Sri Lanka perspectives: October 2015

Col R Hariharan

Dealing with war crimes and rights issues

Sri Lanka Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe tabled in parliament the UN Human Rights Investigation report as well as the reports of the Udalagama and the Paranagama commissions. The two commissions were appointed by former president Mahinda Rajapaksa.

The UN Human Rights Council resolution co-sponsored by Sri Lanka and adopted unanimously on October 1 calls for a domestic internal inquiry involving foreign expertise over the alleged human rights violations during the 26-year long war against the Tamil Tigers that ended in 2009.

The Udalagama Commission was mandated to investigate and inquire into 15 incidents of alleged serious violations of human rights since August 1, 2005.  The Commission has concluded the investigation into seven of the 15 incidents.  It found the LTTE had “exposed” the girls to the air strike at Sencholai camp, which was a legitimate military target. Fifty one school girls were killed in the air attack in August 2006.

With regard to the shooting down of  17 aid workers of a French NGO in Mutur in August 2006, the panel said it was possible that LTTE “perpetrated this crime to blame the armed forces.”  In respect of four other instances including the killing of 98 Navy personnel near Sigiriya in October 2006, the panel blamed the LTTE directly or indirectly.

The Paranagama commission  rejected the UN estimated figure of 40,000 as the number of people killed during the final phase of the conflict. However, it found the allegations of Sri Lankan army committing war crimes credible. It called for an independent judicial investigation into war crimes allegations. In an apparent reference to the “white flag killings” incident towards the end of the war, Paranagama has said an investigation team of the Commission would conduct an independent inquiry into the alleged extra-judicial executions of surrendered LTTE leaders.

Both President Maithripala Sirisena and the prime minister have made it clear the inquiry would be a domestic one, carried out within the parameters of the constitution. As the government sponsorship of the UN resolution has already drawn heavy criticism from the opposition, the government has the delicate task of putting together a mechanism acceptable to local and international audiences, while safeguarding the nation's sovereignty, judicial independence.

There was near consensus on a domestic mechanism at an all party meeting called for by the President Sirisena to evolve a broad political consensus. Tamil United Liberation Front (TULF) leader R Sampanthan asked the President to “build a process for Tamils to have confidence in the authority. Hold an impartial inquiry where the Tamils could place faith.The government would probably set up a local mechanism with judges, prosecutors and defence counsel chosen by it assisted by expert opinion and technical expertise from foreign experts.

Sri Lanka’s dismal economic situation

The Institute of Policy Studies(IPS) in its 2015 report on Sri Lanka State of the Economy on theme of "Economic Reforms in Sri Lanka: Political Economy and Institutional Challenges" has examined many interrelated reforms relating to economic policy areas - trade and investment, labour market, foreign employment, education, health, social protection, agriculture and the environment. Given the array of issues, the report argues for coherence and prioritization in the design of reforms on several fronts, so that they add up to a plausible overall economic strategy to achieve sustained high growth in the long-run.

Speaking on the occasion of the release of the report Sri Lanka’s deputy minister of state enterprise development Eran Wickramaratne acknowledged that the government was facing a lot of economic challenges left over by the Rajapaksa government. He said the country was facing deficit on two fronts: current account deficit as well as budgetary deficit. Sri Lanka’s export share of gross domestic product has shrunk to less than 15 percent and global market share for exports must be reversed.

These sentiments were echoed by the Central Bank Governor Arjuna Mahendran who said Sri Lanka’s tax system was regressive and needed to be boosted through fresh measures to reduce stress on State banks by loss making state owned enterprises. According to Palitha Ekanayake, former director-general at the Ministry of Rural Economy, the country’s foreign debt had grown from 36 percent of GDP in 2010 to about 65 percent; and it was likely to rise to 94 percent this year. Foreign reserves had fallen from US$ 9.1 billion in August last year to US$ 6.8 billion by the end of September this year. He added “debt instalment and interest obligations already exceed government revenue. That means we have to borrow to square existing loans.”

However, we can expect the government to face political challenges in executing difficult reform options. So inevitably, it is likely to temper economic reforms considering the political and social realities. This would mean a long haul for economic recovery of the country. 

Fishing in Sri Lanka waters

The apprehension of as many as 120 fishermen of Tamil Nadu  fishing in Sri Lankan waters during the month triggered the vexing issue in Tamil Nadu political circles. Sri Lankans had also impounded 40 fishing trawlers, seriously affecting employment opportunities for fishermen. Stung by strongcriticism of the state and central inaction on the issue by the DMK leader M Karunanidhi, a delegation of India’s AIADMK MPs met Indian External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj and sought a permanent solution to the problem. They also demanded the Centre’s immediate intervention for release of 86 Indian fishermen languishing in Lankan jails. Briefing reporters after the meeting, their leader Thambi Durai said the External Affairs Minister has assured them that the matter would be taken up with President Sirisena. The delegation also sought Rs 1520-crore special package for improving deep fishing facilities in Tamil Nadu.

Ironically on the day the delegation met the minister, 34 more Tamil Nadu fishermen were apprehended, underlining the urgency for finding a durable solution. However as Tamil Nadu would be going for assembly elections next year, political parties are unlikely to agree upon any consensus to resolve this issue for fear of a backlash.

Interestingly, on October 23 the Indian Coast Guard apprehended two Sri Lankan trawlers along with 29 Sri Lankan nationals off Chereapani reef in Lakshadweep waters for poaching of sea cucumber an endangered marine species. This underlined the problem also involves Sri Lankan fishermen fishing in Indian waters.

