Top level decisions need to be backed by education on the ground

Norwegian PM

By Jehan Perera-August 22, 2016

The visit to Sri Lanka of Norwegian Prime Minister Erna Solberg to Sri Lanka was significant as it confirmed that the long and positive relationship that Norway has had with Sri Lanka is back on track. The two visits earlier this year of Foreign Minister Børge Brende and Foreign Secretary Tore Hattrem (who had been Norwegian ambassador to Sri Lanka during the last phase of the war) signaled the change. Relations between the two countries got strained after the Norwegian facilitated ceasefire agreement broke down. Sinhalese nationalists with the tacit backing of the government in power at that time accused Norway of being partial to the LTTE and acting in ways that were detrimental to Sri Lanka’s sovereignty. Visitors from Norway at that time felt it was pragmatic to say they were from Europe. However, the warm welcomes afforded to the high level Norwegian visitors this year showed how much has changed since the new government took office.

Norway has been a longstanding development partner of Sri Lanka and been providing it with economic assistance since the 1960s. Norwegian assistance came in the early years in the form of technical support for fisheries in addition to integrated rural development. Support to economic development was directed at supporting the improvement of the living conditions in the least developed parts of the country. In fact it was the contacts made by Norwegian development specialists in those early years that paved the way for Norwegian facilitation of the peace process that commenced during the period of President Chandrika Kumaratunga. Norwegian development workers such as Jon Westborg, who served with the Red Cross in both the north and south of the country, became involved in the peace process. Jon Westborg was the Norwegian ambassador to Sri Lanka during the signing of the ceasefire agreement.

One of the highlights of Prime Minister Solberg’s stay in Sri Lanka was the speech she delivered in Colombo under the aegis of Sri Lanka’s Foreign Minister Mangala Samaraweera. She chose the theme of achieving Sustainable Development Goals by working for the common good. She is presently the co-chair of the UN Secretary General’s Advocacy Group. In the course of her speech Prime Minister Solberg acknowledged Sri Lanka’s welfare policies which attracted international attention especially in the decades of the 1960s and 70s and influenced policy making in other countries. These are achievements that the country has continued to sustain half a century later. Sri Lanka remains in the top half of the world’s countries in terms of social and physical quality of life indicators and is now regarded as a middle income country and able to handle developmental issues with its own resources.

GOVERNMENT PRIORITIES

In this context Prime Minister Solberg’s reference to Norway’s present priorities in regard to bilateral development cooperation with Sri Lanka is significant. She identified key sustainable development goals as being climate change, conservation of the ocean, peace and justice, gender equality and affordable and clean energy. These are areas that require societies to put the interests of all, or the common good, into the forefront, and not selfish interests that put one’s own country, gender or ethnicity to the fore. The Norwegian prime minister pointed out that Norway was a strong supporter of multilateral initiatives such as UNICEF and UNESCO, whose head Irina Bokova visited Sri Lanka shortly thereafter. She also pointed out the importance of civil society in the education process and to build accountability and engagement at the community level.

At the present time the Sri Lankan government’s priority in terms of the key sustainable development goals identified by the Norwegian prime minister is achieving sustainable peace and justice through a two pronged process in which accounting for the past and constitutional reforms are the main components. The government is developing new mechanisms, laws and constitutional proposals in consultation with civil society as recommended by international best practices. These consultations have been with those in civil society who are knowledgeable about the areas that require reform and who are sympathetic to it. The Public Representations Committee on constitutional reforms headed by Lal Wijeynayake has already completed its process of consultations and finalized its report which has been handed over to the Constitutional Council. The consultations with regard to the reconciliation mechanisms by the Consultation Task Force headed by Manouri Muttetuwegama are still in the process of being finalized.

Initial reports from the Zonal Task Forces which are meeting directly with civil society indicate a positive response to the government’s proposed reconciliation mechanisms, comprising of an Office of Missing Persons, Truth Commission, Special Court on accountability issues and an Office of Reparations. Even the politically controversial issues, such as the role of foreign judges in the accountability process, have been viewed in a positive light by those in civil society whose views have been obtained. The government has been under considerable pressure from both the Tamil polity and the international community with regard to international participation in the accountability process.

CONTINUING EDUCATION

The passage of the Office of Missing Persons (OMP) bill through Parliament shows that the government is determined to meet its commitments by the Tamil polity that fully supported it at the last elections and the international community to whom it made commitments by co-signing the UN Human Rights Council resolution in Geneva. The OMP legislation has won support from the international community led by the United States. The government was able to successfully overcome political opposition to the OMP and pass the bill in Parliament despite protests by the nationalists in and outside Parliament. It is likely that the other three mechanisms that the government has pledged to set up, the Truth Commission, the Special Court and the Office of Reparations will be of similar quality.

Through its process of consultations with civil society and the passage of legislation in Parliament the government is putting the superstructure of sustainable peace into place. However, Norwegian Prime Minister Solberg’s words with regard to the role of public education in achieving sustainable development need to be heeded. She said that "It is important to build accountability and engagement at the community level and local NGOs have a key role to play involving parents and local communities. The downward trend in education over the past years must be reversed." Despite the changes in thinking and attitudes that are visible today in Sri Lanka at the level of the government leadership and much of the polity with regard to the reconciliation process this message needs to be taken in a cohesive and systematic manner to the people at the community level also.

Last week the Justice and Peace Commission of the Conference of Major Religious Superiors of the Catholic Church organized a three-day leadership training for school children from Catholic schools of the north and south. There were Tamil children from Jaffna, Mannar, Kilinochchi, Pudukuduirrippu and Mullaitivu who mixed with Sinhalese children from Kandy, Negombo, Ratnapura, Kalutara and Colombo. They got on well with each other in the sports and social activities. But when they were given the opportunity to ask each other questions about the ethnic conflict and the post war situation, sharp differences in their thinking manifested itself. The Sinhalese children wanted to know whether the Tamil children appreciated that Sinhalese soldiers had liberated them from the LTTE and from war. The Tamil children asked how those who fought against injustice could be called terrorists. Although the children shared a common religion and had been exposed to each other in a friendly environment, their inner thoughts remained at odds with their outer behaviors.

If peace in Sri Lanka is to be sustainable there is a need for public education on the ethnic conflict, even after the reconciliation mechanisms are in place. Sri Lanka has an unfortunate history of missing opportunities. What governments have tried to do to resolve the conflict in the past, those in opposition have effectively undone by arousing primeval fears and mobilizing mass opposition. This time around the existence of a national unity government mitigates this risk, but it is still necessary to ensure that the people understand and accept the changes to ensure sustainability.

 The ends cannot justify the means in nation-building

•                   Sunday, August 21, 2016

A revealing comment was made to me by an infuriated social justice activist last week in relation to disturbing trends that have surfaced in public debate. As he said caustically; ‘when we raise criticism of government policy in discussion, the immediate response within some civil society groups is that of unmitigated fury.’ We are asked immediately; ‘do you want the Rajapaksas to come back?’

