Nationalism isn't a dirty word

Don’t typecast nationalism by reading it with a particular party’s ideology. It is the only spirit that keeps the soldier and the armed forces going.

Colonel R Hariharan

I was astounded to see the caption in a recent TV debate: "Stone pelters versus Nationalists." It is shocking to see, after decades of efforts to establish law and order in Kashmir, made with the blood and sweat of security forces and policemen, stone pelters conditioning the national discourse on Jammu and Kashmir.

It hurts me to find Modiphobes using the word ‘nationalism,’ as though it is a dirty word, the source of all mischief.  Because, I am a nationalist and I am not ashamed to say it loudly. Before self-styled neo-liberals jump to troll me, I say I am not going to allow anyone to typecast me as an admirer of Hindutva or gau rakshaks because I call myself a nationalist.

Equally, I am not prepared to allow the hijacking of nationalism by saffron, yellow or red or any other colour, because ‘nationalism’ is non-negotiable.  To me you cannot confine nationalism to ideologies. To me, nationalism is beyond politics. It's related to my identity, culture and traditions.

In this context, remember the words of a smuggler we engaged to ferry our source across Barak River into East Pakistan, on the eve of 1971 war.

When we asked him how much we should pay, he said: “Babu, I am a convicted smuggler. But I am not doing this for money. Remember, smugglers can be patriots because nationalism is in our blood. There is no price for it.”

To men in uniform it comes with the colour of their uniform and they are ready to pay the price with their lives. This is why my blood boils when I see people, sitting in cosy, air conditioned comfort of TV studios, passing value judgement on a Major who adopted the expedience of using one of the stone pelters as a human shield, to extricate polling officers and policemen from a mob trying to lynch them.

If Akshay Kumar in uniform had done it in a Bollywood movie the same critics would have applauded him.

But not in real life, when stone pelters are exercising their “right to lynch” polling officers. Because they feel, nationalism is a sentiment, like any other. To me and millions of other countrymen who had worn the uniform, it is beyond sentiment. It is difficult to digest glib comments made by people, who do not bother to understand either the life and death situation the hapless Major faced or the nuances of operational leadership.

Improvisation is its watchword and goal orientation is the focus of operational leadership. Unless this is understood, it is difficult to grasp the plight of military men face, day in and day out, in fighting insurgents.

We should leave it to the army to decide the correctness of a military action. Army looks critically at every military action, to correct its methods and improve upon them. It swiftly punishes the guilty or the incompetent.  And it does all this silently.

Military operations can be topics of parlour debates. But let us not attach labels like stone-pelters versus nationalists. I will not be surprised if some of the stone-pelters later on become netas. If that is the accepted national norm, so be it; but please leave the armed forces out of it. Leave to the army to deal​ with the aftermath of the ‘human shield’ action.

Don't equate the Major’s conduct with stone-pelters. He was trying to save lives, while the lynch mob was baying for blood.

 Indian army has the unviable record of fighting insurgents for over six decades, perhaps unparalleled in the annals of military history. It has sacrificed thousands of men in these operations. It is perhaps the biggest learning organization, which continuously hones its skills.   

Let us not teach the army how to fight insurgents without​ getting rid of the way we reduce everything to 'tu tu, mei mei' arguments fixated on our ideologies.

Even after 25 years of my retirement from the army, when I see an army man brought in a coffin wrapped in tricolor, it brings a lump in my throat, because he died to keep me and all others alive.

Once again I say I am a nationalist, like two million men in uniform, who do the thankless job of saving scores of lives, including the stone-pelters and armchair critics.

For the good of the country, have faith in the security forces and allow them to do the job. Let us not trivialise them.

Otherwise, withdraw the forces from Jammu and Kashmir. If you have the courage of conviction to face the mob trying to lynch you, then hold a political discourse. I am yet to see a single political party trying to evolve a national consensus on Jammu and Kashmir, because that is the way we do politics in this country – whipping the fall guys.

Please don’t do it with the armed forces, because when you are the fall guy, they may not be there to save you.

Col R Hariharan, a retired Military Intelligence specialist on South Asia, has rich experience in terrorism and insurgency operations. 

Courtesy: India Legal, April 22, 2017 http://www.indialegallive.com/opinion/nationalism-isnt-dirty-word-23762

Can ‘Mother of All Bombs’ give birth to peace in Afghanistan?