Written on October 31, 2015

[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 1987-90. 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]

Courtesy: South Asia Security Trends, October 20015, Volume 9 No 11                                 www.security-risks.com

World backs Sirisena, storms lurk in Lanka

Tamils And Sinhalese Unhappy With UNHRC Resolution; Army Apprehensive

Col R Hariharan

Sri Lanka agreed at the 30th session of the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) at Geneva last week to what it had resisted for six years: International intervention in investigating alleged war crimes and human rights excesses committed during the Eelam War.  But handing over the whole process to international judges and staff in a hybrid international court as suggested by the UN human rights chief Prince Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein would be politically suicidal for the Sri Lanka’s ruling duo – President Maithripala Sirisena and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe.

Their government used the international goodwill accrued from their actions to improve governance and accountability since coming to power, which was favourably referred to by the UN human rights chief in his report, to get the US draft resolution modified by bringing the international judicial involvement within Sri Lankan judicial jurisdiction and process. US secretary of state John Kerry expressed “US support for a credible domestic process for justice and reconciliation in Sri Lanka — one that is led and owned by the Sri Lankan people and is conducted in cooperation with the UN and with international support.”

Sirisena had the difficult task of repairing the damage done not only by the scathing UN’s official investigation on Sri Lanka (OISL) report presented at the UNHRC meeting but also the erosion of Sri Lanka’s credibility during President Rajapaksa’s regime. He had failed to convincingly respond to international concerns on Sri Lanka’s human rights aberrations and alleged war crimes repeatedly expressed in the UNHRC sessions since 2009. Instead Rajapaksa tried short-term stratagems like forming the Lessons Learnt and Reconstruction Commission (LLRC) and army commission to inquire into war crimes etc which bombed due to lack of credibility.

Not only that, Rajapaksa had also damaged Sri Lanka’s equation with influential nations like the US by calling the allegations an international conspiracy to tarnish his victory in the war against the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) terrorism. This triggered a strong response from the US and its allies that culminated in the UNHRC creating the OISL. Rajapaksa shot himself in the foot when he failed to gauge the international mood and did not cooperate with the OCHR in both letter and spirit.

The passing of the modified US draft resolution by consensus showed the UNHRC members would like to give Sri Lanka an opportunity to redeem itself under the new dispensation and if they lean on Sri Lanka too much it would be politically counter-productive. President Sirisena has the unviable task of completing the process envisioned by the UN body within a period of 18 months -- March 2018. Given the pulls and pressures of national and international politics and judicial interventions by Sirisena’s detractors to delay the implementation, it is doubtful whether Sri Lanka would be able to meet the deadline.

There are a few other bottlenecks.  Neither Sinhalese nor Tamils seem to be happy with the resolution in its present form. High expectations of Tamils after hearing the OISL recommendations for full international enquiry have been belied.  Even others, like Tamil National Alliance chief R Sampanthan who supported it because it addresses both the issues of accountability and reconciliation, have sounded skeptical about a credible domestic process coming through.

On their part, Sinhala nationalists and even some liberal sections consider the resolution as an affront to Sri Lankan sovereignty thrust upon them by the machinations of the US and other external powers. They feel the US had been selective in picking on smaller countries to task for human rights transgressions, while it carries its accumulated own baggage of such allegations of war crimes in its war on terror in Afghanistan, Iraq and now Syria. The stark reality was brought out a day after the UNHRC resolution was passed when the US acknowledged its fighter aircraft had by mistake struck a hospital in Afghanistan, killing patients and staff.    

The two-lakh Sri Lanka army has earned a pride of place in the nation by putting an end to Tamil separatist insurgency. Though Sirisena had discussed the issues with the top brass of the army and the police before the resolution was passed, the rank and file may not take kindly to their decorated heroes of war being hauled up for war crimes.

Lastly, there is Mahinda Rajapaksa, Sirisena’s bête noir, waiting in the wings to pull him down. Any slip-up by Sirisena would be costly. Yet, if the resolution is not implemented honestly, then it would leave all the stakeholders including India with a bad taste. 

(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 1987-90. He is associated with the Chennai Centre for China Studies and the South Asia Analysis Group)

Courtesy: Times of India, Chennai edition, October 6, 2015

Sri Lanka security perspectives: September 2015

Col R Hariharan                                                

Sirisena consolidates his power

President Maithripala Sirisena and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe consolidated their hold on power by luring some of the senior members of the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) to join the national unity government. This had dissipated the effectiveness of SLFP to function as the main opposition party. As a result, the speaker nominated the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) leader R Sampanthan as the opposition leader in a welcome gesture to the Tamil minority.

The President’s political exercise has created a jumbo cabinet with 47 members of cabinet rank (including the president and the prime minister), 19 state ministers and 23 deputy ministers. Thus out the 225 members of parliament, as many as 88 members are occupying ministerial chairs! Though the Sirisena regime has ensured its stability by accommodating various political and regional interests within the power structure, its adverse effects on the quality of governance remains an open question.

President Sirisena and Prime Minister Wickremesinghe and their loyalists are controlling the portfolios like defence, finance, home affairs, external affairs and policy planning. This would  enable them to continue with the reform agenda. However, the presence of some of the tainted SLFP members facing corruption allegations in ministerial appointments has clouded the sincerity of the government’s promise to get rid of corruption and take action against the corrupt.  

In yet another step to improve governance, the government announced the formation of the Constitutional Council (CC). This was in accordance with the 19^th Amendment of the Constitution which was adopted in the parliament to ensure transparency in appointing members for nine independent commissions (i.e., electoral commission, bribery commission etc). However, the first meeting of the 10-member CC on Septemebr 10, 2015 was attended only by six of the seven members of parliament (including the speaker, the prime minister, leader of the opposition and three ministers). The other four members expected to join the CC shortly include the nominee of the opposition Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) and three civil society nominees – Dr AT Ariyaratne, former UN Under-Secretary General Ms Radhika Coomaraswamy and President’s Counsel Shibly Aziz.

Sri Lanka PM’s visit to New Delhi

Prime Minister Wickremesinghe after assuming office made his maiden visit to New Delhi from September 14 to 16. During the visit he met with his counterpart Narendra Modi, external affairs minister Ms Sushma Swaraj, President Pranab Muhkerjee and minister for road transport, highways and shipping Nitin Gadkari.

