Myanmar: Fall of an Icon

Though there was global condemnation of Aung San Suu Kyi’s stilted response to the refugee crisis, many forget that she has to work within the constraints of the constitution which gives the army a powerful role to play

By Colonel R Hariharan |Courtesy: India Legal, 6 November 2017 www.indialegallive.com

A recent article in The New Yorker titled, “What Happened to Myanmar’s Human-Rights Icon?”, reflects the question haunting admirers of Aung San Suu Kyi. She was seen as the global upholder of universal human rights and is Myanmar’s de-facto president (officially state counsellor). However, she has not lived up to their expectations over the Rohingya issue. More than half a million of these ethnic Muslims fled from Rakhine state in Myanmar to seek refuge in Bangladesh to escape military persecution. Despite the cleansing, Suu Kyi not only took a month to make an official statement, but it lacked remorse at the horrendous human tragedy being enacted under her watch.

The exodus of Rohingyas started when the army launched large-scale operations after 150 Rohingya insurgents attacked 24 police posts and a military base, killing 12 security personnel on August 25, 2017. In the military operations that followed, the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army lost 59 insurgents and over 1,000 Rohingyas were reported killed and many women raped. Human Rights Watch, citing satellite images, said 214 Rohingya villages were completely destroyed.

Bangladesh’s foreign minister AH Mahmood Ali called it a “genocide” waged by Myanmarese troops, while UN Human Rights Commissioner Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein called it “a textbook example of ethnic cleansing”.  

DECADES OF CONFLICT

Even if the alleged army atrocities fail to fall under the UN’s definition of genocide, the army probably carried out “ethnic cleansing”. The Rohingyas, concentrated in the northern Rakhine state, have seen armed ethnic conflict since Myanmar’s independence in 1948. So the army probably hit upon ethnic cleansing as a “final solution” to rid the country of this minority, who were always considered illegal Bengali settlers.

There is no doubt that Suu Kyi’s stilted response to the human tragedy has affected her image globally. Her charm and personal sacrifices during her long struggle to restore democracy against a ruthless military dictatorship drew admiration the world over. The western world which has been selectively waging “wars” for regime change in many authoritarian countries made her the poster girl for their “cause”. They had put her on a pedestal and showered her with honours, including the Nobel Peace Prize. And Suu Kyi was modest to remind her admirers that “she was no saint of any kind”, but only a politician. She added “politicians are politicians, but I do believe there are honest politicians and I aspire to do that”.

So it is no wonder that when she became the de-facto ruler of Myanmar, there were high expectations from her admirers both at home and abroad. They seemed to forget that in addition to being the head of a troubled state, she had a difficult role to play as leader of the ruling National League for Democracy and needed to retain her popular support.

CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS

However, Asian powers who had their ears to the ground, were probably more realistic because Suu Kyi faces multiple problems in functioning as head of state. When the army decided to end its 50-year hold on power, it ensured that the constitution was rewritten by 2008 to give it a legitimate presence in legislature and a role in governance. One-fourth of the seats in parliament are reserved for the army. Also, the army calls the shots on internal and external security issues as the constitution has reserved the posts of three ministers--home, defence and border affairs--for the army.

So Suu Kyi has some deft political tight-rope walking to do and functions within the constitutional straitjacket. According to the constitution, she is not eligible to be elected president because she is married to a foreigner. So the position of state counsellor (above the president) was created extra-constitutionally to keep her at the top of the power structure.

Myanmar has been facing an existential struggle against some 16 ethnic insurgencies since independence. This has justified the army’s tight grip over three vital ministries dealing with national security. Unless the insurgency groups give up arms and join the political mainstream, the army cannot be weaned away from its stranglehold on power. So Suu Kyi’s top priority has been to negotiate permanent peace with the insurgent groups. She had organised the 21^st Century Panglong Conference, a peace meet, with insurgent groups in August 2016. During the second meeting in May 2017, there was some breakthrough. However, four insurgent groups, particularly the Kachin Independence Army and Arakan Army (a Rakhine-based group), did not join the process. So, it continues to be a work in progress.

