Lanka's anti-Muslim violence

Lanka’s anti-Muslim violence

Col R Hariharan

The recent rampage by Buddhist bigots against Muslims at Aluthgama and Beruwala resulting in the death of three persons, and injuries to 80, rendering over a thousand people homeless is a defining moment for Sri Lanka.

The headline “Country has a responsibility to promote Buddha Sasana” in the government-owned Daily News report on the President’s speech on July 3 eloquently summed up the President’s priorities. Addressing at the higher ordination ceremony of Buddhist novice monks, he blamed the ‘elements’ that wanted to destroy the country by letting these disputes be known to the outside world and “inviting unnecessary problems to the country.”  

It is significant that he condemned neither the Bodu Bala Sena (BBS) nor its extremist leader Galabodaatta Gnanasara Thera responsible for the Aluthgama attacks. He did not acknowledge his government’s failure to control the growing anti-Muslim activities indicating its culpability. In one breath Rajapaksa said “the country has religious freedom” while in another he spoke of the country having the responsibility to protect and promote the Buddha Sasana. So it is not surprising that Rajapaksa has given no course correction to curb anti-Muslim activities perhaps because his Buddha Sasana agenda does not include it.

From the statements of the President and other leaders of the ruling coalition three elements can be identified being blamed for the growth of anti-Muslim activities. These are foreign forces (identified as India, Norway and the U.S. by Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa), misuse of social media by vested interests, and the opposition United National Party (UNP) colluding with international NGOs. They are all united in tarnishing the image of Sri Lanka and the Rajapaksa government according to the ruling class!

The President probably feels that any action against the Buddhist monks could create a political backlash and erode his support among rural Sinhala Buddhist voters. The Saffron activism is also whipping up Sinhala nationalism which could be useful to repair the President’s image dented by his poor performance on the human resources front.

The largely Tamil-speaking Muslims form only about ten percent of Sri Lanka’s 20-million people. Their faction ridden political leaders usually support whichever coalition comes to power regardless of its ideology. Even after Aluthgama incidents, they have continued in their cabinet posts giving hope to the President that he could buy their support even if Muslim community does not support him.

Initially, Sri Lanka had tried to suppress the reporting of the Aluthgama riots. But it failed due to social media reports; so it is now trying to control social media and the NGOs. Al Jazeera reporter is being investigated for his video coverage showing visuals of saffron-clad monks leading the attackers on Muslims and their property. The Newsweek Pakistan has highlighted Sri Lanka’s lack of concern by quoting Sri Lanka Minister for Public Relations Mervyn Silva's flippant remark that he was prepared to marry a Muslim woman “for the sake of national harmony.” These reports have caused concern in the Muslim world. Organisation of Islamic Cooperation is said to have expressed its concern to Sri Lanka.

In this charged atmosphere, Rajapaksa may face challenges from the Muslim world as well as international Islamic terrorism, which is on the ascent. According a report of July 8 the Director General of Muslim Religious affairs after going through a recording of Gnanasara Thera’s statement to the media affirmed before the Colombo Fort Magistrate that it contained certain derogatory comments on the Quran. This may well trigger the anti-Sri Lanka backlash in Muslim countries.

It could test Sri Lanka’s “all weather friendship” with Pakistan. Employment of Sri Lankans by Gulf countries and Saudi Arabia could be affected with its adverse impact on foreign remittances forming the bulk of Sri Lanka’s foreign exchange earnings.

Sri Lanka’s staunch Muslim friends may not support it at the forthcoming UN Human Rights Commission (UNHRC) where Aluthgama violence is likely to figure in the discussion on Sri Lanka’s human rights aberrations. This could result in further erosion of the President’s image at home.

The other more insidious challenge for Sri Lanka could be from Jihadi terrorism exploiting the situation to spread its wings among Sri Lanka Muslim population. The Pakistani Jihadi group Lashkar-e-Tayyaba (LeT) had in the past used safe houses in Sri Lanka to train and infiltrate Muslims extremists into India. The LeT could use the existing strong sectarian divide between the largely peaceful Sufi Muslim population and the smaller fundamentalist Wahabi elements to further its interest.