The two prime ministers are believed to have discussed issues related to bilateral trade and defence cooperation. Addressing a joint press conference after their talks, Modi described it as a historic year for India-Sri Lanka relations because “Sri Lanka has voted twice this year for change, reforms, reconciliation and progress.” He assured India’s full support to Sri Lanka’s new government. Modi added “we recognize our closely aligned security interests and the need to remain sensitive to each other’s concerns. We both reaffirmed our commitment to deepen our defence cooperation.” Wickremesinghe reciprocating the sentiments said the two countries had to improve trade and increase security forces cooperation in the Indian Ocean. 

Though they made no specific reference to Tamil minority issues or to the forthcoming UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC), probably both issues figured in their talks. Sri Lanka media went on overdrive after Indian minister Gadkari spoke of discussing a proposal to construct a land-tunnel link between India and Sri Lanka with the Sri Lankan prime minister; however, Colombo denied holding any talks with India on this issue.   

Sri Lanka resolution at the UNHRC

The UN Human Rights Commissioner Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein presented the report of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OCHR) on the follow up action on the UNHRC resolution Sri Lanka’s 2012 at the Council meeting. The OCHR report was based on the “principal findings of the OCHR investigations on Sri Lanka (OISL)” which were included in the report.

The report was a scathing indictment of the conduct of both the Sri Lanka government and the LTTE during the years preceding, during and after the Eelam War resulting in gross violations of human rights, killing of innocent civilians and prisoners, enforced disappearances and alleged war crimes by Sri Lanka army and the Tamil Tigers. However, the report recognised the cooperative attitude of the Sri Lanka government to the UN efforts and the series of actions it had taken to improve governance overcoming the aberrations of the past. Pointing out the failure of the Rajapaksa government to conduct an impartial investigation into the allegations, Prince Zeid recommended the setting up of an international hybrid mechanism to investigate the allegations and monitor further action. Both foreign and local judges would participate in the hybrid court.

In Sri Lanka, the proposed hybrid mechanism drew a lot of flak on the constitutional impropriety in having foreign judges presiding over domestic courts as well as on the issue of violation of Sri Lankan sovereignty. Not surprisingly, former president Rajapaksa came out strongly against the revised draft.

Sri Lanka would prefer to have a purely domestic process due to political sensitivities in international involvement in such a process. It would also pave way for former president Mahinda Rajapaksa to whip up nationalist sentiments and use them as a ploy to come back to power. However, the Sirisena government knows it has to agree to an internationally acceptable inquiry as Sri Lanka’s credibility both at home and abroad on this issue has been eroded. So its stand had been to agree for holding an internationally acceptable domestic inquiry and not any international inquiry.    

After hectic diplomatic parleys, in a bid to evolve a consensus last week the US presented a fresh draft resolution co-sponsored by Sri Lanka. The revised US draft tones down the exact nature of foreign participation while retaining it in a domestic mechanism, though it recognizes the serious nature of the allegations as well as the failure of Sri Lanka to act upon them as required by earlier UNHRC resolutions.

The TNA chief and opposition leader Sampanthan, acting with pragmatism rather than playing for the gallery, has welcomed the draft. In an interview to The Hindu he said the draft addressed the main issues of accountability and reconciliation. The involvement of Commonwealth and other foreign judges, defence counsel, prosecutors and investigators would give the judicial process much greater credibility, he added. Tamil Diaspora has been divided over the US resolution. Though some of the diehard erstwhile supporters of the LTTE have criticised it, many agree with Sampanthan that this was the best possible resolution that could have been achieved. And only a consensus resolution could make its honest implementation possible.

Not unexpectedly, Tamil Nadu political parties have demanded a purely international investigation to do justice to Sri Lankan Tamils. However, Indian external affairs ministry spokesman Vikas Swarup has made clear that India would support the revised US draft. This was expected as India had always been on principle opposed to the role of foreign judges in internal conflicts.

The spokesman commenting on the issue  after Prime Minister Narendra Modi and President Sirisena met on the sidelines of the UN general assembly meeting in New York, said “Our position is very clear. We stand for justice and at the same time we are respectful of the Sri Lankan sovereignty issues to the extent the Sri Lankan government is comfortable with the formulation that marries the two.”

Written on September 30, 2015

 [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 1987-90. 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]

Courtesy: South Asia Security Trends, October 20015, Volume 9 No 10               www.security-risks.com 

TV interactions on Sri Lanka and India ties and UN war crimes report

Col R Hariharan

Recently I took part in  TV interactions in two different Tamil news channels relating to Sri Lanka and India's interests in the island nation. If you are interested you may access the Tamil programmes at the following You Tube links:

1. 16 August 2015 on NEWS7 TV Zero Hour: One to one interview on India-Sri Lanka ties to combat terrorism. http://youtu.be/wWLNhvH1ibs 

2. 18 August 2015 on PUTHIYA THALAIMURAI TV:  Discussion on "India's take on Sri Lankan war crimes after UN report" https://youtu.be/_5cgyUrQoug

Comments on Sri Lanka-India PMs’ talks

COLONEL R HARIHARAN

[This article is based on the notes used in a TV panel discussion on the talks between the visiting Sri Lanka Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe and Prime Minister Narendra Modi on September 15, 2015. It touches upon three issues that figured in their statements at a press meet on the same day.]

Question: It is rather strange that when Sri Lanka government has not reduced the military presence in the Northern Province as demanded by Tamils for a long time, Prime Minister Modi has spoken of expanding defence cooperation with Sri Lanka. He said India would expand cooperation with Sri Lanka in three areas: training of Sri Lanka armed forces, security of the maritime neighbourhood and in combating terrorism. The reference to ‘combating terrorism’ does not make sense because Sri Lanka has claimed the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam(LTTE) has been wiped out.  What are your comments?