Suu Kyi probably knows the Rohingya issue will be a test of her leadership skills. However, her actions will always be conditioned by the the army’s control over the three vital ministries. Of course, the army still retains the option to slap martial law and seize power again. So she cannot take any action that could be construed as a provocation by the army, which is watching her with a wary eye.

ROHINGYA IDENTITY CRISIS

Though Suu Kyi is immensely popular at home, she has to watch out for any popular backlash in handling the Rohingya crisis. Most of the  majority population, which is Buddhist, including those who condemn the army’s atrocities against the Rohingyas, do not accept them as part of the national mainstream. Unlike the majority Bamar community, Rohingyas are Muslims and are racially different from the people of Myanmar – they are dark and speak a dialect similar to the Bengali spoken in Chittagong.

Officially, the term “Rohingya” does not exist; they are referred to as Bengalis, indicating their illegal immigrant status. They are not listed among the eight officially recognized indigenous ethnic groups, though their presence was tolerated till the army enacted the Burma Citizenship Law in 1982. It laid down 1823 (before the Anglo-Burmese war) as the cut-off year for recognition of eligibility for citizenship. This rendered a million-plus Rohingyas stateless. Unless the citizenship law is suitably amended, it will be difficult to absorb them in the national mainstream.

Geographically, their concentrations are in Mayu River valley along the Bangladesh border and isolated from the rest of Rakhine state by the Arakan Yoma mountain range. So Rohingya habitations have remained backward, untouched by what little development has taken place in the state. Ethnic and religious differences periodically spark Rohingya-Buddhist riots. In 2012 and 2013, these degenerated into anti-Muslim riots and spread to the rest of the country.

TERROR LINKS 

After partition of Myanmar, Rohingyas conscious of their distinct identity, wanted their areas of habitation to be merged with East Pakistan. With Pakistan’s support, Rohingya Mujahideen extremists carried out sporadic attacks for the cause for about ten years from 1950, without much success. In 1970-80, a number of Islamist movements came up. However, the army ruthlessly crushed them. Among them, the Rohingya Solidarity Organisation, which was formed in 1982, developed contacts with Islamist extremist groups linked to the al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh.

These terrorist links added virulence to the Rohingya insurgency since 2016-17. On October 9, 2016, Rohingya terrorists in large numbers attacked three Myanmar police posts located along the Bangladesh border. They killed nine officials and looted firearms from the posts. Two days later, they again attacked and killed three soldiers. International Crisis Group (ICG), a well-known think-tank, in a report on Rohingya militancy last December said it had interviewed members of Harakah al-Yakin (Faith Movement), a Rohingya militant group in Bangladesh, and they had taken responsibility for the attacks. According to the ICG report, the group had links with Rohingya expatriates in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. It also added that Afghan and Pakistani fighters had secretly trained groups of Rohingya villagers in Rakhine state. Indian intelligence agencies have also accessed similar information, identifying different groups and their leaders.

The Rohingya issue had always been a source of friction between Myanmar and Bangladesh. However, Sheikh Hasina’s Awami League government has been carrying out intense operations to eradicate jihadi terrorism infesting the country. So Bangladesh is extremely wary of giving asylum to Rohingya refugees flooding the country lest jihadi groups also infiltrate the country. However, due to popular sympathy for the plight of fellow Muslims, Bangladesh is accommodating them within its limited resources with help from international agencies.

INDIAN ROLE

India also does not want to allow the Rohingyas to cross over, fearing infiltration of terror groups in the sensitive North-east region. Politically, it is untenable for New Delhi to give refuge to them because the ruling BJP won the Assam elections with a promise to cleanse the state of lakhs of illegal Bangladeshis.

However, as a humanitarian gesture, India is assisting Bangladesh in taking care of over eight lakh Rohingyas there and has even allocated Rs 500 crore to Dhaka for this purpose. India also organized 7,000 tons of food grain and other basic essentials such as oil and salt for the refugees. The EU, along with Kuwait, is convening a donor conference to collect donations for them. The Pope will also be visiting Bangladesh and Myanmar in November to provide succour to them.

