the BBS for bringing into disrepute the Dhamma and the Sangha. There are several instances during the past two years in which serious violations of the law had been publicly and openly taking place watched by millions of people through the electronic media. There were no prosecutions and at times no proper investigations. Offences were compounded in cases where even courts do not have the power to compound as it happened in the case of the illegal raid on Fashion Bug at Pepiliyana. It is the view of the bar that this impunity must end in the larger interest of people of this country. The rule of law must prevail.

* We in the bar will monitor the progress in the above cases closely, as we had done in other instances-We will appreciate if the BASL is kept informed of the progress and for any further assistance you may require in these matters.

Sri Lanka military blocks access to Tamil newspaper office

21 May 2014

The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) and its affiliates in Sri Lanka, the Free Media Movement (FMM) condemn the Sri Lankan military’s action of blocking the roads to deny access to the office of Uthayan, a Tamil-language daily, in Jaffna on Monday, May 19.

According to reports, military forces restricted the access to the two entrances to the Uthayan office from the Navalar Road and the Kasthuriyar Road. The soldiers questioned all those who entered via the road and those visiting the newspaper office were turned away. The blocking of the offices also forced the cancellation of a blood donation drive organised by the newspaper.

When the newspaper queried the military about the blocking, they were informed that it was being carried out under ‘high command’ and no further explanation was given.

The managing director of Uthayan, E Sarawanabavan, is a member of the Parliament of Sri Lanka representing the Tamil National Alliance, and was quoted as saying that the blocking disrupted the daily functioning of the newspaper.

Similar restrictions of access were reported at the Yal Thinakkural office in Jaffna. The military said that increased  security was required in Jaffna to stop any ‘unwanted situation’ on the day marking the fifth anniversary for the declaration of defeat of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelum (LTTE).

Uthayan, which was the 2013 recipient of Reporters Without Borders Press Freedom Prize, had previously had its printing facility attacked in April 2013.

The IFJ and Sri Lankan affiliate, the Free Media Movement (FMM) have both spoken out against the military action as part of the ongoing  harassment of Tamil-language newspapers and have urged the Sri Lankan government respect its citizens’ human rights and their constitutional right to freedom of expression and opinion.

The IFJ said: “Such harassment of Tamil newspapers is unacceptable and against the basic notion of Sri Lanka’s democracy. We urge the government to respect its citizens’ human rights and be sensitive in particular toward those representing minorities.”

“If the government is sincere in their pursuit for peace and reconciliation in post-war Sri Lanka they must ensure that minorities are given a voice in the media – and that includes significant points or dates of public discussion or discourse.”

US resolution calls on restrictions for persons responsible for war crimes

Thursday, 22 May 2014

The United States House of Representatives has called on the Sri Lankan government and the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) to commence negotiations to reach a political solution to ensure a peaceful and unified Sri Lanka.

A House Resolution was submitted to the 113th Congress by Democratic Congressman of New Jersey Rush Holt.

H.Res. 587, co-signed by the Republican congressman Bill Johnson of Ohio, and Democratic Congressman from Massachusetts John Tierney, was submitted to the Congress on May 19.

H. Res. 587 has recommended that the Department of State place restrictions on entry to the United States for anyone it identifies as responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

The resolution has expressed support for internal rebuilding, resettlement, accountability, and reconciliation within Sri Lanka so that Sri Lankans from all ethnic and religious communities may benefit from the end of the country’s long lasted war against terrorist group Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE).

The resolution has called on the government to acknowledge that the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) report has not adequately addressed issues of accountability for possible war crimes and implement the constructive recommendations made by the LLRC.

It has asked the Sri Lankan government to work with international agencies that can support to address reconciliation and accountability, including the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights in its investigation.

H.Res. 587, inter alia, has called on the government to prioritize the demilitarization process throughout the country and remove military from civil administration, allow for greater media freedom, protection of press, and ensure religious freedom,

H. Res. 587 has been referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker.

Picking numbers from thin air: The government’s lies around reconciliation

Photo courtesy Colombo Gazette

by Groundviews 

- on 05/22/2014 

A tweet from the government’s official Twitter account around the LLRC National Action Plan noted the following today,

LLRC Action @LLRCAction

Follow

#SriLanka has implemented 30% of #LLRC recommendations, @PresRajapaksa tells UN Sec-Gen Ban Ki-moon. @UN_Spokesperson #LKA

5:29 AM - 22 May 2014

In February 2014, Sri Lanka’s Foreign Minister said the following,

External Affairs Minister of Sri Lanka Prof. G.L. Peiris says the government has implemented 85 percent of the recommendations in the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) report.

Over a year ago, in March 2013, senior Government Minister Mahinda Samarasinghe noted that,

…the government has implemented 99 percent of the recommendations of the reconciliation commission already,as it prepares to face a US-backed resolution at the UNHRC.