Answer: The two prime ministers have not touched upon the issue of reducing the army strength in Northern Province in their statements, probably because it was not discussed. In any case, this issue has been debated many times in this forum. So I don’t see the point in linking it up with defence cooperation between the two nations. I shall confine my comments to three aspects: extending our military training facilities to Sri Lanka, maritime security cooperation and combating terrorism.

Extending our military training facilities

Indian armed forces are the biggest in the region next only to China with extensive military training infrastructure and years of experience in training armed forces.  India had thrown open these training facilities for Sri Lanka’s use for nearly four decades. And Sri Lanka is not the only country to avail of our military training infrastructure facilities for their forces. Over 32 countries, particularly in our neighbourhood, and some African and Arab countries have been training in our facilities. So we have not made an exception in the case of Sri Lanka, though probably it had benefitted the most.

So Modi’s reference to further expanding existing levels of cooperation in this field between India and Sri Lanka has to be understood in this broader strategic context and not solely on the basis of Sri Lanka Tamil issue.

As the two countries are geographically too close to each other, it will be in their national interest to optimize their military capabilities to ensure their security is mutually reinforcing. Moreover, Sri Lanka is the vanguard of peninsular India’s defence because any threat to it will adversely affect India’s own national security.  Military training is perhaps the best method of achieving greater understanding, close coordination and cooperation between the armed forces of the two countries. 

Maritime security cooperation

Sometime back, India entered into maritime security cooperation agreement with Sri Lanka and Maldives. Under the agreement, Indian Navy, the largest force of its kind in the Indian Ocean region(IOR), has been protecting their interests in their huge extended economic zones(EEZ) in Indian Ocean from external exploitation.  It is strategically important for all the three countries to sustain such cooperation to protect not only the natural resources undersea in the EEZ but also from external naval threat.  

This becomes important as the Indian Ocean sea lanes are increasingly becoming strategic life line of global maritime trade and commerce and naval power assertion by its major users to protect their interests. India’s maritime trade is increasing in tandem with its expanding economic power and it has benefitted both Sri Lanka and Maldives. For Indian container based traffic Colombo is perhaps the most important port of call.

The strategic scene in Indian Ocean region is changing rapidly. Chinese naval presence is increasing in our vicinity in the Indian Ocean; it is helping Pakistan Navy to increase its naval capability. Indian Navy is also in an expansion spree. So the IOR is becoming the focus of maritime security concern not only to regional powers, but also to the US and its allies who are increasingly concerned at the PLA Navy’s increasing presence.

China has created port infrastructure in Colombo and Hambantota Sri Lanka in and in Gwadar in Pakistan. And Chinese warships have berthed in these ports causing uneasiness among India’s strategic planners. Sri Lanka and Maldives have also entered into strategic security cooperation agreements with China. So it makes sense for India to ensure existing maritime security arrangements with Sri Lanka and Maldives are further reinforced and strengthened. This would explain why we have been training the naval and coast guard forces of Sri Lanka and Maldives to improve their capacities and capabilities.

Cooperation in combating terrorism

It is true that the LTTE has been wiped out in Sri Lanka at the end of the Eelam War in May 2009. However, the Tamil Tigers overseas modules particularly in Europe, Canada and UK have continued to exist with a low public profile. Though they are lying low at an opportune moment the possibility of they becoming active to revive  separatist insurgency cannot be ruled out. A few LTTE modules have also been busted in Tamil Nadu from where they could have easily infiltrated Sri Lanka. These reports  have made Sri Lanka wary of the Tamil Tiger terrorism sprouting once again in Sri Lanka. India is also aware of the dangers of LTTE (where it is proscribed) terrorists staging a comeback. So the two countries (including Tamil Nadu) have been exchanging vital information on suspected Tamil insurgent group’s activities.

There is yet another angle to terrorist threat. In the recent past, there had been instances of Jihadi terrorists from Pakistan infiltrating into India using Colombo as a transit point. In these instances involvement of Pakistan ISI operating from the Pakistan High Commission in Colombo had come to India’s notice. There is also the lingering threat of the Islamic State (ISIS) terrorists making an entry into India using Sri Lanka as the take off point. Thus Sri Lanka’s cooperation has become essential for India to ensure such attempts are not made by.  So we have to under the Indian Prime Minister’s reference to cooperation in prevent Pakistan intelligence agencies and Jihadi terrorist elements using Sri Lanka to the detriment of our national security. Modi’s reference to combating terrorism has to be understood in this broader context rather than solely on the possible revival of LTTE.

[Col R Hariharan, a retired MI specialist on South Asia, served as the head of intelligence with the Indian Peace Keeping Force from 1987 to 90. E-mail: haridirect@gmail.com Blog; http://col.hariharan.info ]

Only India can pull Sri Lanka out of trouble

There is a lot of convergence in the outlook of the leaderships of the two countries than before

COLONEL R HARIHARAN   @colhari2 |pOLITICS |7-minute read |14-09-2015      

 

Sri Lanka Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe is neither a stranger to the inner circle of New Delhi politics nor an unfamiliar personality in the North Block. However, during the last one year his profile has undergone a welcome makeover. This seasoned political leader, known more for his failures than successes in his repeated forays for power, pulled a political coup of sorts. With the help of current Sri Lankan president Maithripala Sirisena,  another political veteran though from the opposition, Wickremesinghe thwarted former president Mahinda Rajapaksa's bid for power twice!

The duo defeated Rajapaksa's bid for a third term as president in January, and seven months later, they outsmarted Rajapaksa’s attempt to come back to power using his loyalists in the seemingly more powerful coalition – the United Peoples Freedom Alliance (UPFA), in the recently held general election.