A small Wahabi fringe group the Tawheed Jamaat (TJ), spouting anti-Buddhist sentiments, already exists in Sri Lanka. It has fraternal links with TJ in Tamil Nadu which enjoys considerable influence. Though the Tamil Nadu TJ claims to be against extremism, it is led by former members of the proscribed terrorist group Student Islamic Movement of India (SIMI). This link has the potential to whip up religious passions among Muslims  to condone if not support acts of Jihadi elements. 

Last month when Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi met President Rajapaksa, he had drawn his attention to the recent arrest a Sri Lankan Muslim in Chennai caught while spying for Pakistani intelligence which had been helping Pak terrorist groups. Pak agents who employed the suspect were operating from their High Commission in Colombo. Realising the danger to national security from Pak terrorists, Sri Lanka is expelling 1500 Pak asylum seekers living in Sri Lanka.

So Rajapaksa has to fine tune his political priorities in handling anti-Muslim activity lest he jeopardises Sri Lanka’s national interests.

Written on July 14, 2019

Courtesy: Gateway House Indian Council on Global Relations  July 15, 2014

URL: http://www.gatewayhouse.in/lankas-anti-muslim-violence/

Sri Lanka: Time to shake up Sri Lanka's "business as usual' with India

Col R Hariharan

[This article contains excerpts from a media interview given by the author on August 16, 2014.]

Time has come for Prime Minister Narendra Modi to take a relook at Sri Lanka affairs under the leadership of President Mahinda Rajapaksa. He has continued for too long to bash on regardless of his unkept promises to India on implementing the 13^th Constitutional Amendment in full. It was to be part of the resumption of the stalled political dialogue process with Tamil leaders which he promised to undertake.  

Modi’s elevation as Prime Minister initially caused some concern to Rajapaksa as the BJP electoral partners in Tamil Nadu were well known for their strong anti-Rajapa and decidedly pro-Tamil separatist stand. But seeing the dynamic new Indian prime minister’s keenness to build better relations with India’s neighbours, Rajapaksa seems to have decided that it would be business as usual for Sri Lanka while dealing with India.

Just one example will suffice to explain Rajapaksa’s intransigent attitude to the dialogue process with Tamil leaders. Recently, the President had a wonderful opportunity to build bridges with Tamil polity when the 5-year tenure of Northern Province Governor Chandrasiri ended. The Tamil National Alliance (TNA) which is in power in the Province had for long been demanding replacing Chandrasiri a former General, with an experienced and well respected civilian, for which there is no dearth in Sri Lanka. The TNA felt such a move would provide a better equation in dealing with Colombo as the population was recovering from post war trauma.  The President could have acceded to their request now without any loss of face for anyone (except probably the President’s brother Gotabaya who has a different view on the subject) by appointing a civilian as the governor for Northern Province. Such a gesture would have helped to create good will not only among Tamils but also among large sections of Sri Lanka civil society who feel President Rajapaksa has not done enough to bringing the Tamils back into national mainstream and put an end to ethnic confrontation. 

But the President chose to reappoint the outgoing Governor Chandrasiri for yet another term in the same job. It was a gesture in articulating the President’s power; the announcement came like a slap in the face of the Dr Wigneswaran, the TNA chief minister of the Province, because he had been demanding Chandrasiri’s replacement from day one in office. With it Rajapaksa has sent a clear signal to Tamils that there would be no rapprochement with them except on his terms.

This comes as no surprise if we see the evolution of Sri Lanka’s policy in the last five post war years. Its core contents appear to be

1.      Marginalise India’s role on behalf of the Tamil constituency; of course, on all other aspects Colombo welcomes India’s initiatives in trade, defence, and other matters, naturally on terms favourable to Sri Lanka.

2.     International NGOs should lay off Sri Lanka on issues like war crimes, human rights, governance, minority rights and rule of law. To be ‘fair’ to small countries they should go after big powers which seem to get away with much bigger crimes. Already Ministry of Defence which seems to have hand in the policy making pie, has already proposed restrictions on NGOs access to public media. Of course, the NGOs are welcome to associate with government-sponsored programmes to improve the well being of the people.