Rejecting unacceptable choices

The question that he posed thereafter was as follows; ‘choosing between keeping quiet in face of what may be disastrously wrong and wanting the former regime to come back should surely not be the stark alternatives before us?’ And as my conversationalist remonstrated; ‘why should compromised groups which clearly have an agenda in riding along on the ‘yahapalanaya’ bandwagon as it were, be allowed to drive these debates?’

Here, the discussion concerned the earlier maligned Port City, now renamed in the optimistic eyes of its proponents as the ‘Colombo International Financial City.’ Despite the official trumpeting that all concerns have been dealt with, the quality and content of the environmental protection process commissioned thereto remains contested.

That said, such broad concerns are not confined to the Port City issue alone. Indeed, it would be somewhat amusing if it was not so reminiscent of the past that even more than government parliamentarians, ‘yahapalanaya’ cheerleaders lead the hysterically angry charge when legitimate queries are raised in regard to aspects of the Government’s economic policy, constitutional reforms or the transitional justice ‘package’ now being unveiled.

Recalling familiar trends

There is a trace of unsettling familiarity in this. Not long ago, propagandists acting under the long arm of the Rajapaksa regime gleefully affixed labels of ‘traitors’ to critics, including this columnist among others. But what must be understood is that intolerance to opposing points of view can be manifested not only through such obvious sledgehammer tactics. So for the benefit of those wet behind the ears at the time, let us look back even a little earlier in time for illustrative lessons in that regard.

During the United National Front (UNF) government for example one and a half decades ago, proponents of the short-lived ‘ceasefire’ between the Government and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) looked aghast at even the slightest criticism of the LTTE. This was despite the LTTE’s crushing of dissent within the Tamil polity ranging from targeting the intellectual crème de la crème to brutal local crimes exercised in reprisal against ‘defiant’ Tamil civilians.

Percipient civil society voices in Colombo outraged by these happenings were marginalized by their one time colleagues, some later losing their lives to the LTTE in the process. Not surprisingly as a result, those who critiqued both the Sinhala State and the LTTE with the same even-handedness were miserably few.

Need for internal and external critique

And there is a larger point here. The abject failure to encourage substantial critiques and to respond to the same by the government in power was a primary reason why the UNF regime collapsed at the time. As we may recall unhappily, its flag bearers retreated in disorder while the Rajapaksa Presidency took over control of the reins of State, leading to a most degenerate period in this country’s recent history.

These same warnings apply even more forcibly now. The ends certainly do not justify the means. Thus, the complicity of the Bar Association in the dangerous precedent of declaring of a Chief Justice as if he had ‘never been’ by executive fiat was disgraceful. Commendations for having stood up against Rajapaksa ravages may be in due order only if the Bar acquits itself of the allegation of merely encouraging political ‘regime change’ without any genuine desire to actually see governance structures improved in Sri Lanka. We may remember this salutary warning even in midst of effusive self-congratulations that have become the norm.

And it is unfortunate that missteps are evident even in regard to sensitive aspects of the transitional justice package. For example, why is the Office of Missing Persons (OMP) Bill being identified by government ministers as ‘something promised to Geneva’? The issue of the missing is of crucial import to all Sri Lankans, across all ethnicities. The Bill should therefore have been substantively taken to the South on that basis rather than by framing it as an external demand.

A redundant ‘public consultation’

Proper public consultations should have first been carried out before the draft legislation was brought before the national legislative assembly. But what we saw was an interim report on the OMP Bill by a task force on reconciliation being rendered redundant in a context where the Bill has already been enacted.

Further, the exclusion of the Right to Information Act, No 12 of 2016 to information received by the OMP ‘in confidence’ remains problematic. This question was discussed in these column spaces last week. In the minimum, the terms ‘in confidence’ and/or ‘confidentiality’ should have been specifically explained and interpreted in the Bill. Its absence thereof leads to potential legal issues that do not bode well for the health of the legislation.

Indeed, if it was thought that the existing protection relating to personal information which would cause ‘unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual’ contained in Section 5(1)(a) of the RTI Act did not sufficiently cater to cases coming before the OMP, radically imaginative legislative options may have been considered, drawing best lessons on comparative similar laws around the laws.

Eschewing counter-productive exclusivity

As of now, we have hesitantly stepped back from the abyss which once yawned perilously before us. But as clearly illustrated in opinion polls which indicate public dissatisfaction with the status quo while acknowledging certain positive aspects, the transition is at its most fragile. Ironically, the best ally of the Government is the chaotic chauvinism of the Rajapaksa led Joint Opposition from which many pull away in disgust.

But in this tug and pull of opposing forces, where almost every legal step taken by the coalition Government from the VAT Bill to a range of other proposed laws is challenged, robust public questioning compelling a more accountable process is precisely what is needed.

And those simply too naïve to realize this fundamental truth may perhaps be advised to look at the lessons that Sri Lanka’s turbulent history teaches us on how counter-productive a blinkered and exclusivist approach could be to nation-building.

Is Cardinal against searching for missing priests?

2016-08-24

Senior Journalist D. B. S. Jeyaraj had written an article to a weekend English newspaper. The article was based on the disappearance of Father Thiruchelvam Nihal Jim Brown from a Catholic church in the North. At a moment when laws have been prepared to establish an office to inquire into disappeared persons, it was stated in this article that it was the responsibility of the Maithri-Ranil government to look into the disappearance of this clergyman as well. On the very same day Jeyaraj had written this article, Cardinal Malcolm Ranjith had given an interview to a Sunday Sinhala newspaper.

The Cardinal had criticized the Bill on the opening of an office to inquire into disappeared persons, during this interview. He had criticized the manner in which this Bill had been passed. It is a puzzle as to why the Cardinal is opposed to a mechanism being established to inquire into the disappearances of Catholic civilians as well as clergy who belonged to the Catholic Church of which he is the leader. While D. B. S. Jeyaraj, the journalist, was trying to get justice done for the Catholic Father who had disappeared, it is a joke that the Cardinal defines, establishing of an office to inquire into disappearances of individuals as bending down to foreign countries.

Prior to this, the Cardinal had declared at a function held at a temple, that the new Constitution which the Maithri–Ranil Government was going to prepare would deprive Buddhism of its position in this country and that, it cannot be allowed. Generally followers of other religions in this country believe that, leaders of the Catholic Church in Sri Lanka speak about a certain problem with good knowledge. They always say that Buddhist monks do not understand the question and give impulsive opinions, and that leaders of the Catholic Church express their views with discipline and knowledge and with extreme care. The Maithri–Ranil Government has not made a statement that they will deprive the position Buddhism deserves in this country. The Constitution to be drafted that will allegedly deprive Buddhism of its position has not been planned yet and neither has even a discussion been initiated regarding this Constitution, as yet. If that is so, why is the Cardinal who is the leader of a different religion stating and crying out in a loud voice that the place Buddhism deserves is going to be lost in this country?

Leader of the Buddha Sasana in this country, the Chief Prelate of the Malwatte Chapter had stated that President Maithripala Sirisena had assured him that the position that Buddhism deserves will not be harmed in any way. Therefore, in a public statement the Mahanayake of the Malwatte Chapter had said that there was no reason to fear about it at all. He issued a public statement thus, probably because the Rajapaksas subsequent to their defeat in 2015 lost their power and privileges and were struggling to cover up the accusations of corruption against them and because the Mahanayake was aware of the fact that the Rajapaksa's were looking for slogans to inspire opposition against the government, while capturing temples accused of having kept stolen elephants.