It is shocking to see the US army using the 10,000 kg behemoth, costing $16 million apiece, to kill 100 guys holed-up in caves in distant Afghanistan

POLITICS | 6-minute read | 18-04-2017

COLONEL R HARIHARAN @colhari2

A jubilant President Donald Trump was all praise for the U.S. army for successfully dropping the Massive Ordinance Air Blast, better known as       “Mother of All Bombs’ (MOAB), the largest non-nuclear bomb ever used in a conventional U.S. operation, on the Islamic State terrorist base in Nangarhar province in Afghanistan, bordering Pakistan.

Afghan authorities estimate 100 jihadi terrorists were killed when the GPS guided bomb, officially named GBU-43, hit the IS’ hive of tunnels and caves, from which they used to launch attacks on the U.S. and Afghan forces.  

The US’ choice of IS target in Afghanistan to drop the huge bomb, is rather strange. The IS is fighting its last ditch battles in its home ground in Syria and Iraq, and Afghanistan is probably not on its radar right now.

Despite its long sounding name in Afghanistan - the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant: Khorasan Province (ISIL-KP) – its cadres total less than 1000 in Afghanistan and Pakistan, just one third of the Taliban and its affiliated terrorist groups’ strength.

The ISIL-KP’s two founder leaders - Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) militant Hafiz Saeed Khan of Pakistan and Afghan Taliban commander Abdul Rauf Aliza - were killed within first two years after it was formed in 2015.

IS terrorists are suspected to have carried out about 20 attacks in Afghanistan and Pakistan, mostly against soft sectarian targets like Shia mosques and hospitals.

However, it is the resurgent Taliban that is posing an existential threat to the Afghan government, after it made huge inroads last year in Kunduz province.

As a soldier I was taught ‘economy of effort’ as a basic principle of war, scrupulously observed in Indian army.  So it is shocking to see the U.S. army using the 10,000 kilogram-behemoth, costing $16 million apiece, to kill about 100 guys holed-up in caves in distant Afghanistan at the rate of $16, 000 per person!

Why did the U.S. use “the Mother” against IS and not the Taliban in Afghanistan?

Can “the Mother” give birth to peace in Afghanistan?

These questions probably never figured when the US army planned to use the device in Afghanistan.

At best, it was used as an exercise to test the device in battle field conditions. 

So, it is not surprising that the bombing had created a backlash in Afghanistan.  Former president Hamid Karzai questioned Afghan President Ashraf Ghani permitting Americans to use a device “equal to an atom bomb” in the country.

He said if the government had permitted them to do this, “it has committed a national treason.”  

Even though President Trump is unpredictable, there are some clear strands emerging in his convoluted and contrarian actions.

The President’s national security advisor is Lieutenant General HR McMaster, a veteran of Afghan and Gulf wars; so is the secretary of defence James Norman Mattis, another retired Marine Corps general, who has fought in the Middle East.

Obviously, President Trump has given the freedom of action on matters military to the two generals occupying security appointments.

President Trump’s statement after the bombing makes it clear: “Everybody knows exactly what happened, what I do is I authorise our military. We have the greatest military in the world, they've done a job, as usual, so we have given them total authorisation and that's what they're doing, and frankly, that’s why they’ve been so successful lately.”

Apparently, dropping the MOAB on the eve of McMaster’s visit to Afghanistan and South Asia is clearly not in pursuit of peace.

It is to make a strong statement that the US under President Trump means business, not only in Afghanistan, but in other trouble spots as well.  

The bombing in Afghanistan had followed the launching of 59 Tomahawk missiles against a Syrian air base that is alleged to have carried out gas attacks on civilian population, killing 89 people. 

The missile attack has virtually derailed the Russian-initiated Syrian peace process that was in the making.

The dispatch of US nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson and its group towards the Korean Peninsula, close on the heels  of reports that US was considering a preemptive strike on North Korea to wipe out the nuclear arsenal of the rogue state, is yet another act of US muscle flexing.

Collectively, these actions indicate a new belligerence in US actions, not seen in recent times.

These actions have both a local context in the US and a global context of Washington’s rapidly deteriorating relations with Moscow, increasing the possibility of revival of Cold War.

Will the MOAB intimidate Moscow or for that matter Syria?