Meanwhile, Suu Kyi had appointed an 11-member advisory commission headed by former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan in August 2016 to help resolve the Rohingya issue. The commission’s recommendations for rapprochement include adopting a holistic approach rather than just a military one, dialogue between both communities and creating a path for citizenship for the Rohingyas.

However, Suu Kyi has to create a climate of confidence for these refugees to return home. To begin with, a credible investigation of the alleged atrocities of the army has to be carried out. Rohingyas living in IDP (internally displaced person) camps in Myanmar have to be extended all assistance to rebuild their shattered lives in their villages. This is the minimum that can be done to trigger the peace process.

Can Suu Kyi pass this acid test? One thing is clear – it will be a long haul before this tragedy is over.

The writer is a military intelligence specialist on South Asia, associated with the Chennai Centre for China Studies and the International Law and Strategic Studies Institute.

Can Xi Defang Kim Jong-un?

Global Trends/Sino-North Korean ties

Can Xi Defang Kim Jong-un?

As China attempts to take on the mantle of a superpower, its ambitions could be stymied by its belligerent neighbour whose nuclear tests are threatening the US and other nations

Colonel R Hariharan |Courtesy: India Legal, 30 October 2017 www.indialegallive.com

On September 3, 2017, when President Xi Jinping was holding a reception for dignitaries attending ninth BRICS summit meeting in Xiamen, he got a rude shock. North Korea (Democratic Republic of Korea –DPRK), under the leadership of irascible Kim Jon Un, carried out its sixth and largest nuclear test in defiance of China’s strong opposition. This was not the first time it had happened; China had strongly opposed North Korea’s nuclear testing ever since it started it in 2006. But after Kim Jong-un came to power in 2011, North Korea’s nuclear weapon and missile development projects have made giant strides to enable him to test both nuclear devices and inter-continental ballistic missiles.  

China’s prompt response to North Korea’s nuclear tests since 2006 feature two operative phrases - “firmly opposition” to North Korea’s conduct which was “flagrant and brazen violation of international opinion”.  That may not be sufficient any more as China under President Xi aspires to become a super power in the emerging international security environment. The rapid progress in North Korea’s nuclear weapons and missile capabilities is a testimony to the dynamics of change.

Though President Xi did not immediately respond to the September 3 blast, he was probably not amused.

CHANGE IN STANCE

After meeting with Russian president Vladimir Putin in Beijing, Xi said that China was committed to the goal of North Korea giving up its nuclear weapons. The statement is significant as it shows China’s recognition of the need for international collective action to stop North Korea’s nuclear capability. So it was not surprising China did not oppose to important sections of operative paragraphs of the US draft resolution brought before the UN Security Council passed in the wake of September 3 test.

This is a change from China’s stand when UNSC sanctions resolutions on North Korea were passed in 2006 and 2013.  The reasons for China’s opposition to North Korea acquiring nuclear capability are strategic. North Korea acts as the strategic vanguard to China not only North Asia, but also “China Seas” region, where the US flexes its military muscle regularly. Nuclearisation of North Korea would give the US an opportunity to introduce nuclear capable weapons in South Korea, its strategic partner. This could thwart China’s desire to neutralize the US domination of the region. Already, the North Korea’s repeated missile testing has enabled the US to introduce American THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense missile) anti-missile system in South Korea. To certain extent, it cramps China’s missile operational capability. So China cannot afford to provide the US and its allies further opportunity to enlarge their capability. 

The North Korean nuclear test was undoubtedly a loss of face for China and President Xi. The BRICS summit was part of his slew of global initiatives to create a new world order as an alternative to the present US and the Western domination of the world. President Xi’s other initiatives i.e., the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation and the One Belt One Road  also aim at increasing China’s strategic reach and influence across Asia, Africa and Europe.

Peaceful development is central to Xi’s marketing pitch for all these international initiatives.

After President Donald Trump has chosen to renege many of the US’ international initiatives already undertaken, including the UN Paris agreement on Climate Change, UNESCO, the Trans Pacific Pact (TPP) and probably WTO as well, President Xi has shown his readiness to take on the leadership role. For the success of these strategic initiatives China requires a peaceful environment, which could be jeopardized by Kim Jong-un’s belligerence.