What is regrettable is the fact that the Cardinal has become similar to their 'cat's paw'. He is dancing to the tune of the Rajapaksa alliance which is protecting thieves. If the most important leader of the Buddha Sasana, the Chief Prelate of the Malwatte Chapter says that there is no danger of Buddhism losing the place the religion deserves in this country, as to why the leader of the Catholic Church is worrying so much about Buddhism remains a mystery.

Generally those who attempt to protect thefts under cover of Buddhism and patriotism are persons who have engaged in thefts and been deprived of their privileges. The temples which stand up on behalf of Rajapaksa are the temples which have been accused of theft of elephants. We do not know whether, the Cardinal too joined them because the news item published sometime ago in the Colombo Telegraph website site was correct. The privileges that the Cardinal has now been deprived of are the privileges he received during the Rajapaksa regime and we do not know whether due to that anger the Cardinal is looking for ways and means to bring back the Rajapaksas to power. If not, we do not know whether the Cardinal wants to contest an election in the future through Wimal Weerawansa's party or not.

The news item which appeared in the website is given below:
Archbishop Malcolm Ranjith bought over by DPL post to Niece

Serious doubts have been cast on Archbishop of Colombo, Cardinal Malcolm Ranjith and his political agendas to support Mahinda Rajapaksa at the upcoming elections with the revelation that his niece has been given a political appointment to the Sri Lanka Embassy in Paris.

Ruwani Cooray, niece of Cardinal Malcolm Ranjith has not passed the Foreign Service examination nor been recruited to the Foreign Service through any accepted procedure. However, she has been appointed as the second secretary to the Sri Lanka Embassy in France.

Ruwani does not have any relevant qualifications for this appointment other than her relationship to the Cardinal. Earlier Ruwani Cooray was posted to the Sri Lanka Mission in Manila, Philippines on the request of the Cardinal. With the significant role played by Cardinal Malcolm Ranjith to ensure the visit of his Holiness the Pope to Sri Lanka, his niece has now been given a more opulent posting in Paris.

"The visit of the Pope has been a key political gimmick of the Rajapaksa candidacy which hopes to swing many Catholic votes it had lost during the years due to the anti-minority, extremist elements within its ranks. Cardinal Malcolm Ranjith who is a close confidant of Gotabaya Rajapaksa has assured the government that he will deliver on the promise of the Pope's visit despite the Pope's very clear policy that he will not visit a country within two months of an election being declared," a member of Cardinal Ranjith's inner circles told Colombo Telegraph. 

Be warned! Monetary Board is losing its powers as well as its independence

Two ominous measures by the Ministry of Finance




Monday, 22 August 2016


Two disturbing news items that appeared in the press last week portended that the Monetary Board of the Central Bank was fast losing its powers as well as its independence. Both had emanated from two recent measures reported to have been taken by the Ministry of Finance.

One was about a proposal by the Ministry to establish a national payments gateway outside the Central Bank (available at: http://www.ft.lk/article/558586/Has-digitalisation-been-in-a-mix-up-with-proposed-national-payments-system? and http://www.sundaytimes.lk/160814/business-times/central-bank-steps-in-to-smoothen-flawed-payments-platform-project-204469.html ). The other was about the formation of an advisory group within the Ministry to assess the solvency levels of banking and financial institutions (available at: http://www.sundaytimes.lk/160814/business-times/traffic-light-system-to-monitor-health-of-local-fincos-204561.html).

Both these functions are preserves of the Monetary Board, assigned to it by law, to be implemented through its operational arm, the Central Bank. Hence, any encroachment of these powers by the Executive is against the wishes of the Legislature which has specifically created a central bank with a purpose.

Furthermore, it is totally contrary to the pledge made by the Prime Minister in his economic policy statement presented to Parliament in November 2015. In that policy statement, the Prime Minister assured that his Government would introduce necessary legislation to make the operations of the Central Bank free from outside interference.

Independence of central banks should be promoted and respected 

Central banks have been created by societies as autonomous institutions to perform a specific job free from politics or intervention by interested parties. The architect of the Sri Lanka’s central bank, John Exter, in his report on the establishment of the bank known as the Exter Report, advised the Government of the day that “a central bank with a degree of independence of the government proper can make economic analyses and hold views which are more detached and objective than those of a government department.”

Exter has also noted that “many governments have learned to value and to use the sort of independent and objective advice on monetary and other aspects of economic policy which central banks have been able to give,” (p 12).

Later, the Central Bank’s independence, objectivity and apolitical advice were valued by Finance Minister N.M. Perera, despite his leftist origin and inclination for state power, when he addressed the senior officers of the bank in 1971.

This was reaffirmed by Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe when he presented the economic policy statement of the Government to Parliament in November 2015. The Prime Minister said: “We will make structural changes in the Central Bank, enabling them to engage in their work in a more independent manner.”

The Prime Minister has, therefore, gone even beyond John Exter. He has vowed, as it should be, to make the Central Bank more independent.

Alleged encroachment of the functions of the Central Bank by the Ministry of Finance

Against this background, it now appears that two important functions of the Central Bank are going to be acquired by the Ministry of Finance. But these functions have been assigned to the Central Bank by four different but interrelated legislations, namely, the Monetary Law Act, Banking Act, Finance Business Act and the Payments and Settlement Act.

There is a good reason for Parliament to assign these functions to the Central Bank. That is, the Central Bank being an autonomous institution can carry out these functions better than a government department or a ministry. Government departments function under political authorities and therefore, they are unlikely to do their job objectively and impartially.

Furthermore, the Central Bank has already developed a nucleus of staff capable of performing these functions effectively and efficiently. In the case of the national payments system, it has already invested sufficiently in the needed digital infrastructure. Hence, as approved by Parliament, the Central Bank has been carrying out these functions by using its skilled staff and digital infrastructure.

There are of course allegations against the Central Bank for being a political arm of the party in power in the last ten years or so. But the corrective measure does not lie in handing over the functions of the Bank to the Ministry of Finance. It lies in making the bank more independent, free of politics, as pledged by the Prime Minister.

The Central Bank is best placed as the ‘settlement agent’

The Central Bank introduced an advanced digital payment system in 2004 under its modernisation project implemented through 2000-05. That payment system, known as Real Time Gross Settlement System or RTGS, is owned and operated by the Central Bank.

The Central Bank’s leadership in this enterprise is essential since it can function as the ‘settlement agent’ of transactions effectively, efficiently and speedily. The job of a settlement agent is threefold.

First, the settlement agent has to effect payments among banks. Since the Central Bank maintains the accounts of all commercial banks, it can make these payments just by debiting the account of the paying bank and crediting the account of the recipient bank. A commercial bank or another agency is unlikely to perform this job effectively, efficiently and speedily.

Second, the settlement agent should be able to provide liquid funds to a bank which is short of funds. In this respect, the Central Bank can provide swift liquidity funding either through a Reverse REPO transaction or under its ‘lender of the last resort’ window. Such quick lending cannot be effected by another agency or even a commercial bank on the required scale as a central bank.