In November 2013, Secretary to the President Lalith Weeratunge “said that fifty percent of the recommendations made by the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission have been implemented” (the link to the websiteat present throws up a malware warning, so here’s a screenshot of the article).

We wonder what the greater tragedy is – whether it is government that so openly lies with impunity, or the seeming inability of the seniormost diplomats in the world to call the government’s bluff, just a simple Google search away.

Calculated risks

Editorial-May 21, 2014

There are risks worth taking in life. T. S. Eliot, the great poet, it was who said only those who would risk going too far could possibly find out how far they could go. A person who is scared of taking risks will get nowhere in any of his endeavours though blind plunges are fraught with the danger of leading to disaster.

President Mahinda Rajapaksa, at a meeting with Pakistani President Mamnoon Hussain, on the sidelines of the 4th Summit of the Conference on Interaction and Confidence Building Measures in Asia (CICA) in Shanghai, has referred to a calculated risk his government took following the conclusion of the war. Pointing out that about 14,000 LTTE fighters including child soldiers were rehabilitated and reintegrated into society, he has said his government took that huge risk without hesitation.

The release of so many ex-combatants was undoubtedly a leap of faith. Most of Prabhakaran’s arms caches have not yet been unearthed and the LTTE is very much active overseas, especially in Tamil Nadu, where political leaders make a public display of their support for it. Maybe, some of the ‘rehabilitated’ Tiger cadres know where those arms dumps are. In fact, it was for future use that Prabhakaran had many of his weapons buried while he was beating a hasty retreat. The military and the police claim to have foiled an attempt by some LTTE cadres to regroup recently.

Terrorism is like cancer. It eats into the vital of a democratic society. It is capable of raising its ugly head again even after being decisively defeated as could be seen from the recurrence of JVP terror about 16 years later. When the JVP’s first abortive armed uprising was crushed in 1971, many thought the scourge had been eliminated once and for all. The ex-combatants were rehabilitated and released. But, a relapse of its terror occurred in the late 1980s, when thousands of lives and properties worth billions of rupees were destroyed. The fact, however, remains that not all former JVPers took part in the second revolt.

No ex-combatant could be rehabilitated one hundred percent and there is always an element of danger in his or her release. But, the reintegration of former fighters into society is a prerequisite for post-war reconciliation. How bad the situation would have been if all ex-Tiger combatants including about 600 child soldiers had been detained indefinitely is not difficult to imagine.

Some anti-terror experts have questioned the government’s wisdom of having set so many battle-hardened fighters free. Even the US Ambassador on War Crimes Steven J. Rapp during a visit here a few months ago asked the government why they had not been prosecuted. But, the government did what had to be done though the release of ex-combatants has not been appreciated at the international fora where allegations of war crimes are made.

This country has witnessed enough bloodbaths and it does not need another armed conflict to contend with. People who suffered for nearly three decades are struggling to rebuild their lives and efforts are underway to achieve national reconciliation. The government should step up its efforts to obviate the root causes of the conflict and those who have promoted terrorism in a bid to achieve their political goals must abandon their attempts to kindle another conflagration so that the rehabilitated LTTE cadres could lead normal lives.

Jaya may skip Modi’s swearing-in ceremony over invite to Lankan President

Prime Minister-designate Narendra Modi's invitation to Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa to attend his swearing-in ceremony on May 26 has put BJP's allies in Tamil Nadu and chief minister J Jayalalithaa in a tight spot. With Rajapaksa accepting the invitation, sources in AIADMK said Jayalalithaa may skip the event and depute a senior leader to take part in the ceremony.22 May 2014, 9:23AM IST

AIADMK clean sweep may boost India's Lanka policy

Shastri Ramachandaran-Wed May 21, 2014 

The BJP must be relieved that its Tamil Nadu allies and the DMK have been rendered irrelevant by the AIADMK's bagging 37 of the 39 Lok Sabha seats in the state. Had the DMK or the BJP's allies, such as Vaiko's MDMK, made gains, the new government would have been hamstrung in dealing with the security challenges posed by the revival of Tamil separatists in Sri Lanka and the refugees flowing into Tamil Nadu.

When it comes to Sri Lankan Tamils, parties in Tamil Nadu tend to be driven by ethnic sentiment, and are heedless of national security concerns and strategic considerations. The problem is compounded with every Dravidian party being involved in the game of one-upmanship: each party is out to prove that it is a superior champion of the Tamil cause. The AIADMK is, relatively, less jingoistic than other Tamil parties.