As a result Prime Mininister Wickremesinghe now enjoys power with a public endorsement of his political agenda twice within a year. Despite political obstacles the Wickremesinghe-Sirisena duo had made some progress in living up to the expectations of the public.  Their promises include increasing the accountability  of the executive president  to the parliament, empowerment of the prime minister and cleaning up the administration of corruption and cronyism. Their work done so far, though still not completed, has restored Sri Lanka’s credibility which was eroded both at home and abroad by former president Rajapaksa’s autocratic style of governance.

Wickremesinghe is heading a national alliance government - the first since 1977 - in which the ruling United National Party (UNP) and the main opposition the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) have come together. This has increased the chances of promoting a national agenda to focus on development in an environment of unity, peace and harmony. Former president Rajapaksa, failed to do just that despite his singular success in getting rid of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) once and for all. He frittered away five years of peace that followed the military victory in May 2009 by focusing on strengthening his support base. As a result the socio-political environment was vitiated by acrimony, distrust, religious and ethnic polemics and strife.

This has increased the chances of the present government making further progress in its reform agenda despite the widespread cynicism in the political milieu. But Wickremesinghe would be more confident than ever before when he visits New Delhi today for the first time after becoming prime minister.

There is a lot of convergence in the outlook of the leaderships in India and Sri Lanka than before. Wickremesinghe’s agenda to correct Sri Lanka’s tilt towards China after Rajapaksa had succumbed to its "fatal" charm in the areas of strategic security and trade was one such area. So it was not surprising to find the Ranil- Maithripala duo welcomed Prime Minister Modi's renewed efforts to build a broadened and enduring relationship with Sri Lanka when he visited the island nation some months back. They reciprocated his desire to get rid of other kinks in the relations between the two countries that had appeared during the earlier regime. This makes the Sri Lankan leader’s New Delhi visit a special one as Sri Lanka government probably enjoys greater credibility in the corridors of North Block than Rajapaksa.

Both Wickremesinghe and Sirisena have also shown their readiness to act upon the concerns of both India and the West including the US, which were dealt with superficially during ten years of Rajapaksa rule. These issues are sure to be included in Modi-Wickremesinghe talks even if they are not aired in public owing to sensitivity over some of them in both countries.

Both India and the West were irritated by Rajapaksa’s ploy to twist their concerns over his government's dismal human rights record during and after the ethnic conflict to whip up Sinhala nationalism and encourage xenophobia for his political advantage. Similarly, he distorted their insistence on resuming the political dialogue process with Tamil polity to resolve their long standing demand for equity with Sinhala majority as encouragement to Tamil separatism.

This had created problems for India as its negative fallout in Tamil Nadu politics adversely affected the fortunes of successive governments in New Delhi. This had cramped India’s efforts to meaningfully contribute to build a win-win relationship with Sri Lanka. This weakness was exploited by China to enter Sri Lanka in a big way.

Though the coalition era has ended in New Delhi, ethnic amity in Sri Lanka will continue to influence India’s policy not only due to its impact on Tamil Nadu politics, but also in the interest of national security. India and Sri Lanka are geographically too close to each other, making their national security interests complimentary than contentious. This makes it necessary for them to build a relationship that can be mutually reinforced, notwithstanding their unequal sizes and strengths.

The political dispensation for Sri Lanka Tamils will continue to remain one of the lynchpins for the progress of India-Sri Lanka relations. The Wickremesinghe government had tried to break the impasse in resuming the dialogue process with Tamils within the ambit of 13^th Amendment (13A) to the Constitution which is supported by India. However, it will be politically difficult for the Sri Lanka government to grant land and police powers envisaged in the 13A to the provincial councils. We can expect this issue to come up when Modi and Wickremesinghe meet, though it is a moot point whether it would go beyond making cordial statements.

For both India and the West, Rajapaksa reneging on his promises to them attend their concerns went beyond matters of Sri Lanka’s internal politics; it became a challenge to their strategic power assertion particularly after he got cozy with China and provided a welcome strategic foothold for the Dragon in Sri Lanka in India’s close proximity and midway in the Indian Ocean sea lanes through which bulk of global maritime trade is conducted. This assumes special significance in the light of China increasing assertion of is naval power in Asia- Pacific region, particularly in the Indian Ocean.

From the Sri Lankan perspective, there are some issues where it needs India’s help and understanding. The UN Human Rights Council Rights Council (UNHRC) discussion on Sri Lanka’s follow up actions taken on the US-sponsored resolution passed three years back would come up on Friday, after the report of the UN Human Rights Commissioner is presented. Though the US is likely to modify its insistence on a UN sponsored international inquiry by accepting a domestic inquiry with the assistance of the UNHRC, Sri Lanka needs Indian support to broaden its support base. Though the US move has met with some political criticism in Tamil Nadu and agitation by fringe elements, egged on by the Sri Lanka Diaspora, India had always supported domestic inquiries in preference to international ones. In view of this the compromise solution suggested by the US would probably be supported by India. 

The second issue is Indo-Sri Lanka trade. During his Colombo visit, Prime Minister Modi had revived the idea of a Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA) between India and Sri Lanka. India had mooted the idea and it almost came through in 2008. However, in the face of protest from local business, the Rajapaksa government developed cold feet and gave it up. Sri Lanka is facing exceptional economic crunch and problems of debt servicing for the servicing the loans it had incurred. Even the IMF had been lukewarm to the idea of lending more to Sri Lanka to service Chinese loans.

So Sri Lanka urgently needs to hold India’s hand to see it through its crisis. However, it will be difficult for Sri Lanka government to openly support CEPA as it is probably a no-go area in Sri Lanka politics. However, it appears Sri Lanka would not be averse to work out an economic arrangement similar to CEPA though it may be called by a different name. This was indicated in a report in Sunday Times, Colombo which quoted Sri Lanka Deputy Foreign Minister Harsha de Silva  as saying that CEPA issues were likely to be among other important issues during the bilateral talks between the two leaders. He added, “We must push for such agreements with countries like India. However, we must not blindly enter into such agreements. We must study in detail our own experiences and that of other similar countries to negotiate the best deal for us. Any bilateral or multilateral trade agreement that benefits Sri Lanka must be pursued.” 