Third, the settlement agent has to assure payments so that the financial system and, hence, the economy can function smoothly. This has two essential components. One is the introduction of measures to mitigate risks involved in payments. The other is the introduction of necessary audit trails to prevent frauds.

However, these two functions can be carried out by any agency, not necessarily by a central bank. Yet, in that respect, central banks are better placed in providing those services to the economy with their built-in risk management and auditing systems.

LankaClear is the operational arm of running a national payment system

Under the modernisation project, the Central Bank created a new agency for clearing cheques and operating a nationwide payment system. This agency, known as the LankaClear, was the successor to the Bank’s previously owned Automated Clearing House.

The Central Bank, having transferred the assets of the Automated Clearing House which needed substantial upgrading to LankaClear, got commercial banks to subscribe to its capital so that it is operated by banks under the supervision and part ownership of the Central Bank. Since then, LankaClear has upgraded its systems, introduced an online cheque clearing system through the submission of cheque images, and improved its Sri Lanka Interbank Payments Systems or SLIPS, an offline digital payments system.

To cut the costs of infrastructure investments and provide a more efficient service to bank customers, it is now in the process of introducing a system of sharing Automated Teller Machine or ATM system of banks. It is the LankaClear which is best-placed as the agency for operating a national payments system.

Payment system should be operated by the Central Bank

It is in this background that the Ministry of Finance has, together with the Information and Communication Agency or ICTA, ventured into introducing a national payment system. The Ministry has a special interest in a well functioning and less costly national payment system. That is because such a system would facilitate the collection of taxes and other levies by revenue collection agencies of the government.

The present tax collection system is inefficient and inconvenient because it involves making payments either in cash or by cheque. Hence, undoubtedly, the biggest beneficiary of a national payment system is the Ministry of Finance. As such, no one can find fault with the Ministry of Finance for initiating action to set up a national payment system.

However, it can be faulted for making a wrong move in setting up a national payment system outside the leadership of the Central Bank. Hence, it is suggested that the Monetary Board on behalf of the Central Bank should be made the leader of setting up a national payment system in collaboration with LankaClear. In this connection, ICTA can provide the necessary technical expertise to both the Central Bank and LankaClear.

Ministry’s encroachment over bank supervision 

In another move, the Ministry of Finance has set up an advisory group on bank regulation under a retired Deputy Governor of the Central Bank. The newspaper report referring to above says that the Ministry of Finance is planning to rate financial institutions and attach to them a rating based on colour coding like the coding used in traffic lights on the road.

Accordingly, good commercial banks are given ‘green coding’, while those in emerging risk category are given the colour coding of ‘amber’. Finally, the hopeless cases would be given ‘red coding’.

At present, all commercial banks and other financial institutions are subject to rating by rating companies. Such ratings are released to the public domain to facilitate investors and depositors to make informed judgments. Hence, there is nothing new in what the Ministry of Finance is planning to do at the present juncture. As such, the current move may be the first step of the Ministry of Finance to take the bank supervision function away from the Central Bank.

Uncritical following of the German example by the UK

The function of regulating and supervising banks had been traditionally assigned to central banks. However, in 1990s, there was a rush to take the bank supervision function away from central banks and hand over it to a separate financial system authority.

Leadership to this new system was given by Germany which had set up a separate federal agency to carry out the bank supervision and regulation part. There was reason for Germany to do so because it had been very badly hit by hyperinflation during 1920s, inflation running at around one million percent per annum.

Frightened by this dreadful experience, the German leaders did not want to do anything that would interfere with their central bank’s attempt at killing inflation. Thus, Bundesbank, Germany’s central bank, was made independent, charged with only the inflation fighting objective which it has to achieve whatever the ground conditions prevailing in the country. Accordingly, the function of supervising and regulating banks was handed to a separate authority which was colloquially known as BAKred.

This German example was followed by the UK many decades later when it separated the supervision and regulation of banks from the Bank of England and set up a separate authority called The Financial Services Authority or FSA in 1998. After the East Asian financial and banking crisis of 1997-98, many countries in East Asia and the Pacific followed the British example and separated the bank supervision and regulation from their central banks. Australia (1998), South Korea (1999) Japan (2000), China (2003) and Taiwan (2004) are examples.

Pressure to divorce bank supervision from central banks

Pressure was exerted on the Central Bank too in late 1990s that it should shed its bank supervision function in favour of another governmental authority in the style of UK’s Financial Services Authority.

Though the UK went ahead with separating the bank supervision function from the Bank of England in 1998, the financial crisis of 2007-8 pointed very strongly to the fact that an outside financial services authority cannot function fast enough to save a financial system like a central bank when it is hit by a major crisis. If support is to be given to an ailing bank to prevent it from collapsing, a financial services authority has to secure funds from the government by following the due budgetary processes. This takes time and an ailing financial system cannot wait for such a long time to get the support.

A central bank does not have these financial constraints since it can always fund an ailing bank just by making book entries without having to go through the government’s budgetary processes. Hence, a central bank, unlike a financial services authority, can act fast enough to save a collapsing bank and prevent a general financial system failure. This wisdom made the UK revisit its earlier decision to have a separate financial services authority to regulate and supervise financial institutions in the country.

Bank supervision is returned to the Bank of England in 2013

The result was the abolition of the Financial Services Authority in 2012 and the establishment of two separate supervision outfits in April 2013 called the Financial Conduct Authority to regulate financial services and Prudential Regulation Authority to regulate banking and insurance institutions.

The latter authority was placed under the direction of the Bank of England by establishing it as a company wholly owned by the Bank. In this manner, the function of regulating and supervising the banking institutions was returned to the Bank of England after 15 years of unsuccessful experimentation.

Though it is a separate company, it has a close relationship with the other arms and organs of the Bank of England, namely, the Financial Policy Committee that decides on the policies relating to the UK financial system and the Special Resolution Unit that has been charged with the function of finding suitable solutions for ailing financial institutions. Its Board, which is accountable to the Parliament, consists of senior Bank of England officers including the Governor who is the ex-officio Chairman and some independent directors appointed from outside the Bank.

Macroprudential regulation of a financial system

Today, two aspects of financial system stability have to be handled by a central bank. The first is to introduce a system to ensure the overall financial system stability, known as macroprudential regulation of the financial system. In this exercise, a central bank does not worry itself about the soundness of a particular financial institution but the soundness of the overall system.

If a particular financial institution which has no impact on the rest of the system is in trouble, macroprudential regulatory tactics do not warrant a central bank to intervene and save the financial institution in trouble. A Central Bank may very well allow such non-systemic financial institutions to close doors and thereby set an example for other financial institutions to follow. This tactic is known as ‘weeding out’ of viral financial institutions to save the whole system.

Microprudential regulation of financial institutions 

The second is the implementation of the microprudential supervision and regulation of financial institutions. In this exercise, a central bank will examine, supervise and regulate individual financial institutions within the country.

If a particular financial institution is in trouble, the central bank will take appropriate measures to put it into a proper shape. Since the financial system consists of individual financial institutions, the safety of each one of them will help central banks to ensure the safety of the whole financial system.