3.     International bodies like the UN Human Rights Commission (UNHRC) are manipulated by Western powers and the US. So Sri Lanka should not facilitate any role for them in its internal affairs (forget the UN conventions say because everyone flouts them). While Sri Lanka cannot stop their “meddling,” it can network with like-minded countries (eg., Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea etc) and make a lot of noise about the intrusive nature of UN commissions’ work because it echoes the view of many nations.

4.     The Tamil issue has been solved with the elimination of Prabhakaran and the Tamil Tigers. But Sri Lanka would attend to Tamil grievances, if any, on its own terms without any external intervention. And the 13^th constitutional amendment was created to satisfy India and at best it is a benevolent gesture to Tamils. Tamils should be happy with its present form of incomplete implementation. 

5.     The army has an important role to play in keeping the Northern and Eastern provinces “sanitized” to prevent any ‘resurrection’ of Tamil terrorism abetted by Tamil Diaspora and their pals in TNA and the remnants of  LTTE abroad (and in Tamil Nadu).  So regardless of what the government says, the army will continue to keep a watch on the activity of Tamils everywhere including the North and East. As it is in the interest of national security, army’s intrusive role, if any, has to be tolerated by civilians and condoned by the government. As a corollary the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) would continue to be in force.   

As far as India’s role on Tamils in Sri Lanka is concerned, in a nutshell, Rajapaksa is telling India “forget about full implementation of 13^th Amendment, or its Plus version I spoke about. It is for TNA to negotiate what it wants because basically it is our internal issue.”

Did Modi’s cordial meeting with Rajapaksa and the absence of any representative from his Tamil Nadu political partners in the cabinet influence Rajapaksa’s attitude?  It is time to shake up Colombo’s “business as usual” mindset at least a wee bit.

From this point of view I welcome the initiative taken by Civil Society Coalition for Justice and Peace delegation from Tamil Nadu which met with the Minister of External Affairs Mrs Sushma Swaraj to articulate the concerns of Tamils. The delegation led by the UPA coalition partner PMK’s leader Anbumani included civil society activist and former IAS officer MG Devasahyam, former Dharmapuri MP R Senthil and advocate R Balu. This is a welcome move because civil society has to be involved in articulating Tamil Nadu’s concerns on Sri Lanka Tamil issue, which has been used for too long by political parties only to score political brownie points. 

I do not agree with the delegation’s view that China, Pakistan, and Burma were ganging up with Sri Lanka against India because it is too simplistic. India’s Sri Lanka policy cannot be changed overnight because it is not exclusively Tamil-centric but includes other issues of national interest like trade, maritime and security concerns as well.

But I fully agree with them on two other points they made:

·       India should prevail upon Rajapaksa for a course correction in keeping with his promises to India on resuming the political process with the Tamil representatives.

·       Rajapaksa should be made to address concerns of India and international community on Sri Lanka’s accountability for alleged human rights violations and war crimes articulated in the UNHRC resolutions.

As a first step in this process, India can tell Sri Lanka that it would reconsider its stand on the UN resolution adopted last March when it comes for review in the next UNHRC meeting.

In March 2014 India had abstained from voting for the resolution because it considered operative paragraph 10 calling for sending an international investigation team to Sri Lanka as intrusive. But Sri Lanka should be an exception to this because Rajapaksa has not fulfilled his promises to India. And Rajapaksa will not realise it unless India takes a hard stand on this count.

Lastly, I agree with the delegation on the need for a special officer at the MEA to handle Sri Lanka.  I wrote on this issue in an article the Indian Foreign Affairs Journal April-June 2012 issue; “India-Sri Lanka relations need a more integrated political-diplomatic-strategic-trade strategy evolved by national leadership. The resources at the Ministry of External Affairs are totally inadequate to execute such a strategy, even if it is devised. Perhaps creating a special task force with its element in Chennai would be the answer. Then only India can show Sri Lanka South  that it is serious about strengthening its relationship as equal partner.” I stand by it.