Why we must not celebrate OROP victory just yet

If Modi wants to make a difference in the lives of veterans, he must constitute a permanent veterans’ commission to proactively advise him.

COLONEL R HARIHARAN @colhari2| POLITICS | 7-minute read |06-09-2015        

Whether the armed forces and the people of India recognise it or not, it was the 83-day long relay hunger strike by veterans that forced the government to accede to their legitimate demand for the “one rank one pension” (OROP). The veterans resorted to Jantar Mantar agitation and the hunger strike that came after years of petitioning, parliamentary resolutions and Supreme Court judgement failed to move the government that seemed to have done the trick. The home truth that taking to the street in agitation mode gets results than all other democratic methods is a bitter lesson unlikely to be forgotten by both serving and retired military men, though these are so alien to good order and discipline ingrained in their lives.

Thus the veterans’ agitation, rather than the grant of OROP, is a watershed event that will continue to haunt civil-military relations in the country. None of the stakeholders would be happy about it. But it is a logical sequence to six decades of neglect of armed forces and their problems by the nation. The sooner the government and the people recognize it, the better it is for the country lest it becomes an irreversible trend.

So the Modi government should take corrective action to halt it, rather than congratulate itself for bringing the OROP issue hopefully to a closure. Of course, veterans are thankful to Prime Minister Narendra Modi for upholding his promise to implement the OROP though it was done 15 months after assuming office. But they will have to thank not only Modi and the Defence Minister Parikkar, but also the RSS that seemed to have given the final push to Modi to end the folly of allowing the veterans to agitate too long. Needless to say, in the veterans' eyes RSS has probably gained greater credibility than the BJP they voted for.

The Modi government’s decision has only a revived a system of defence pension that Ms Indira Gandhi’s government had abolished unilaterally in 1973. So the government has now redressed an injustice done to the veterans 42 years ago, rather than dishing out goodies to keep the soldiers in good humour as some of the bureaucrats and media scribes seem to think. And it is not enough.

It is time for the Prime Minister and the BJP to do some serious soul searching on how things came to this sad pass. Though the Prime Minister swore to implement it before the tiranga on Independence Day, it brought little comfort to the agitating veterans because it came only after a few aged veterans went on a fast unto death after over 70 days of agitation. Not only that; they had boycotted the golden jubilee of 1965 war in which they had given their blood, sweat and limbs. Finally, they had to go through a humiliating process of haggling with bureaucrats and middlemen for rectifying an injustice done to them.

All along the agitation, they had one request only: to be allowed to meet the Prime Minister to put across their case in a face to face meeting. However, he chose to ignore the request till the end. In hindsight, if he had done so on August 14, probably he could have defused the unpleasantness of allowing the situation to reach criticality in the later days. So the government was pushed to take the decision to accept the veterans demand as time was running out with the nearing of zero hour for announcement of Bihar state election, even as some of the aged veterans on a fast unto death started sinking in the hospital.

Perhaps this is the reason why the OROP announced by the defence minister is good in parts, like the curate’s egg. It has left enough inbuilt glitches to keep the issue alive, while dividing the ranks of veterans. Probably only the Finance Minister, who sneered at the whole OROP proposal of “annual increment” to pension (as he misinterpreted the concept), and the babudom he presides over, had the last laugh at the confusion that seems to be dogging the announcement. This has left the leaders of the veterans in a dilemma and uncertainty. It is not certain that veterans will say “we will be back” like General Douglas Macarthur did when he retreated from Philippines during the World War II. 

That would be a tragedy because veterans are respected members of the armed forces biradri where the collective wisdom prevails more than the individual. The jawan of today is better informed on political happenings than the officers of our times. And he is going to be the veteran tomorrow. So the process of repairing civil-military interface should start now. If the government and political parties choose to ignore the writing on the wall, it could cause more unpleasantness in the years to come.

Though I would very much like to be more positive, I do not see the light at the end of the tunnel. The tunnel will need be cleared of the debris of years of neglect, though the revival of OROP gives a thin ray of hope seeping through the muck.

The problem is not with the system but the leaders who are supposed to drive it. National security does not occupy the space it deserves in the scheme of things in the country, regardless of the endless spiel everyone dishes out about armed forces’ sacrifices. Already a few committees have gone into the problem and their recommendations are collecting dust in the archives of MoD. Hopefully the defence minister Parikkar, who appears to be more result oriented than his predecessors, implements the recommendations on the key issues soon.

But veteran’s issues are a different ball game. They have been treated like the aged, physically challenged, visually impaired and transgender whose voices do not excite the government. Veterans need an interface to talk to the government. The MoD has proved it will not be able to do this; probably there is already enough on its plate in dealing with serving soldiers. And its department of ex-servicemen’s welfare has singularly failed to deliver value to veterans.

If Narendra Modi wants to make a difference to the lives of veterans, he should immediately constitute a permanent veterans commission to proactively advise him, not merely on veterans issues, but on putting to use the trained and disciplined manpower of veterans for nation building.

After going through their ordeal, veterans have probably learnt how to deal with the two upper castes that run the country: the politician in power and the bureaucracy. Veteran’s had to compete for media space for their struggle with the media tycoon and socialite Indrani Mukherjea with her good looks and dark deeds of murdering her daughter. Despite lurid tales of Ms Mukherjea and her shenanigans, some of the diehard votaries of OROP, including a 92-year old Major, rewrote the script by going on a fast unto death that was lapped up by the sensation-hungry visual media.

The long struggle also exposed the limitations of veterans joining political parties. After all, both General VK Singh who mustered veterans support for Modi and Col Rathore had joined the BJP and became part of the government. Did they make a difference? At least not to the agitating  veterans; if they had helped their cause in the backroom, god bless them.