Don’t allow ‘privatising profits and socialising losses’

What is being attempted by the Ministry of Finance is to first take over the microprudential part and then the macroprudential part. Neither the Ministry nor an advisory group is ill-fitted for either job. They have not got funds, skills or a resolution strategy.

It also passes an unwanted responsibility on taxpayers. That is, it tacitly accepts that the responsibility for bailing out an ill-performing financial institution rests with taxpayers, which amounts to ‘privatising profits and socialising losses’. It is not clear why the Ministry of Finance wants to jump into this bottomless pit.

Leave bank supervision with the Central Bank

The general consensus today is that a central bank should handle the financial system stability function rather than handing it to a separate outside authority. Hence, the move by the Ministry of Finance to set up a parallel agency in the Ministry to undertake bank supervision is unwarranted.

(W.A. Wijewardena, a former Deputy Governor of the Central Bank of Sri Lanka can be reached at waw1949@gmail.com).   

Blood, blood and more blood!

By Prof. Susirith Mendis-August 23, 2016

susmend2610@gmail.com

I have been intrigued by the reactions to the slogan "Sinha-Le" used by some group or other. Gradually, it has become a point of intensive debate and controversy. I write this piece today because I saw a clip on TV News about a fracas that occurred between two groups. One group who claimed no political affiliations had a peaceful demonstration on the theme ‘Different yet Equal’ – "Ekama Le" recently. This group was led by the controversial politician Azad Sally who thrives on controversy and publicity. He is otherwise politically bankrupt. However controversial or bankrupt the group-leader is, he and his group had every democratic right to express their views to the public.

I believe that Azad Sally’s underlying motives were successfully realized. I believe that they were two-pronged: (i) to gain as much attention and publicity to himself as he is usually in search of; and (ii) to rile the ‘Sinha-Le’ group or any other Sinhala nationalist group who could be baited into a provoked reaction. Both were realized. There were others in that group who, I am sure, had altruistic and bona fide motives for a better Sri Lanka.They were demonstrating peacefully and that is to be admired and appreciated.

A group purportedly called the ‘Sinha Le Jathika Balamuluwa’ led by some monks, and also claiming no political affiliations, descended on the peaceful demonstration and created an unruly disturbance. Any discerning observer would have seen that Azad Sally’s group retained the moral high-ground. They were disciplined and kept their emotions under better control. And the message was further enhanced by a red shirted and bearded young man who was repeating loudly and with great solemnity – "Siyalusathwayo niduk wewa" to telling effect.In a previous avatar, he would have been definitively identified as a JVPer. But he is probably not, since today, true JVPers wear white long-sleeved tunics and most have no beards! And they recite a Sanskrit/Vedic Sloka or two once in a way in parliament and outside.The red shirted young man had his ‘few minutes upon the stage’ before he was ‘heard no more’. The police were rightly on the ‘right’-side. They tried to shut the disrupters and get them to move away. Ultimately, the disrupters took the fallback option that seemed to boil down to a copyright infringement. The disrupters insisted that some of Sally’s group carried posters with "Sinha-Le" on them which is their ‘trade mark’ (I am not sure whether they have registered it or not) and therefore those posters should be removed. An agreement was reached on that point and I presume that the whole thing ended there and peace reigned thereafter.

The above, was just a preamble to set the tone for what I really want to say. It is this whole thing about this relatively recent trend in the connotation of ‘blood’ in our political lexicon. Prior to this recent trend, ‘blood’ meant "30-years of a bloody war". And we saw so much blood daily in our news programmes for so long, that it no longer elicited the expected reactions in us to see blood and body parts strewn on the roads.Blood in the battlefield, blood on streets and city centres and busy intersections, blood in buses and trains. It was blood, blood and more blood. This gradually developed in us an insensitivity to blood.

Then there was ‘blood’ that was shed in a more organized manner. And depending whether you were a proxy group for the LTTE like the TNA et al, or of the Sri Lanka Armed forces in their fight against fascistic terrorism, you would be deeply concerned by the ‘blood’ shed by "our" young men (and even children) in the battlefields of the North and East.

This brings me to the concept of blood that was shed in battlefields the world over. Whether it was blood that was shed in tribal wars to save one’s tribe from annihilation and slavery by other tribes from the earliest days of human civilization; or blood shed by people to save their societies and their culture and their life styles in the face of foreign colonial invasions; or internecine conflicts within nations, more often than not, manipulatively created by a global policy of ‘divide and rule’, it was still blood that was shed.

Blood legends are created to make them not just ordinary blood. The blood that was shed in those circumstances becomes ‘heroic blood’. They are great stories. Myths are built around them and legends told and retold. From the mythologies of the Iliad to the Ramayana, throughout the ages to the two World Wars (38 million casualties in WW I and 60 million dead in WW II – that is a lot of blood!), to our present times, we have had ‘heroic blood’ shed. All the battles in Europe and the Far East during WW II shed ‘heroic blood’. So was the blood that was shed in the ‘Great Patriotic War’ of the Soviet Union and the Battle of Stalingrad. Today, in Sri Lanka, we have ‘Rana Viruwo’ who fought a Long War and shed their ‘heroic’ blood for their country and we have also a ‘Suriya Thevan’ and his men who shed their ‘heroic’ blood for an ever receding mirage of Tamil nationhood.

Hollywood has made a ‘killing’ (pun intended). See this small sample of the movie titles: "Blood", "Captain Blood", "Flesh and Blood", "First Blood", "The Blood of Heroes" and all those "heroic" war movies that Hollywood churned out, ad nauseum. All had one thing in common – shedding of blood and more blood. Blood is a compulsion-driven common human fetish. Dracula and other vampire tales tell us that. Blood is money too! As I said Hollywood makes billions out of spilling celluloid blood. The more blood spilt, the more billions you can make. If you are a small-timer, you can sell a pint for cash – and that, not only in Blood Banks. You can buy it too for the right price.

The Old Testament of the Bible has this, among so many others, to say about blood: "And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission - Hebrews 9:22). So blood, we must shed. That seems to be part of our common human destiny. I came across this in the internet: "Blood is life, and music is life, so songs about blood just make sense." Bloody songs are endless. Here is a sample: "Let it Bleed" and "Too Much Blood" (Rolling Stones); "Sunday Bloody Sunday" (U2); "Blood on Blood" (Bon Jovi); "If You Want Blood" (AC/DC); "Raining Blood" (Slayer); "Power in Blood" (Dolly Parton) and "Pay in Blood" (Bob Dylan). So as you can see, there is blood everywhere there is human endeavour. Obvious, you might say. If so, is it that unexpected that we have a political organisation that calls themselves the ‘Sinha Le Jathika Balamuluwa’?

It is in the context of ‘heroic’ blood that ‘Sinha-Le’ as a slogan and political movement was born. In the context of ‘heroic’ blood shed for country. It has its obvious implications of ethnicity, language and religion. It was said to be an ‘ethnic war’, after all. And therefore, it is not surprising that derogatory epithets of chauvinism and majoritarian hegemony have been cast upon it.