CONSOLIDATING POWER

Internally also, the North Korean nuclear test comes at an inconvenient time for Xi. He had been working hard for the last four years to consolidate power within the ruling hierarchy of the Communist Party of China (CPC), the government and the PLA. His sustained anti-corruption drive has enabled him to carry out a “house cleaning” drive to weed out potential contenders to power from the CPC and the PLA.  

Media reports indicate that the 19^th Congress of the CPC is also likely to anoint Xi as a mentor in the CPC constitution, a rare honour bestowed so far only to Mao Zedong and Deng Xiaoping. Speculation is also rife that the Congress might nominate him as Chairman of the CPC for life, the first step to become a lifetime President. Under these circumstances, he cannot afford to be seen as a weak and ineffective leader who cannot rein in North Korea’s brazen conduct.  

Ever since the North Korean strongman Kim Jong succeeded his father Kim Jong Il in 2011 as supreme leader, he has relentlessly pursued his ambition to acquire indigenous nuclear and missile capability. After the sixth nuclear test, North Kora seems to have developed the capability to produce hydrogen bombs. North Korea has steadily upgraded its missile capability; this year alone it carried out 17 missile tests of varying ranges and capabilities.  Two of the missile have been fired over Japan.  At least two of the missiles tested can be classified as inter-continental missiles, capable of carrying a nuclear warhead. This would indicate that North Korea was well on way to achieve its overambitious goal of developing a missile capable of hitting the US.

RASH COMMENTS

Donald Trump, perhaps the most unpredictable U.S. President-ever, and his DPRK counterpart have been bad-mouthing each other and exchanging insults over social media. It was set off after Trump, in his inimitable style of making rash statements, threatened to “totally destroy” North Korea, while addressing the UN General Assembly last month. Kim equally ebullient in motor-mouthing, took the name-calling to a new low, calling Trump “a rogue and a gangster fond of playing with fire, rather than a politician.” Kim concluded his statement with a promise to “surely and definitely tame the mentally deranged US dotard with fire” and finally calling Trump “an old person, especially one who has become weak or senile.”

Though the Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov likened the slanging match between the two leaders to kindergarten fighting, the dangers of an unprecedented war exploding in and around Korean peninsula are more real now, than ever before.

In a statement on October 7, Kim Jong-un said the nuclear weapons were “powerful deterrent firmly safeguarding the peace and security in the Korean peninsula and Northeast Asia in the face of protracted nuclear threats of the US imperialists.” This is indicative of his insecure and paranoid mindset. Given this background, North Korea’s repeated threats to strike US bases in Guam and recent warnings to South Korea and Australia for participating in military drills organized by the US cannot be taken lightly.

 So it is not surprising that not only South Korea, Japan and China, but the countries in the neighbourhood such as Australia are worried of an outbreak of war in case Kim’s goes berserk.

The North Korean nuke test represents a watershed moment in China’s relations with its Korean ally, a relationship that has been cultivated during the last five decades. In the heydays of their relationship, Mao Zedong described it as “close as the lip and teeth.” 

OLD TIES

The relationship cemented by the sacrifice of 180,000 Chinese lives, who fought to save North Korea from being overrun by US and UN troops during the Korean War in the past, had suffered periodic hiccups due to differences on ideological, political and trade issues. In 1960s, Mao’s Cultural Revolution caused serious ripples in the relations as Kim Il-sung considered it an incorrect implementation of the principles of Marxism-Leninism. 

The drift in China-North Korea relations had started when Deng Xiaoping advocated political and economic pragmatism and opened China to the world.  The Kim dynasty did not take to it lightly; it has continued to rule North Korea with a hard fist, though there were brief periods of honeymoon in relations with China.  After Kim came to power, he ordered the execution of his uncle Chang Song-thek, considered close to China, for plotting a coup. Similarly, Kim is believed to be behind the murder of his brother Kim Jong-nam, who was living in exile in Macau under Chinese protection. These instances indicate Kim’s paranoia about China attempting a regime change. But China may not want to do that as it could trigger an era of instability in the country geographically too close for China’s comfort. 