The Congress party’s disastrous response to the veterans’ struggle and the government announcement reminded me of the Charge of the Light Brigade. They could have gracefully apologized for sitting on the demand for a decade and welcomed the government announcement though it had was somewhat flawed. But Rahul Baba at helm these days believes in surprise strikes it seems. He suddenly noticed the OROP agitation gathering momentum at Jantar Mantar and tried to muscle in to gain some media mileage. However, when veterans shooed off his attempt, he wisely reverted back  to the ‘other earthshaking national event’ - the FTII strike - to unearth the RSS “conspiracy” against national institutions.

Apparently, Rahul has continued to strategize the Congress response to the OROP announcement also. Otherwise, it is difficult to understand why the second most inarticulate (or is it incomprehensible?) leader of the Congress Party - AK Antony – was chosen to comment upon it. Antony had not covered himself with glory during his long tenure as defence minister. So it was not surprising to see him haltingly pronounce that the government had cheated the veterans by offering a diluted version of OROP than what the Congress had agreed upon. He conveniently forgot that he sat upon the proposal for nine long years as defence minister.  

And BJP must be praying that Rahul Baba should continue to lead the Congress from the front, so that it can bask in the reflected glory.

Courtesy: India Today Opinion portal DailyO  http://www.dailyo.in/politics/one-rank-one-pension-veterans-modi-bjp-demands/story/1/6094.html

Interview on OROP: 'Even if the PM grants OROP, the trust is fractured'

'Even if the PM grants OROP, the trust is fractured'

Modi has entered blunderland as he does not understand the army. He has actually meddled with the army, which is much more damaging than the ignorance of Sonia Gandhi and Manmohan Singh.'

'People had an impression that the BJP was different. Now it has been made very, very, plain that it is not.'

'Look at the contrast in the behaviour of the prime minister. When they burnt buses in Gujarat for an unjust demand, the prime minister addressed them in Gujarati while the army veterans were on relay hunger strike for the 74th day on that day, but no word on this from the PM.'

Colonel R Hariharan (retd) joined the Indian Army in 1962 when it was fighting a war with China and served the country for 29 years.

Today, he is recognised as a specialist on South Asia military intelligence, having served as the head of intelligence for the Indian Peace Keeping Force in Sri Lanka between 1987 and 1990.

The 79-year-old soldier, below, left, says had he been younger, he would have been in New Delhi with the other ex-servicemen who are fighting the toughest battle in their lives, to force the government to implement the One Rank One Pension scheme.

He spoke to Shobha Warrier/Rediff.com, about OROP and the implications the struggle by the veterans can have on the army and the country.

When previous governments sat on OROP, Narendra Modi during his election campaign and later at many platforms promised to implement it without any delay. What is preventing the government from doing so? What is the technical problem they are talking about?

As an analyst, I will say Modi has got some grey areas. You take the land bill and the goods and services tax bill. He had made very firm commitments. Similarly, he made a commitment on OROP also.

He makes political obligations without analysing the financial implications. He thinks everything can be sorted by inter-state politics or intra-party politics, but that might work at the state government level. That is why he has blundered.

You call it a blunder?

Yes. He has entered blunderland as he does not understand the army. He has actually meddled with the army, which is much more damaging than all the ignorance of Sonia Gandhi and Manmohan Singh, and the indifference of A K Antony to the real issues of the army.

OROP is not about successive governments making promises. There was a Parliament resolution and two Supreme Court judgments. And it was Indira Gandhi who promised OROP in 1973.

She 'rewarded' the army for winning the 1971 war by reducing their pension. The pension that was 70 per cent of the last pay was reduced to 50 per cent of the last pay while the civilian pension was increased from 30 per cent to 50 per cent.

Why did the army remain silent then?

Exactly. I find fault with all the chiefs since then. They did not put their feet down. That was because we didn't have a (Field Marshal S H F J 'Sam') Manekshaw anymore. Very few successive chiefs have shown the courage or conviction to challenge this. I know this as I was serving the army then.

I don't blame the bureaucrats; I only find fault with the chiefs.

In India, it is a very funny situation. The army is accountable for national security, but bureaucrats are in charge of security. The defence secretary is in charge of national security whereas the army has to deliver.

So responsibility is with somebody and accountability is with somebody else.

The previous defence minister (A K Antony) was grossly incompetent. He did not want to take up any controversial issues. His sole aim was to have a lily-white reputation though the maximum corruption was in the same regime.

So I have no hesitation in saying, politically, national security has never been on the agenda of any of the national parties except as a club to beat other political parties.

People had an impression that the Bharatiya Janata Party was different. Now it has been made very, very, plain that it is not.

The BJP had the support of all the army veterans, all the ex-servicemen....

That was because Modi made the promise that he would implement OROP. (Former army chief) General V K Singh joined the BJP along with Colonel Rajwardhan Singh Rathore because of this. They were able to muster the support of the veteran community mainly in Punjab, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan.

It played well for the BJP and they knew that the army veterans were not going to negotiate. They have no trade union; in fact, it is forbidden for the army men to form a union. They are not going to form a union after serving the army for 30, 35 years.

Look at the contrast in the behaviour of the prime minister. When they burnt buses in Gujarat for an unjust demand, the prime minister addressed them in Gujarati while the army veterans were on relay hunger strike for the 74th day on that day, but no word on this from the PM.

That is why Major General Satbir Singh, who is leading the agitation from the front, asked, 'Why didn't he (the prime minister) come and explain to us the problems he faces, on August 14?'

Do you feel he is ignoring the ex-servicemen?

Many times they were promised that he would give them an interview, but nothing of that sort has happened so far. He has become even rarer than Manmohan Singh. I feel he is insecure in discussing the issue because he doesn't understand it. All the negotiations were done by the bureaucrats.