It was even said that "Sinha-Le" movement was the "newest threat to the island’s integrity". Contrary to this opinion, others argue that the "Sinha-Le" movement is an understandable response to a tangible threat to the national identity and thereby, national integration.

While the erudite will debate the connotation of the word "Sinhale" as against "Sinha-le" with its regional implications, and whether the reference is to ‘Sinhala blood’ or whether it emanates from a legendary sense of pride of being of ‘Lion blood’, some aspects of it is taking a turn for the ludicrous. I found this in the peaceful demonstration that I mentioned at the outset. There was a poster stating "B+ Le". The political is turning into the biological. This "B+ Le" slogan was in direct contradiction to their theme – "Ekama Le". If one claims, "B+ Le" then there is no "Ekama Le". Others may be of a different ‘Le’ – A, AB or O and Rhesus positive or negative - giving rise to a minimum of 8 different types. Thereby, the "Ekama Le" slogan falls flat on its face by its own internal contradiction. We are so different in our "Le"s that if by accident we get somebody else’s incompatible "Le", we could die of it! So by that count, we are certainly not "Ekama Le" at all.

Therefore, its best that we all take this ‘blood’ business for what it really is - a metaphor for a developing political divergence than going into hysterics of being ‘Sinhla-Le’ or ‘Ekama le’ or "B+ le’.Or being misled by our general dread or love of blood. Underlying this superficial, sloganized ‘blood battle’, a real crisis is in the making. Pasting labels on people or groups as being "jathiwadi" is not going to resolve issues. Having ‘anti-blood’ demonstrations is a waste of time, however good might be the intention. Actually, if the demonstrators wanted to be more biologically correct, they could have carried a poster saying "We are ‘anti-Sinha Le’ antibodies"! That would have been appropriate both politically and biologically.

We need to take, not what they are sloganizing, but what they are really trying to say. Take them on issue by issue and see whether a reasonable approach to resolve atavistic fears of a minority of 16 million people living in a small island with a language and a culture and a written history that makes them an infinitesimal % of the world’s people, is available. It has to be available. Theirs is a cry for survival in the massive wilderness of macro-scale global cultures. Their atavistic fears have been there for over 2000 years where the legend has it that Gamani of Magama lay in foetal position on the crumpled sheets of his Royal bed and exclaiming that he has no space to extend his legs in comfort.

But all that time ago, he said he was being restrained only from the North by the Indian invaders and in the South by the great ocean. But today, it seems worse. Sri Lanka is hemmed in geographically and politically due to its strategic location from all sides: The Indian behemoth on the one hand, and Chinese global interests and the urgency of US desires for the strategic extension of its 7th fleet in the face of Chinese expansionism on the other. Then, from another flank, there is the Islamic revival and resurgence and its rapid spread (which includes, unfortunately, its wing of horrific murderous extremism)with a global reach through the massive funds generated from Middle East oil resources at their disposal for expansion and influence. These are reflected in the increasing belligerence on the global stage and also of their fringe politicians in Sri Lanka. These are the local and global realities. Therefore, it should not be surprising that this miniscule global % of 16 million people who claim to be of "Sinha-Le" are seriously concerned and disturbed.

Our current government,for political expediency or other less known reasons, is playing in a big game of high stakes in which they are mere pawns and one that they don’t seem to fully understand. They are playing Russian roulette with our nation’s future with such utter disregard for informed, rational and consensual decision-making,that they indeed leave us with good enough reasons for doubt, uncertainty, misgivings, distrust and suspicion about their ulterior motives.

So let us leave different kinds of blood aside. It is time to stop quibbling with bloody slogans that, as Fanon said, are just "glutinous words that stick in our teeth". Let us shed no more blood.

Let us leave BLOOD alone. Let us get real and get to the GUTS of it!

The LTTE’s Forced Recruitment Of Children In Armed Combat

By Pitasanna Shanmugathas –August 23, 2016

Pitasanna Shanmugathas

During the ceasefire between the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) and the Sri Lankan government, Human Rights Watch researchers went to Batticaloa, Trincomalee, and Kilinochchi to document the LTTE’s use of children in armed combat.

Human Rights Watch, in its report, documented instances where the LTTE forcibly recruited children through intimidation and torture, utilized acts of collective punishment against child soldiers, forcibly recruited more than one child per family, and re-recruited children who previously served. During the ceasefire, the LTTE continued to recruit large numbers of children. What is arguably most significant is that the LTTE’s forced recruitment of children further exacerbated the educational decline of Tamil youth. Now that the war is over, Tamil children may get a chance to further their level of education.

I interviewed Jo Becker, advocacy director of the children’s rights division at Human Rights Watch, and writer of the “Living in Fear” human rights report documenting the LTTE’s use of children in armed combat.

Jo Becker discussed tactics utilized by the LTTE to force children into joining the rebel group. Despite resistance from Tamil parents, Becker stated, the LTTE would make repeated visits to the family, if a child is not given voluntarily, the LTTE would take one by force—for example, by abducting children.

Becker recalled a specific instance where a girl, due to persistent pressure and threats by the LTTE, decided to unwillingly join the LTTE in fear that “if she did not go they might take her younger sister.”

Another tactic utilized by the LTTE to recruit children, Becker recalled, was by forcing principals and teachers in schools to allow LTTE representatives to give “time in front of classrooms to talk about martyrs to the cause and talk about the responsibility of children to join.”

For instance, according to the Trincomalee Senior Superintendent of Police, the LTTE in July 2004 provided area teachers and principals with exams on the history of the LTTE.

An international worker in Trincomalee said, “The LTTE calls these history lessons. We call them propaganda campaigns. The LTTE says it’s not recruitment, and if individuals choose to join afterwards, so be it. Principals don’t have a choice. The LTTE doesn’t ask permission, they just go.”

In some places, Becker stated, “there were street theatre or public meetings where people were encouraged to join.”

Becker also disclosed stories from children she met who voluntarily joined due to government abuses by soldiers, for example, “maybe their mother had been killed or their father had been killed and [the children] held the government responsible.” “In many cases, these children joined the LTTE to get revenge. They weren’t pressured or coerced,” Becker stated.

A 1993 study of adolescents in Vaddukoddai in the North found that one quarter of the children studied had witnessed violence personally. In response, many children joined the LTTE, seeking to protect their families or to avenge real or perceived abuses.

However, Becker reiterated that “a majority of cases we documented, there was definitely some coercion of threat involved.”

I asked Jo Becker about the common misconception that the LTTE only recruited one child per family. As documented in the Human Rights Watch report, there were several instances where more than one child per family was recruited.

Read More

Politics vs. Politricks: Sri Lanka’s cruel and unrelenting dichotomy

2016-08-24

The depths into which our politics has collapsed and its unending passage through successive administrations is sometimes bizarre and more often winding and deceptive. Taken in the framework of the previous regime, the passage seems to have trekked along exceptionally unpleasant peaks and valleys; the wild ride the ‘owners’ of that regime had through one after another of the members of the previous ‘First Family’ being summoned and jailed (later released on bail, of course) is a spectacle that no country in this world has had the misfortune to witness and experience. Whatever the shades of these allegations are, whether of white-collar variety or even criminal, the parade itself is spectacular. But where is the beef? Good governance is not only bringing the culprits before the law, it is encumbered upon the those who make allegations, state organizations or private citizens, not only to associate such allegations with evidence-supported indictments but to do so with utmost alacrity so that justice is not only done but it appears to be done with no delay. The challenge before those who are charged with conducting the investigations and producing some concrete results cannot be understated.   