Although under MGR, the AIADMK was the biggest patron of the separatist Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), after the debacle of the Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF) in Sri Lanka, the AIADMK has been more mindful of national considerations. Chief Minister Jayalalithaa was uncompromisingly opposed to the LTTE while, at the same time, batting for the rights and aspirations of Sri Lankan Tamils.

Despite the compulsions generated by the competitive posturing of other Dravidian parties, the AIADMK has been more in step with New Delhi, especially in steps taken against Sri Lankan Tamil terrorist groups. The smaller Tamil parties, such as the MDMK of Vaiko, the PMK-led by Dr S Ramadoss and the DMDK of actor Vijayakant, which are allied to the BJP, were even more strident than the Dravidian majors, namely, the AIADMK and DMK.

After failing to ally with the AIADMK or DMK, when the BJP had to settle for an alliance with smaller Dravidian parties, it was all too aware that these parties could be troublesome when it came to dealing with Sri Lanka and Sri Lankan Tamil separatist outfits. Reconciling the shrill demands of these parties with national security concerns and maintaining friendly relations with an important, strategic neighbour like Sri Lanka would have been problematic.

For any government at the Centre to adopt the hard line advocated by these parties against Sri Lanka and Sinhalese nationals would have alienated the island republic further and deepend discord. The Congress party, particularly Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was unduly swayed by the extreme demands of Tamil parties in relation to Sri Lanka and Sri Lankan Tamils. Whether it was on the US-sponsored resolutions in the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) or not attending the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) in Colombo, Singh was unduly swayed by the DMK and other Dravidian parties.

These parties campaigned for sanctions against Sri Lanka and wanted to isolate the Rajapaksa regime for alleged war crimes in the last stages of the Tamil-Sinhala conflict. Jayalalithaa's government went overboard on more than one occasion by forcing the Centre to expel Sri Lankan defence personnel who were in India for training. There were attacks on Sinhala tourists and Buddhist pilgrims calculated to vitiate India-Sri Lanka relations, including between people of the two countries.

Given this backdrop of Sri Lanka being projected as an "enemy" country by some Tamil parties, President Mahinda Rajapaksa has good reasons to welcome India's election results, particularly the rout of the anti-Sri Lanka parties in Tamil Nadu. The AIADMK would have to defer to the new government in its Sri Lanka policy if only to benefit from its sweeping win and avoid a Centre-state conflict.

The election outcome is a positive for India-Sri Lanka relations and the new government would do well to seize the moment.

The author is an independent political and foreign affairs commentator

Violence and repression: the roots of China's Uighur unrest

THURSDAY 22 MAY 2014

As China's security apparatus shifts into overdrive in the aftermath of deadly explosions in Xinjiang, an exiled ethnic Uighur leader says a "heavy-handed" Chinese response will make things worse.

Violence and Repression the Roots of China's Uighur Unrest by Thavam Ratna

The Return Of The Big Brother?

By Tisaranee Gunasekara -May 22, 2014 

“We all know that Your Excellency is a legendary statesman with outstanding leadership. You are a great hero for defeating terrorism.”

Air Chief Marshall Xu Qiliang to President Rajapaksa[i]

“President Mahinda Rajapaksa yesterday supported China’s idea of a new Asian security concept….”

Daily Mirror – 22.5.2014

President Mahinda Rajapaksa was receiving the highest Chinese military delegation ever to visit Colombo, the day Narendra Modi’s BJP romped to victory in India. The purposes of this visit was identified by the Vice Chairman of China’s Central Military Commission as enhancing ‘strategic mutual trust’ and elevating ‘relations between the two countries and the armed forces to a new level’[ii].

President Rajapaksa was in Beijing, attending the fourth Conference on Interaction and Confidence Building Measures in Asia the day the BJP officially nominated Narendra Modi as PM. In his speech, Mr. Rajapaksa supported China’s proposal for “the creation of a new Asian structure for security cooperation based on a regional group that included Russia and Iran and excluded the United States”[iii].

Coincidences of not, these events will be watched by the BJP, because they signal the growing Chinese-footstep in a region India considers her own.

In a move which surprised almost everyone, Narendra Modi invited the SAARC leaders to attend his inauguration. Media attention is focused on how Pakistan’s new PM and the omnipotent military will respond to this invitation. But this unprecedented move would have caused some flutter in Beijing as well, this may well be Mr. Modi’s first step in asserting Indian supremacy in the South Asian region.                                                   Read More

National interest to remain predominant in India’s ties with SL

May 21, 2014

INDIA, NEW DELHI : In this handout photograph released by the Presidential Palace (Rashtrapati Bhavan), Indian President Pranab Mukjerjee (R) presents a letter to Indian prime minister-elect Narendra Modi at the Presidential Palace in New Delhi on May 20, 2014. India’s prime minister-elect Narendra Modi choked back tears and promised to try to live up to expectations as he made his first visit to parliament since his sweeping election victory. AFP

The position that India’s national interest will remain predominant in her ties with Sri Lanka, regardless of which political party coalition or personality comes to power at that country’s centre, should be a self-evident truth to those knowledgeable about inter-state relations and behaviour. But it would need to be reiterated here, on account of some lingering Lankan misperceptions on these issues.