The defence minister had been sympathetic and the ministry had worked out a package in consultation with the financial advisor. That was in February. They are talking about technicalities now.

What do you think are the technical difficulties that they are raising now?

The simple technicality is that they do not want to accept the simple definition of OROP that has been accepted by Parliament. They want to change it.

The finance minister has discovered suddenly that the railways and the paramilitary forces also can raise similar demands. This is absolute nonsense because they don't retire like us; they retire after full service.

Army men retire early as they want to keep the army young. It is the case not only in India, but the world over.

That is why in the West, the pension has been fixed between 70 to 73 per cent of the last pay.

The pay commission blundered as the army was never represented properly. We don't directly go to them; it goes through the ministry of defence. It has come to a stage, the army is unable to control its own weapons

Now, even if the PM grants the whole thing, I am sorry to say the trust is fractured.

You take the case of my family, there are many officers in my family. In Vellore in Tamil Nadu itself, there are 60,000 ex-servicemen. You can imagine how it will be in a state like Punjab.

Do you think this will have an impact on the serving army too?

That is why the former chiefs met the defence minister and told him that this will affect the army and they will not trust any civil administration or any pay commission. They will have a problem with every pay commission.

Will it affect morale in the army?

It will not affect the morale of the army because the soldier is fighting for his life. But every army man will think twice, 'If I die, what will happen to my family? Will my wife get proper pension?' That is what will happen and this will have an impact.

Hereafter, nobody will believe any promises. The Congress had failed and now, the BJP also has failed.

Take the case of Tamil Nadu where there are so many ex-servicemen. I am very disappointed that the Tamil Nadu government wants to take up the case of Sri Lankans, but not our own ex-servicemen.

This shows the lopsided attitude of the political parties. They are going to pay a heavy price for this.

Even now, there is a huge shortage of men in the defence services. Will this dissuade young men from joining the services?

This will have a huge impact. The army had made many suggestions and they were all rejected. It had said that the army men were retiring early and they should be absorbed in paramilitary. This was rejected by the home ministry saying there would be seniority problems.

I don't know why they can't have a separate battalion with a separate cadre with ex-servicemen to carry out the job the CRPF (Central Reserve Police Force) is doing.

I can imagine, tomorrow if there is a war, the Intelligence Bureau will be spying on the army!

That is why I say Modi has blundered.

Do you think Modi is unaware of the consequences or he is simply playing politics?

I don't blame him as Modi has got different pulls within the party. He has to establish himself in the party. His party has stalwarts who will not be happy with his success. Because of the pressure, he is in a hurry to show results.

See, he has promised Rs 125,000 crore (Rs 1.25 trillion) for Bihar. Non-Performing Assets of Rs 56,000 crore (Rs 560 billion) are written off. You can find money for these things, but not for the army.

When I see the selective approach, I cannot but draw the conclusion that they very well know the veterans will never stop buses and burn them.

Is it not a sad state of affairs that those who guard the country have to resort to a fast unto death to make the powers that be, to listen to them?

Does anybody care?

My point is, the army itself did not recognise it as a major issue. The army has been following whatever the defence secretary was saying.

In 2013, General V K Singh (then the army chief) pointed out the deficiencies in the army in a letter to the prime minister after he had put it across to the defence minister. It was not done secretly.

Somebody leaked the letter and blamed it on V K Singh. And all the Opposition parties joined with the Congress and flogged him. And nobody talked about the deficiencies. Till date, nobody has asked what happened to those deficiencies.

Have you ever seen anyone discuss any defence matter in Parliament? Our country never had any strategic security culture.

Had Parliament functioned, would they have discussed OROP? Had Rahul Gandhi instead of making a noise, allowed Parliament to function and raised this issue, I would have had some respect for him. I have no respect for any politician.

Sorry if I sound cynical. India will soon realise that it cannot have a cynical army.

I resigned my job and joined the army in 1962 to fight for the country. Today, who is joining the army? Those who cannot get a government job because you have to pay bribes to get the job. And we have to motivate these guys. Still, they function in a disciplined way.

Why is it that only the army premises are clean when the rest of the country is dirty?

The situation is such that there is no support system for the jawans today. If a widow has to fight 12 years to get her pension...

The war veterans are fasting for their dues. And if you have a cynical army too, in what way will this affect the country?

You yourself can answer the question as good as I am. I am a much older guy and you are going to live to face it.

There is an umbilical connection in the army and we are like a family. If something affects the grandfather, it will affect the grandson too. He has to be concerned.

Now, the government is planning to celebrate the 50th year of the 1965 war...

Celebration for whom? The dead ones? What kind of celebration are you talking about when the living ones are not respected? You exclude all the war veterans and celebrate?

I also took part in the 1965 war. When the man who got two Vir Chakras, one in 1965 and another in 1971, says he would have participated in the celebrations if the government had announced something, you can understand the sentiments of all the veterans.

Do you feel General V K Singh and Colonel Rathore should resign from the Modi ministry?

There are people who believe that they can do some counselling within, but many feel they should have resigned. I am sure they are better judges, but I am surprised that they have behaved exactly like Modi. Apparently they have taken the stance of following party discipline.

I don't know how I would have behaved if I were in that position. They are all good people. I feel even now, it is not too late. They can still resign. At least they can wear black bands.

Do you think more veterans will join the agitation?

Yes, and it will go out of control. Had Modi announced whatever offer he had on August 15, it would have carried some credibility. It would even have divided the movement. I am not questioning Modi's intentions. We do not know why he has not kept his promise.

But they (the ex-servicemen) put forward a lot of options in front of the government, like paying the disabled war widows first, then the widows and the army officers last. They were even ready for valid government bonds. But the government doesn't want to respond.

Courtesy: www.rediff.com September 4, 2015

http://www.rediff.com/news/interview/even-if-the-pm-grants-orop-the-trust-is-fractured/20150904.htm