In the event of unnecessary and unusual delays, political heads would not be able to withstand the ire of a nation whose pivotal election cry was not only the establishment of good governance, but bringing the guilty before the throes of justice. In a frenzy of a parade of the accused marching to and from the investigating chambers, the people expected the machinery of justice to turn speedily and commit those who were accused of many malpractices and corrupt deeds to the political guillotine. That is to anticipate the events.   

Now the restlessness on the part of those who seek vengeance instead of justice is observed in many corners of the Colombo cocktail circuits. The very players of the game who benefited immensely from their previous masters are among the most vociferous and crying for speedy action. Shame and barefaced dis-ingenuousness on their part has contributed in no less degree to the dishonourable and dishonest state this country has collapsed into. The same guys and gals are seen today crowding the same corridors and wining and dining in the same five-star hotel banquets, hosting a different set of gullible politicos who now control the locks of the government coffers.   

Politics has taken an irrevocable turn and twist into politricks! The dreams and expectations of hundreds of thousands of ordinary folks are being crushed; their path towards legitimate and above-board affluence is being blocked; their avenues for better tomorrows are paved with many obstacles and the whole journey of the lower strata of economic well-being has imploded and efforts of the dreamers have turned out to be non-starters.   
Relative peace in the North could be a harbinger of long-lasting harmony between the two communities who were at each others throats for the past several decades. The overwhelming victory gained by the Security forces was perceived as a victory for the Sinhalese against Tamils. Wild displays of triumphalism by the Sinhalese living in the South cemented that perception and any criticism of that triumphalism was viewed as unpatriotic and traitorous. The crucial role played by the Sinhalese-Buddhist-led groups such as the Bodu Bala Sena and the Ravana Balakaya provided fuel to this fiery sentiment of Sinhalese superiority over Tamils. But in the twenty first century, political dynamics has assumed much more diverse scope, scale and space.   

The birth of the Tamil Diaspora as a viable, politically sophisticated and adequately articulate entity and its belligerent stance against the leaders of the previous regime when they left the safe shores of the Island (Mahinda Rajapaksa himself) in the international arena and subjecting our then President to ridicule and humiliation in London, showed another novel aspect of this intriguing and different phenomenon that has invaded the politics of the 21st century. In the politics of that reality, the Rajapaksa regime failed miserably. The exposé of such humiliation in the international arena prompted the Rajapaksas to react from the fringes instead of the Centre. It is only those political junkies who read these political columns on a daily or weekly basis would filter the good from the bad, the reasonable from the unreasonable. Their perception of intriguing events and realities are immersed in their own preconceived philosophies and theories. As the writer has repeatedly affirmed that those who don’t look at the obvious invariably miss the woods for the trees and these ‘junkies’ tend to dwell among the trees far too long for them to perceive the forest as a whole.   

The average Pathmasiri and Nadaraja are not so sophisticated to pay courtesy to the shades and shadows. Instead they look at the painting as a whole and pass their judgment in a flash. Although such judgments so reached are distinctively short-lived, the impressions and branding that are created in their subconscious minds would tend to linger on much longer than the initial judgments. Pathmasiri and Nadaraja are too busy making ends meet; their daily chores do not include the luxuries of political analysis; their daily struggle to put food on the table takes precedence over everything else. Their attention span, inherently due to lack of education and professional training, not to understate their preoccupation in keeping a family intact and adequately fed, is palpably short.   

Taken as a whole, Tamils and Sinhalese have been driven to the fringes by their respective radical clusters. Tamils may accuse that their Sinhalese brethren are well protected by what they call a ‘tribal’ army of Sinhalese. One might also argue that there have been instances where the Sri Lankan security forces did exceed the limits usually laid down by ‘rules of engagement’, a military parlance used and overused in the West. Yet our Sinhalese rulers played the game of politricks well enough to contain such exceptional circumstances within the ‘inconsequential’ realm. Nevertheless, what Sri Lankan Tamils refuse or fail to recognize is that there won’t come another time and space which lends itself to fulfill their legitimate demands other than via the present regime.

On the one hand is the United National Party (UNP) and its leader Ranil Wickremesinghe whose political leanings are bent towards western liberalism and political correctness. On the other is the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) and its leader President Maithripala Sirisena whose political history is steeped in a more fundamentalist, nationalistic (sometimes bordering on chauvinism) approach towards local Tamils. Yet President Sirisena has already displayed an incredible sense of balance and justice when it comes to the ‘Tamil Question’. In fact the writer was privy to a statement made by Rajavarothayam Sampanthan at a State function early in the new administration. The current leader of the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) and Leader of the Opposition stated that President Maithripala Sirisena is ‘an honest man and he could be trusted by the Tamils’. That is indeed a very rare couple of sentences cascading from a Tamil leader about his Sinhalese counterpart. And everything that President Sirisena has uttered and done since then has only augmented the notion of that trust between the two respective leaders. No barrier should be allowed to be erected between them. When a genuinely constructive political intercourse between the two communities is required to advance the cause of peaceful co-existence, the Government must be unmerciful in dealing with any unsavory propaganda unleashed by those so-called custodians of the Land, the Race and the Faith. 

Defiance in the face of great odds is a great trait of great leaders. If President Sirisena can convince the Tamil leadership that full and comprehensive implementation of the Thirteenth Amendment would fulfil their demands; if he can persuade a fiercely nationalistic Sinhalese majority that accommodation is a sign of strength and not a weakness as vocalized by the extreme elements of the Sinhalese majority, a mutually acceptable position may be accomplished. Both sides have to come together. While the Tamils, at least for the foreseeable future, have to settle for the full and comprehensive implementation of the Thirteenth Amendment, the Sinhalese majority must concede that the full and comprehensive implementation of the Thirteenth Amendment would not do any damage to the sovereignty of the country and nor would it cause any injury to their misplaced pride in history.

The late John F. Kennedy described politics as a ‘noble adventure, an adventure in which one joins hands with the masses for the service of man’. That is undiluted, unadulterated politics. Not that the Kennedys didn’t play politricks in their heyday. But playing politricks with a nation’s well-being and her people’s vulnerable mindset is an unforgivable sin. Kennedy also once wrote the following words in a letter to a Navy friend: “War will exist until that distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige that the warrior does today.” That conscientious objector among us Sri Lankans should feel no shame when he objects to mindless conflict. The writer can be co n t a c ted at vishwamithra1984@gmail. com

When I heard LTTE forces order Rajiv Gandhi's assassination

I checked with my Sri Lankan Tamil sources who said the then PM would be killed in keeping with Prabhakaran’s style.

COLONEL R HARIHARAN@colhari2

Saturday, August 20 was late Indian prime minister Rajiv Gandhi's birthday. Rajiv Gandhi’s political career lasted barely seven years; it started with the assassination of his mother Indira Gandhi in 1984 and ended with his own assassination. But within those years, he made a mark by doing things differently from the traditional political class.