For example, there is a naïve belief among some influential local sections that Sri Lanka would find it in some way easier to handle her relations with India, now that the BJP and Narendra Modi are holding the reins of central governance.

Sri Lanka would need to guard against simple-mindedness in foreign policy related matters, as in anything else which is of vital interest to it. Somehow, the belief gained ground, among local ruling and other influential circles, in the years of Congress rule, that a BJP government at India’s centre, would deal with Sri Lanka with what was seen as exceptional empathy.

It is not quite clear as to what the basis of this assumption is, but it could be surmised with some certainty that what the relevant Lankan sections perceived as ideological and ‘soul’ affinity, between the present Lankan government and the BJP, was the foundation of this belief. That is, two nationalist regimes are assumed to share common policy perceptions and act in concert.

The Sri Lankan government is on record as hoping for ‘improved relations’ between Sri Lanka and India in the coming Modi years but what these ‘improvements’ would consist of is not at all clear. The impartial observer of Indo-Lanka relations is likely to take the view that these ties, although not ‘rosy’ in the extreme, have been, generally, unruffled and amicable. They could not get any better, considering the compulsions on the Indian centre in particular and these constraints are unlikely to change even under a BJP administration. So, the Lankan government would need to guard against being unrealistic in its expectations, in this context of matters.

Is the Lankan government expecting the Modi administration to soft-pedal the need for the Lankan state to meet the legitimate needs and aspirations of the local Tamil community? Is it expecting the in-coming Indian government to ‘go soft’ on the 13th amendment and the more important LLRC recommendations? If so, it is being naïve.

It is true that the BJP would be having a steamroller majority in the Lok Sabha but in the crucial state of Tamil Nadu it is Jayalalitha’s AIADMK that holds sway. In fact, the AIADMK administration in Tamil Nadu is in even a better position after the recent general election to ensure that the centre adopts a policy towards Sri Lanka which would be more sensitive than before to the just needs of the local Tamil community. Needless to say, no Indian central government could afford to have a combative and restless Tamil Nadu government. In the event of having to choose between having ‘smooth’ ties with Sri Lanka and ensuring political and social stability in Tamil Nadu, it goes without saying that the Indian centre would opt for the latter because it would be in India’s national interest to do so. In other words, the national interest would prevail over other considerations. This will be so, irrespective of who governs India.

Rather than entertain unrealistic hopes about Indian central governments, Sri Lanka would do better to explore ways of relating more amicably to the Tamil Nadu government. Even better still would be a progressive implementation of the LLRC recommendations by the Lankan government. In other words, Sri Lanka should steadily and exemplarily work towards resolving its conflict by political means. Pandering, on the part of the Lankan government, to majoritarian chauvinism would prove extremely costly in terms of social peace, and take this country further down the road of division.

Accordingly, we are unlikely to see any substantive changes to India’s Sri Lanka policy under the Modi administration, although there could be a greater sensitivity in New Delhi to those matters that cause Sri Lanka some special discomfiture, in relation to our conflict.

It is true that the BJP’s support base is India’s Hindu majority but it is highly unlikely that when in government the BJP would rule indiscreetly on the basis of policies which would drive India’s communities against each other. No Indian central government could afford to do this and we are unlikely to see this happening now, although Hindu nationalist demands on the Modi government could be expected to mount. An important task for the in-coming government would be to manage these demands and ensure inter-communal harmony and social peace. A failure to treat the acquiring of these governing capabilities as a priority could prove costly for India.

With regard to the regional political situation, India is likely to place special emphasis on improving its ties with Pakistan, while ensuring unruffled, amicable ties with its other South Asian neighbours as well. It must be remembered that Indo-Pakistani relations witnessed a notable improvement in the Vajpayee years. It was clear that the then BJP government was not intent on reaping short term political gain by getting into a collision course with Pakistan. This is likely to be so even in an India under Modi, although no pains should be spared by all the states of South Asia to further nurture regional amity.

Apparently, it was Modi’s perceived capabilities as an economic manager that weighed very heavily with the Indian electorate and won for him the majority of its votes. It is open to question whether communalism was a predominant issue in the elections. Accordingly, the Modi government would be deeply obliged to deliver on the economic front or face voter disaffection. At a time when economics is seen to be driving politics, the adoption of an economic paradigm by the Indian centre which would combine growth with equity, would prove extremely beneficial from the point of view of building bridges among communities. This too would emerge as a major challenge for the centre.