The answer is simple: Russia had developed and tested in 20o7 “Father of All Bombs” (FOAB), officially known as “Aviation Thermobaric Bomb of Increased Power (ATBIP).” With a yield of 44 tons of TNT, the bomb is reported to have four times the destructive power of the US’ MOAB.

Using the “Father” and “Mother,” the two powers are capable of killing thousands of hapless civilians, if the Cold War erupts all over again. 

To sum up, the dropping of the MOAB in Afghanistan has nothing to do with peace.

It is all about Trump administration’s posturing from Moscow to Damascus to Kabul to Pyongyang.

Peace in Afghanistan has a chance if only Pakistan ponders over the US NSA Lt General McMaster’s comments made during his maiden visit to Kabul.  

He said in a television interview: “As all of us have hope for many, many years – we have hoped that Pakistani leaders will understand that it is in their interest to go after these groups less selectively than they have in the past.”

If this is the indication of the US following a “tougher line” on Islamabad, few would believe it in India. In the past, the US had shown a singular inability to walk its talk on Pakistan.

Can the US under Trump with the slogan “America first” make a difference?

I doubt; in the near term the chances for peace in Afghanistan appear bleak. 

But there is no harm in hoping for it, particularly on the eve of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s first ever official visit to, after President Trump came to power.

Pak-inspired terrorism would surely be a topic on top of their agenda.

#Pakistan, #Donald Trump, #Afghanistan-US

Col R Hariharan, a retired Military Intelligence specialist on South Asia, has rich experience in terrorism and insurgency operations. 

Courtesy: India Today opinion portal DailyO             

http://www.dailyo.in/politics/afghanistan-us-mother-of-all-bombs-isis-trump-pakistan/story/1/16735.html

Deep State Justice

Kulbhushan Jadhav, the former Indian naval officer, given death sentence by a military court, is a pawn being used by Pakistan to strengthen its case against India

By Col R Hariharan

The death sentence handed out to Kulbhushan Jadhav, a retired Indian naval officer, by a Pakistan Field General Court Martial (FCGM) on charges of spying and sabotage activities in Karachi and Balochistan has sent shock waves across the country. Even the staid Karachi newspaper Dawn, not usually given to hyperbole called the death sentence “unexpected,” while reporting the political reaction to the sentence.

According to Pakistan, Jadhav was arrested during a counter intelligence raid by security forces near the border area of Chaman in Balochistan when he illegally entered from Iran on March 3, 2016. He was using an Indian passport in the name of Mubarak Patel.  

He was tried under Section 59 of the Pakistan Army Act and Section 3  of the Official Secrets Act of 1923,  charged  with spying for India, working against Pakistan’s integrity, sponsoring Balochi terrorism in the country and attempting to destabilise the state.  

India has clarified that Jadhav, prematurely retired from the navy in 2003, had established a cargo business in Chabahar port in Iran since then.  Media reports have alleged that he was kidnapped from Iran by Taliban and sold to Pakistan authorities.  

The entire prosecution and trial process, starting from the arrest of Kulbhushan to the trial and award of death sentence by a military court, has been shrouded in secrecy. The legality of the trial by military court itself is questionable. In January 2015, Pakistan national assembly reluctantly approved the 21^st constitutional amendment that paved way for the military courts, after the then Army chief General Raheel Sharif pressurized the members. They are a testimony to the hold Pakistan army has over the civilian authorities.   

Pakistan Supreme Court ruled in August 2015 that secret military courts were legal and could pass death sentences on civilians. Nine military courts have been constituted to try such cases. By end December 2016, the military courts have handed out death sentence to 161 persons accused of terrorism.

Pakistan’s case is built upon information gleaned from his interrogation and on the basis of Jadhav’s “video confession” recounting his work for India’s external intelligence arm - the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) from 2013. The dubious “confession” from Uzair Baloch, a notorious Lyari criminal gang leader of Karachi, who was apprehended by the Rangers in Karachi in January 2016, stating that he was in contact with Jadhav to create law and order situation in Karachi.

The Jadhav  case appears to be tailored to prove Pakistan’s claim of Indian involvement in three key areas: financial and logistic support to Baloch insurgents, collusion with Haji Baloch, who provided financial and logistic support to Baloch separatists and the Islamic State in Karachi, and triggering sectarian violence in Karachi and Sindh. 