It seems there is no other option for both the US and China but to set aside their strategic differences and come together to defang North Korea. Is it possible? How will they do it without triggering a war? This is perhaps a million dollar question for security pundits.

The writer is a retired Military Intelligence specialist on South Asia, and is associated with the Chennai Centre for China Studies and International Law and Strategic Studies Institute.

Sri Lanka Perspectives - September 2017

Col R Hariharan | 30-09-2017 

Courtesy: South Asia Security Trends, October 2017 Issue. www.security-risks.com

 War crimes allegations continue to haunt army

Sri Lanka has once again been embarrassed when a human rights group - the International Truth and Justice Project – filed lawsuits against Sri Lankan ambassador to Brazil (concurrently accredited to Colombia, Peru, Chile, Argentina and Suriname) General Jagath Jayasuriya, former chief of defence staff and  army commander, for his alleged complicity and role in torture of prisoners, artillery strikes on hospitals and civilian targets and enforced disappearances in the last stages of Eelam War IV.

Though the ambassador enjoyed diplomatic immunity and the law suit was filed at the end of the ambassador’s tenure, it has once again brought international focus on Sri Lanka army’s allegations of war crimes. They are said to have been committed in the final lap of the war from January to May 2009, when the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) was eliminated. This was not the first time senior army officers, who served in the battle field, have  faced threats of international legal action on war crimes charges. It is not going to stop unless Sri Lanka takes credible action to bring the culprits to book.

The war crimes allegations gathered international momentum, after Channel 4 TV screened the video “Sri Lanka’s Killing Fields” in May 2011. However, President Mahinda Rajapaksa who reaped maximum political mileage out of the military victory, denied war crimes allegations saying the government pursued “a humanitarian rescue operation” with a policy of “zero civilian casualties.” 

A panel of experts of the UN Secretary General in its report submitted in July 2011 found the allegations credible. It said, if proven they would indicate serious violations amounting war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by both Sri Lanka government and the LTTE. President Rajapaksa called the report an international conspiracy to tarnish Sri Lanka’s image and whipped up nationalist sentiments.  

The UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) session in March 2013 passed a US sponsored resolution seeking Sri Lanka’s accountability in observing international human rights laws. It called for a “credible and impartial investigation” into such violations. 

President Rajapaksa governments dithered in conducting such an investigation into the allegations. His half-way measures to buy time further eroded Sri Lanka’s international credibility resulting in increased international political and economic pressure.

Though the Sirisena government accepted and co-sponsored a UNHRC resolution that required carrying out an international investigation into war crimes and human rights violations, it has found it difficult to execute. The issue of foreign judges in the investigation has become a politically explosive issue. As the issue hangs fire, senior army officers have been facing the threat of international legal action from time to time.

On the sidelines of the issue of international law suit, there was an ugly spat between General Jayasuriya and his army chief during the war Field Marshal Sarath Fonseka regarding the responsibility for war crimes. On his return home, General Jayasuriya in a media interview denied the charges of war crimes; he was also reported to have said that the then Army Commander General Sarath Fonseka was in charge of military operations at the point of time. 

Commenting on Jayasuriya’s statement, Field Marshal Sarath Fonseka, now the minister for regional development, in an interview claimed he had information on the crimes committed by Jagath Jayasuriya, the then Vanni commander. The Field Marshal said he was ready to give evidence if proper legal action was instituted against General Jayasuriya. 

He further added “I was aware that he committed crimes and I tried to initiate an investigation. As the initial step, I arrested Mr Jayasuriya’s Aide-de-camp.” Obviously, he could not proceed with the investigation as he was removed from the post of the army commander.

President Maithripala Sirisena came out in strong defence of Jayasuriya. He said, “I state very clearly that I will not allow anyone in the world to touch Jagath Jayasuriya or any other military chief or any war hero in this country.” However, the stark truth is the issue of war crimes and crimes against humanity during the Eelam War cannot be wished away by statements.