[Col Hariharan is a retired MI officer who served as the head of intelligence of the Indian Peace Keeping Force in Sri Lanka from 1987 to 90. E-mail: colhari@yahoo.com Blogs: http://col.hariharan.info & http://hariharansintblog.blogspot.in ]

Courtesy: South Asia Analysis group Note No 721 dated 17 July 2014 URL http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/node/1567

Sri Lanka Perspectives – June 2014

Col R Hariharan

Highlights

Muslims losing faith in Rajapaksa:  The Buddhist fringe group Bodu Bala Sena (BBS) rally organised in Aluthgama near Colombo on June 12 to protest against alleged assault on a Buddhist monk and his driver by Muslim youth turned violent. A group of Sinhala youth inflamed by anti-Muslim speeches against Muslims marched towards a mosque in the area which was resisted by Muslims. In the melee thereafter, Muslim businesses, and properties were set on fire. The police at the location could not control the violence which spread to Beruwala another Muslim dominant area. While an inquiry commission has been constituted Rajapaksa government seems to have lost the confidence of Muslims as such attacks have continued since 2012.   

UNHRC probe panel: Mrs Navneetham Pillay, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, has constituted a 3-member expert panel consisting of Martti Ahthisaari, former President of Finland and Nobel Peace Prize winner, Ms Silvia Cartwright, former governor general and judge of New Zealand High Court and Ms Asma Jehangir, former present of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan. They will carry out an investigation into alleged gross human rights violations and war crimes in Sri Lanka between 2002 and 2009 as mandated by the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) in March 2014.  

Muslims losing faith in Rajapaksa

Sri Lanka Muslims, who form about 10 percent of Island’s 20-million population, appear to be losing faith in President Rajapaksa after his failure to prevent increasingly worsening anti-Muslim activities of Buddhist fringe groups. The latest Bodu Bala Sena (BBS) led anti-Muslim riot in Alutgama that quickly spread to Beruwala (close to Colombo) on June 15, 2014 only reinforced their suspicion.

Three people were killed and over 80 injured in the riots and nearly 200 houses and property of Muslims were set on fire and destroyed. Over 2000 people have been rendered homeless. The BBS had called for a rally in the Dharga Town in Alutgama, ostensibly to protest against an alleged attack by Muslim youths on a Buddhist monk and his driver in the area on the Buddhist holy day of Posan Poya. A section of those attending the rally inflamed by the virulent anti-Muslim speech of the BBS founder and Buddhist monk Galagoda Aththe Gnanasara marched towards a mosque in the locality. They damaged Muslim houses and shops on their way resulting in skirmishes with Muslims trying to prevent them.

There are clear indications that the police were reluctant to either prevent the rally or act effectively when riots broke out. When the BBS announced the protest rally, apprehending violence, Muslim leaders had requested the police not to permit it. But the police permitted the rally and nearly 900 policemen were deployed at the location.  When the trouble started police took five hours to take decisive action to curb it. Even after imposition of curfew, the riots spread to Beruwala area.  Government blacked out the news of the riot till it appeared in social media. Fifteen days after the riot the police spokesman said it was yet to be established that the BBS chief had made provocative remarks at the meeting in Aluthgama, even though CCTV coverage of the riots was available in public domain.

So it was not surprising police dragged their feet till the President called for decisive action. Although 55 people including Muslims were arrested, it took 15 days to arrest eight looters and recover some of the stolen property.  There are allegations of tampering of the post mortem reports of the three persons who were shot publicly to show knife wounds as the cause of death. A UNP MP who tried to evacuate the Muslims has said his car was attacked by Sinhala mob even as paramilitary elements and policemen watched. 

A day after the riot a Muslim owned apparel factory was destroyed. The owner estimated the losses at Rs 50 million. He said he was warned about the impending attack by a priest of the same area and later the same priest led a mob to stone the factory and set fire to it.  