Sartaj Aziz, advisor on foreign affairs to the Pakistan prime minister, has said that Jadhav had been held responsible for terrorist activities that include sponsoring attacks in Gwadar and Turbat, attacks on a radar station and civilian boats in the sea opposite Jiwani Port, funding subversive secessionist elements through hawala in Balochistan, sponsoring explosions in gas pipelines and electric pylons in Sibi and Sui areas in Balochistan, sponsoring IED explosions in Quetta, sponsoring attacks on Hazaras in Quetta and Shias en route to Iran and back, and abetting anti-state elements in attacks against law enforcement agencies in Balochistan during 2014-15 killing many civilians and soldiers.

The Jadhav case has come handy for Pakistan, to counter Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s efforts to internationally isolate Pakistan for sponsoring terrorist attacks against India. In April 2016, Pakistan briefed foreign diplomats in Islamabad on Jadhav’s arrest and his involvement in terrorist activities. Pakistan also shared the information with the US and the UK.  Prime Minister Modi in his Independence Day address on August 15, 2016 brought the focus on human rights violations in Balochistan.  The Jadhav case would buttress Pakistan’s argument that India was colluding with Balochi separatists in the state.

India has pointed out a lot of discrepancies in Pakistan’s statement on the case.  After the death sentence was announced, India summoned Pakistan High Commissioner in New Delhi and handed over a demarche. It said “If this sentence against an Indian citizen, awarded without basic norms of law and justice, is carried out, the government and the people of India will regard it as a case of premeditated murder.” On April 14, India asked for a copy of the formal charge sheet filed against Jadhav; Indian High Commissioner in Islamabad has also made a request for consular access for the 14^th time.

Jadhav has 40 days to file an appeal against the FGCM verdict in the military court of appeal. If that fails, he would have the opportunity to seek mercy from the army chief and Pakistan’s president. Of course, if he feels the due process of law was not observed during the trial and his fundamental rights were affected, he could approach a high court. But the Lahore High Court Bar Association (LHCBA), on April 14, warned against taking up the case of Jadhav. It said action would be taken against any lawyer who dares to obey its order.

Army channels of appeal are unlikely to be productive if we go by the statements of Pakistan army chief.  The corps commanders’ conference, the Deep State of Pakistan, has unanimously maintained that no compromise would be made on the death sentence awarded to Kulbhushan Yadav. 

Presumably, the only way to save to Jadhav would be through bilateral parleys. But given the dismal state of relations between the two countries at present, it could be a long haul before the contentious issue is resolved.

Will it be possible to swap Jadhav for a Pak spy as Gary Powers, the US air force spy pilot shot down over Soviet Union, was exchanged for the Soviet spy  Col  Abel who was arrested in the U.S.? The disappearance of Lt Col Muhammad Habib Zahir, a retired officer of the Pakistan army, while visiting Lumbini in Nepal, recently has given rise to a lot of media speculation that Indian intelligence might have kidnapped him for a trade off for Jadhav.

International espionage cases are always murky and messy because they are full of half truths and lies. Only the coming days will tell how both India and Pakistan tackle this issue. The defusing of a potentially explosive issue is likely to test the leadership skills in both the countries.

Col R Hariharan, a retired MI officer, served as the head of Intelligence of the Indian Peace Keeping Force from 1987 to 90. He is associated with the Chennai Centre for China Studies.

Courtesy: India Legal, Vol X. Issue. 23  April 24, 2017   http://www.indialegallive.com/

http://www.indialegallive.com/e-magazine

                                                                                                                              

Why is China hurting its ties with India over the Dalai Lama’s Tawang visit?

After all these years, do the Chinese expect the 82-year old to lead a revolution in Tibet?

POLITICS | 3-minute read | 07-04-2017

COLONEL  R HARIHARAN @colhari2

China does not seem to have realised that India, under the stewardship of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, is different from the one ruled by the Congress for a decade. 

It is difficult to understand, why China is getting worked up over the Dalai Lama’s visit to Tawang.

The Buddhist spiritual leader fled his homeland and arrived in India, nearly six decades ago, as a young monk of 24 to save himself from the Chinese army, who sought to crush the mass uprising in Tibet. 

After all these years, do the Chinese expect the 82-year old to lead a revolution to “liberate” Tibet?

Apparently, some sections of Chinese leadership think so, however absurd it may seem, particularly as the Dalai Lama has repeatedly been saying his demand was that Tibetans gain autonomy to preserve the identity and religion.