Had the charismatic leader not become the victim of an LTTE suicide bomber on May 21, 1991, the Congress party's fortunes might have been scripted different

Now I understand why Americans had failed to read the 9/11 attack.

Also read: I was with Rajiv Gandhi in the last 45 minutes of his life

Neena Gopal's latest book The Assassination of Rajiv Gandhi has once again brought the focus on the sordid episode of the nation's failure to protect its former prime minister. I have always found Sri Lanka fascinating, particularly after serving as the head of intelligence of the Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF) in Sri Lanka between 1987 and 1990.

The author, during the course of writing the book, had long conversations with me on the situation leading up to Rajiv Gandhi’s assassination. I have not read the book yet; but I find from the published extracts the book contains some of my recollections.

Rajiv Gandhi served as prime minister from 1984 to 1989; he had no political experience but his exuberance to get things done and impulsiveness and impatience to get results endeared him to the masses. He attempted to end longstanding conflicts facing the country during his term. While some of them like river-water sharing in Punjab and ending Bodo insurgency in Assam were partly successful, many other such attempts did not live up to the expectations.

Pranab told me how upset he was when Rajiv Gandhi snatched PM chair from him

When Rajiv came to power, India-Sri Lanka relations were in a mess. Indira Gandhi had given sanctuary to a motley collection of Tamil separatist insurgent groups who had fled the island nation along with thousands of Tamils in the wake of Sri Lanka's infamous July 1983 pogrom against Tamils. The Tamil insurgent groups became a potential threat to Sri Lanka’s sovereignty. So Sri Lanka had little option but to accept Indian counsel, particularly after talks with Tamil groups failed to yield results.

Rajiv Gandhi signed the Indo-Sri Lanka Accord 1987 with President JR Jayawardane to ensure Sri Lankan Tamils got a degree of autonomy within a united Sri Lanka, while India underwrote the disarming of Tamil militants. The Accord was hastily conceived and hurriedly executed in typical Rajiv Gandhi style of trying to resolve problems in double time, often defying political wisdom. Though the implementation of the Accord cost Rajiv Gandhi his life, it is an anachronism that both the countries never allowed it to reach its logical conclusion.

Rajiv Gandhi's leadership had done quite well till opposition parties managed to rally together and focus on his alleged involvement in the Bofors gun purchase scandal; the misconceived Indian army intervention in Sri Lanka only added masala to the allegations of Rajiv's ineptness. The young Gandhi scion's popularity drastically came down, resulting in the Congress party’s defeat in the national elections held in 1989.

Also read: When Tamil Tigers cheered for Sri Lanka with Civil War's top prisoner

It was a depressing time for men in uniform like me in Sri Lanka from 1988 onwards when opposition parties at home ridiculed the Indian forces while the Congress was put on the defensive. The DMK government, which had come to power in Tamil Nadu, was openly hostile to the IPKF.

It extended hospitality to wounded LTTE cadres in the state, while our soldiers fighting them died un-mourned on foreign soil.

The VP Singh government in New Delhi and President Premadasa were on the same page on the recall of IPKF. It was on March 24, 1990 that the last landing craft carrying IPKF commander and his operations group left Trincomalee harbour to Chennai.

Thus both the governments saved the LTTE from annihilation as IPKF had already cut it down to size, reducing the overblown self-image of Prabhakaran to the realistic proportion of an insurgent leader in hiding in the jungle. He knew he was fighting with his back to the wall; eight batches of LTTE leadership were dead.

Also read: Nalini and the plot to assassinate Rajiv Gandhi

Even as IPKF observed a ceasefire, Prabhakaran had secretly made common cause with his sworn enemy Sri Lanka President Ranasinghe Premadasa to do what he couldn't - to evict the IPKF from Sri Lanka. It must have been a humiliating experience for Prabhakaran to break bread with Premadasa.

Prabhakaran’s plot to assassinate Rajiv Gandhi was probably conceived at that time. Premadasa readily obliged the LTTE leader; he not only issued an ultimatum to India to withdraw the forces from the island but also supplied arms to the LTTE.

During the next couple of months, the IPKF was being disbanded in Chennai and our headquarters was being wound up. The component units and formations moved out. Last of our radio interception units that had regularly shared its output of LTTE transmissions brought me one such intercept.

It was a recording of one of the LTTE networks operating from somewhere in Nilgiris in Tamil Nadu. The contents of the conversation in the peculiar Jaffna Tamil dialect were startling. It ordered the “dumping” of Rajiv Gandhi. While I don’t remember the exact wording, the scene is still embedded in my mind.

Dumping is the term the LTTE used for killing. I was familiar with the dialect LTTE used in their communication. In 1987, I had collected the documentation of LTTE kangaroo courts done with Nazi precision ordering “dumping” of 102 people who were shot and dumped in garbage pits for committing crimes like selling drugs, soliciting et al. I called the radio operator who knew Jaffna Tamil very well to confirm the content of the intercept; he was emphatic it was an order to kill Rajiv Gandhi. I was shocked and immediately informed the IPKF force commander.

Also read: What I wrote after Rajiv Gandhi’s death has eerily come close to being a reality

He asked me not to “touch it”. He had good reasons because we have no functional headquarters for follow up action. He asked me to hand over the audio cassette to the Intelligence Bureau in Chennai for taking further action. Immediately, I went over to the IB headquarters and met the joint director. 

He was a good friend known to me for more than a decade. He listened to the audio and laughed at me. “Colonel, it is all bravado. They are not specifically saying when and where Rajiv should be killed. In any case, I don’t believe they would kill Rajiv. Why would they?” I still remember the conversation because it left me uneasy though I had no answer to his logical reasoning. With a troubled mind, I returned to my office.

I checked with my Sri Lankan Tamil sources who said Rajiv Gandhi’s assassination would be in keeping with Prabhakaran’s style.

Also read: Five mistakes of Rajiv Gandhi that Rahul must learn from

Later, when I was in New Delhi in early 1991, I dropped into the North Block office of the same IB officer I had met in Chennai. He was holding a top security appointment. He asked me about my future plans after retirement in March 1991 and offered to assist me in case I needed any help. I again asked him about the Rajiv Gandhi assassination cassette; he simply laughed it off.

The rest is history; Rajiv Gandhi’s killing came as a shock to me. I was left with a lingering feeling of guilt for not vigorously pursuing the information I had in hand which could have prevented the assassination. 

When the Special Investigation Team was formed to investigate Rajiv Gandhi’s assassination, its chief DR Karthikeyan called me to help out in the investigations. As I had retired, I suggested the names of officers and NCOs who could help him to progress the investigation.

I also informed him about the audio cassette containing assassination threat to Rajiv Gandhi I had handed over to the IB. He told me the Navy also had a similar intercept.

This is one instance where Indian intelligence community as a whole had failed. Now I understand why Americans had failed to read the 9/11 attack although they had bits and pieces of information about it well in advance. Collecting information is one thing; but assessing what it implied is a different ball game.

Napoleon said if you expect the enemy to attack from four directions, he may well do it from the fifth one!

So true!