President Rajapaksa has ordered a commission of inquiry to investigate the causes for the riot asked the people and called for strict action against those who tried to disrupt communal harmony. He has also approved Rs 200 million for the rebuilding of the property damaged from June 15 to 17. The Defence Secretary has put the army to immediately take up the reconstruction work. But there is little credibility in their actions as Gnanasara continues to spout venom against Muslim community and their socio-cultural and religious practices since 2012 with impunity. And both the President and his brother have harped on “foreign elements,” vested interests among opposition and NGOs being responsible to disrupt peace and harmony without addressing the fundamental causes.

However, international reaction to the attacks had been swift. The US has cancelled the five-year visa granted to the BBS chief Gnanasara. Muslim nations are watching with concern at the continuing acts of violence against Sri Lanka Muslims. There are comments about cutting down the recruitment of Sri Lankans in Gulf countries, which would deal a heavy blow to Sri Lanka economy which gets a sizeable amount by remittances from expatriates. So we can expect the scaling down of the acts of violence though fringe elements’ anti-Muslim propaganda is likely to continue.

UNHRC probe panel

The outgoing UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Mrs Navneetham Pillay, has announced has names of an unusually strong panel of  three members  to carry out an investigation into alleged gross human rights violations in Sri Lanka between 2002 and 2009 as mandated by the UN Human Rights Commission (UNHRC) in March 2014.

The members Martti Ahthisaari, former President of Finland and Nobel Peace Prize winner, Dame Silvia Cartwright, former governor general and judge of New Zealand High Court and Ms Asma Jehangir, former president of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan.

As UN Special Envoy Martti Ahtisaari organised negotiations to resolve Kosovo’s dispute with Serbia after it declared independence in 2008. He was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2008 “for his efforts on several continents and over more than three decades, to resolve international conflicts” including Nambia, Acheh (Indonesia) and Iraq.  South Africa awarded him the Oliver Tambo Prize for his “outstanding achievement as a diplomat and commitment to the cause of freedom in Africa and peace in the world.”

A mudslinging campaign has already started in Sri Lanka against individual members of the panel despite the high international reputation they enjoy for their work related to human rights. For instance, they have focused on the massive fraud that took place when Ahtisaari was the Under Secretary Administration at the UN Headquarters from 1987 to 91. They chose to ignore that three years later he was elected President of Finland because of his politically untarnished image and active participation in international affairs. 

Mrs Silvia Cartwright is known for her forthright and clear views on women and children issues and criminal justice systems. Her contrarian public stand on official policy  on a number of issues during her term as the Governor General caused strong reaction in New Zealand. She served a tenure as an international judge in the Trial Chamber of the Cambodia Tribunal inquiring into the Khmer Rouge genocide of nearly two million people by Khmer Rouge from 1975 to 79.

The third member Ms Asma Jahangir’s legal career as Supreme Court lawyer has been spent mostly defending cases on human and women rights, rights of religious minorities and children. She has been a strong critic of Pakistan’s blasphemy laws and discriminatory laws against women introduced under the Hudood Ordinance. Ms Jahangir is a founder of the Pakistan Human Rights Commission.

Her experience twice as the UN Special Rapporteur - first on Extrajudicial Executions from 1988 to 2004 and a second time on Freedom of Religion and Belief for six years from 2004 - make her eminently suited for the Sri Lanka investigation panel.  

Sri Lanka government has reiterated that it would not change in its decision not to cooperate with the UN panel’s investigation. President Rajapaksa gave the decision a democratic veneer by getting the parliament to pass a resolution on the same lines. The President is convening a meeting of the government parliamentary group to deliberate upon the proposed government action plan on handling the issue of UN investigative panel on alleged human rights abuses in Sri Lanka.  But it is going to be tough for Sri Lanka to ride through the international opposition it is likely to face at the forthcoming UNHRC session.    

 (Col R Hariharan, a retired Military Intelligence specialist on South Asia, served with the Indian Peace Keeping Force in Sri Lanka as Head of Intelligence. He is associated with the Chennai Centre for China Studies and the South Asia Analysis Group. E-Mail: colhari@yahoo.com   Blog: http://col.hariharan.info)  

Written on June 30, 2014

Courtesy: South Asia Security Trends, July 2014 www.security-risks.com