Whether he visits Tawang or not makes an iota of difference to the status of Tibet and to China’s territorial disputes with India.  

These problems are not going to vanish into thin air if the Dalai Lama prays at the monastery in Tawang.

The territorial disputes between the two countries have long been on the dialogue table for long, and are waiting to go through the ordeal of talks for the umpteenth time.  No light is visible at the end of the “dispute tunnel” as neither side has look to a resolution.  

What then does China achieve when its foreign ministry demands that “India stop using the Dalai Lama to do anything that undermines China’s interests” and that “the Indian side not hype up sensitive issues between India and China,” or by calling the Indian Ambassador to China Vijay Gokhale to lodge a protest.

China’s hype on the Dalai Lama’s has done one thing: it has given wide publicity to his visit.

It has raised a lot of heckles among the public leaving little manoeuvring space for both the governments.

The Dalai Lama does not make front page news in India till the Chinese make a noise about him. The Indian media makes very little space for him.

The Tibetan cause has to jostle for media space in the land full of sadhus (including the corporate ones who have entered our breakfast cereal and shampoos), spiritualists, fakirs and a whole tribe of religious leaders whose message the electronic media beams 24x7. 

The Chinese have done a favour to the Tibetan leader by creating a ruckus over his visit.  

We can expect the Dalai Lama’s address at the Dirang monastery to be widely broadcast.

The Chinese, on the other hand, would do well to read his message: “Situation inside Tibet is tragic. The situation in 21^st century will be miserable if it continues like this. The world suffers from short-sightedness which is not good. We shouldn’t bully each other.” 

Pondering on the last sentence of Dalai Lama’s message would help cool the tempers to take a realistic view of the situation.  

China feels, by disregarding its concerns and “obstinately” arranging the visit to the disputed part of Sino-Indian border, India is “causing serious damage” to China’s interests as well as India-China relations.

It is difficult to believe that the Dalai Lama’s visit would cause more damage to the bilateral ties, than when the Chinese have repeatedly trampled upon India’s concerns.

 It has blocked India’s efforts to get the Pakistan-sponsored terrorist Azhar Masood black listed by the UN, although it knows India has been under serious threat from Pakistan-based jihadi terrorist outfits.

Can it be worse than China finalising the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) project, in utter disregard to India’s objections, and start executing the project through Indian territory illegally occupied by Pakistan? 

China should seriously ponder how it is dealing with India. India is not Mongolia to be brow beaten by words.  Beijing needs good relations with New Delhi as much as the latter does.  But they won’t improve by threats or warnings. 

India is not China; it is a vocal democracy where public perception impacts how India acts, probably, much more than it does in China.  The earlier the Chinese realize the better the relationship building will be.

#Dalai Lama, #India-China Relations, #China, #Tibet

The writer is a retired Military Intelligence specialist on South Asia with rich experience in terrorism and insurgency operations.

Courtesy: India Today Opinion portal www.dailo.in    

http://www.dailyo.in/politics/tibet-india-china-dalai lama/story/1/16569.html

Dalai Lama in Arunachal: Why China's warning about "damaged relations with India" is hollow talk

China's state media often comes up with contradictory views on India and the latest threat over the Dalai Lama's presence in Arunachal is no exception. China has much bigger stakes today, economic and strategic, when it comes to India.

Shubham Ghosh, 5 April 2017

Global Times, the leading Chinese daily affiliated to the flagship People's Daily has a knack of displaying Beijing's love-hate relationship vis-a-vis India. On Wednesday (April 5), while it took a strong exception to the Dalai Lama's visit to Arunachal Pradesh, which the Chinese claims to be their own, saying "it damages the China-India relationship", it also said in another piece that "cooperation between the two emerging Asian powers over Internet-related technologies is likely to provide a good platform to strengthen their future relations".

Similarly, in March, the same Chinese media had accused India of considering Beijing's much talked-about Belt and Road initiative from a geopolitical perspective which would only bar it from reaping the benefits offered by the initiative.

It was also in the same month the same daily had advised the country's rulers to take a fresh look at Narendra Modi's India saying: "Beijing-New Delhi ties have recently entered a subtle and delicate phase, observers soon started to pay close attention to how the bilateral relationship will develop after Modi tightens his grip on power."

Even before that, in October 2016, the Global Times had wholeheartedly praised India's growth story, saying: "China doesn't have the capability to limit India's manufacturing development. What China is capable of is preventing Chinese investment from capitalising on India's admired growth outlook, indisputably an unwise choice."

So, given these inconsistent stances of the country's media when it comes to India, one feels Beijing's latest rhetoric on the Dalai Lama's visit to northeast is more of a hollow threat.

Expertspeak:

Former India Peace Keeping Force (IPKF) Intelligence Corps Head Colonel Ramani Hariharan said an overhype about Dalai Lama's visit to Arunachal Pradesh is in play but it's China's own making.

He also said that this is not the first time China has objected about issues related to Dalai Lama. The only difference is that the Narendra Modi government's​ comment has been made in public unlike in the past when India conveyed the same views diplomatically. That's Modi's leadership style.

According to Col Hariharan, China is raising the hype because it is a bit uncertain about CPEC with a huge investment riding on it after India raised the issue of the project violating India's sovereignty (China's core interest). India's support would have made sure of success and added to its brand value.

"China has also come down in India's trust after it, mindlessly,​  refused to cooperate on terrorist Azhar Masood issue. So instead of semantic jugglery, China has to show some reciprocal sensitivity to India's reservations. Otherwise we can expect the impasse to continue," he said.

For one, China knows very well that its relation with India in the second decade of the 21^st century is no more dominated by symbolic issues like Tibet. Tibet has traditionally been an issue over which Beijing has shown the world its military and diplomatic might and has always condemned those who dared to take a sympathetic stand on the Dalai Lama, who Beijing views as a symbol of anti-China separatist activities.

But today, it's no more the case. Also at the same time, China needs to get its rhetoric going, for if it gives up the strategy of bashing India over sheltering the Dalai Lama, it could give a message to the world that Beijing has turned soft on the issue. It cannot afford to not put up a stunt.

India plays Dalai Lama card to counter China's resistance to it internationally

Secondly, as the Global Times has rightly analysed, a more assertive India is now using the Dalai Lama as a diplomatic tool to win more leverage vis-a-vis China, especially in the wake of the latter blocking India's entry in the Nuclear Suppliers Group and also shielding Masood Azhar from being black listed.

The playing of the Lama card to put back the pressure on China is New Delhi's deliberate assertion in the power game in Asia and Beijing is clearly frustrated by India's diplomatic gesture, which is more open in the Modi era. The various moves to link the northeast through railway tracks have also irked the Chinese and hence the roaring.

But economically, China needs India

But China, which has in the recent past acknowledged India's growth at a pace better than its own in the 2015-16 fiscal, also knows that it cannot win against India just by flexing its muscles today. Economically, the Chinese exports much more to India (58 billion USD in 2016) compared to what India does to China (only 11.7 billion USD in 2016) and in that sense, India's dependence on China is miniscule in relation to how much the neighbouring country needs our market.

Moreover, as the 'Make in India' scheme gains momentum in India, the Chinese will not forgo the opportunity to be part of India's growth story and benefit from it for its own interests.

Strategically, China has a plateful of issues today

Secondly, China has been facing challenges from various quarters. While the US under Barack Obama and his successor Donald Trump have not entertained Beijing much, the issues related to the dispute in the South China Sea and over North Korea's reckless nuclear belligerence have also put it in a spot internationally.

China's all-weather friend Pakistan is of little use

All-weather friend Pakistan has always showed China its loyalty but it has done so to get the latter's blessings in its fight with its arch-rival. India, on the other hand, has worked hard on improving its defence collaborations across the world (be it with the US, in South Asia, the Asia-Pacific or Indian Ocean region) and there is very little to differentiate when it comes to both countries' foreign policy reach-out at the moment. 

In fact, India has also made efforts towards working closely with China on platforms like the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation and the BRICS. Hence, there is very little space for the Chinese to manoeuvre against India in a system where both operate as frenemies and require each other to give shape to a new emerging world.

As far as China's threat on "damaged relations" with India, it just reflecting the Dragon's old habit of intimidating its rival. In reality, Beijing is frustrated with India's growing courage to take it head on and it is showing.

Courtesy: International Business Times  

http://www.ibtimes.co.in/dalai-lama-arunachal-why-chinas-warning-about-damaged-relations-india-hollow-talk-722060  

Sri Lanka Perspectives – March 2017: Politics of Sri Lanka’s UNHRC reprieve

Colonel R Hariharan                       

Courtesy: South Asia Security Trends, April 2017 issue  www.security-risks.com 

President Maithripala Sirisena must be a happy man after the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) adopted a resolution to give two more years to Sri Lanka, to fully implement all the commitments it made in the 2015 resolution to deliver justice to thousands of people affected by the Eelam wars. By co-sponsoring the latest resolution with the U.S., Sri Lanka had shown its readiness to positively engage with the international community on fulfilling its commitment to reconciliation and human rights, as pointed out by the U.S. head of delegation at the UNHRC.  The Sirisena government can claim the adoption of the resolution, without a vote, as a diplomatic victory of sorts; it showed the UNHRC members have positively responded to Sri Lanka’s plea for extension based on its performance so far, which had been recognized even by the not-so-kind report of the UN Human Rights Commissioner  presented at the session.

But, the two-year reprieve provides only relief; Sri Lanka’s success in buying time cannot hide its failure to take action on two basic requirements: ensuring meaningful devolution and creating credible transitional justice mechanisms. Unfortunately, these are stuck in the political logjam, perhaps aided and abetted by bureaucratic indifference. However, the two-year extension shows that the member-countries have some understanding of the limitations of the Sirisena government in evolving politically acceptable solutions on controversial issues like the inclusion of foreign judges in the transitional justice system or prosecuting army officers suspected of committing war crimes. 

But the moot question is, can Sri Lanka fulfil its commitments to the UNHRC by 2019? 

It will be difficult to wager on this, if we go by the politically supercharged environment created by ‘patriotic citizens’ (whatever it means) raising the question of national sovereignty in accepting the international dispensation on transitional justice. They seem to forget that their own role model - President Mahinda Rajapaksa - had invited foreign judicial luminaries to oversee inquiries of similar nature (though with disastrous end results). But it is in the nature of politics to be short on memories that do not suit the politicians.

Of course, one way out for the Sirisena government is to fast track the “doable” issues which can impart some momentum to the whole process. Two such issues are the return all the remaining private land under military occupation and replacement of the Prevention of Terrorism Act with human rights compliant enactment. These two issues have not been dealt with the alacrity to bring them to closure.  The aftermath of the legislation on the Office of Missing Persons, typically, shows the choke hold bureaucracy has in translating good intentions to produce positive results. It has brought no relief to thousands, who are mourning the fate of their missing kith and kin.

Considering the political paralysis affecting the government’s decision making process, it appears doubtful whether it can come up with a “time bound implementation strategy” to fulfil its outstanding commitments, as urged by the UK. The want of desire to act, rather than strategic planning, seems to be the malady affecting the government’s tardy performance. This is not merely restricted to human rights issues, but, governance as a whole if we go by the slow speed at which it produces results.

It only proves that good intentions or political rhetoric of the government is not enough. Even if the leaderships of both the main coalition partners are nervous about the right wing backlash on some of the controversial issues like the induction of foreign judges in the transitional justice mechanism, there is no reason for not acting upon non-controversial doable issues. Unless, the government shows sensitivity in acting upon these demands, its UNHRC reprieve will be a wasted one.   

From the political discourse, it appears President Sirisena would act upon the gritty issues, only after consolidating his power base in the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) and gaining control of the ruling coalition, where the United National Party (UNP) constantly seem to be outguessing the presidential mind. Though the pro-Rajapaksa faction within the SLFP had been working against him, President Sirisena being in power, should be able to take effective damage control measures within the party. His appeals to the youth members of the SLFP to rally in support have to be read in this context.  However, the coalition contretemps are likely to be there, because it is in the nature of the two astute political leaders – Sirisena and Prime Minister Wickremesinghe – to try and outmaneuver each other, in the marriage of the convenience that the ruling coalition is.

In this context, it is interesting to note the conduct of the so-called Transnational Government of Tamil Eelam (TGTE), made up of former LTTE overseas representatives and pro-Eelam elements of Tamil Diaspora. The TGTE would not be surprised that despite its plea to all members of the UNHRC “not to cave-in to a roll-over with an extension of time”, they did just that. The reason is simple: the rules of the game have changed.  Unlike the Cold War days, the real world now has little time to listen to political proxies of terrorist groups.

Col R Hariharan, a retired MI officer, served as the head of Intelligence of the Indian Peace Keeping Force from 1987 to 90. He is associated with the Chennai Centre for China Studies. E-mail: haridirect@gmail.com