As a signatory to UN conventions on human rights and humanitarian laws, Sri Lanka government has very limited option in carrying out an impartial and credible inquiry into allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity.  Though politically it might be tricky, the Sirisena government, which claims good governance (Yahapalana) as its credo, is accountable to thousands of families of victims of such crimes. 

There is an urgent need for an impartial investigation into the allegations to bring to book the guilty, not only within the army, but also among the former militant Tamil militants. It will also remove the blot on Sri Lanka army’s sacrifices made to bring an end to decades of insurgency and terrorism.

Constitution-making process  

The painful process of drafting a new constitution took yet another step forward when the Steering Committee responsible for drafting the proposed constitution presented its interim report to the parliament on September 21, 2017.

Overall the report has tried to strike a consensus by providing options on wording controversial issues. In the important articles 1 and 2, the Interim Report has avoided the terms "unitary" and "federal"state by suggesting Sri Lanaka as “a free, sovereign and independent Republic consisting of the institutions of the Centre and of the Provinces, which shall exercise power as laid down in the Constitution”. Explaining the concept, it said the state as undivided and indivisible, in which the parliament and the people shall have the power to amend, repeal and replace the Constitution.

Other salient features of the report include:

Article 5 barring declaration of any part of Sri Lankan territory as a separate state or advocate secession or take any steps towards such session. 

Article 7 incorporating the Sinhala and Tamil versions of the national anthem as suggested in the respective language versions of the constitution.

Article 9 on the status of Buddhism shows the report treading carefully by offering two alternate versions. Both versions give Buddhism “the foremost place and accordingly it shall be the duty of the State to protect and foster the Buddhist Sasana.” But, on other religions, while one version assures all the rights as per constitution, while the other specifies while treating all religions and beliefs with honour and dignity, and without discrimination, and guaranteeing to all persons the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

Part II of the report “Principles of devolution” the principles of subsidiarity has been applied to suggest a three tier system of government. The Provincial Council shall be the primary unit of devolution. At the lowest tier the local bodies shall have the power to govern themselves and conduct their duties at their own pace and discretion. The State and provincial councils shall have the powers to delegate powers to the local bodies. It has also recommended establishment of community councils to ensure minority rights are protected at various levels of government. 

Part II of the report “Principles of devolution” the principles of subsidiarity has been applied to suggest a three tier system of government. The Provincial Council shall be the primary unit of devolution. At the lowest tier the local bodies shall have the power to govern themselves and conduct their duties at their own pace and discretion. The State and provincial councils shall have the powers to delegate powers to the local bodies. It has also recommended establishment of community councils to ensure minority rights are protected at various levels of government. 

The reaction to the interim report was divided on expected lines: political parties that represent the minority and majority. The SLFP, the rightist Jathika Hela Urumaya (JHU) and the Joint Opposition view the devolution of power, amendments pertaining to national anthem and status of Buddhism with skepticism. 

On the other hand, Tamil and Muslim minority parties like the Tamil National Alliance (TNA), All Ceylon Makkal Congress (ACMC), Sri Lanka Muslim Congress (SLMC) want adequate representation for minorities.  It was interesting to note the leader of the opposition R Sampanthan asking Tamils to drop their obsession with federalism. He said that while the new constitution might not provide hundred percent satisfaction, it would still be an improvement.

Fallout of Rohingya refugee crisis

Rohingya Muslims have been the target of decades of state-backed persecution and discrimination in Myanmar, where the state and people view them as illegal immigrants. Buddhist fringe elements led by monks like Wiratu have been spearheading the hate campaign against Rohingyas in Myanmar. Since January 2017, the violence against them has been stepped up after Islamist terrorists among them started attacking Myanmar army posts. Myanmar army in its retaliatory attacks had destroyed many of the Rohingya inhabitations; this had triggered a deluge of Rohingyas fleeing the country to seek refuge elsewhere. As of now, over half a million of them seeking safety have fled to Bangladesh.

Buddhist fringe elements led by monks in Sri Lanka like Sinhala Ravayya and Bodhu Bala Sena, which had gained notoriety by attacking Muslim businesses, madrasas and houses have always shown their solidarity with Wiratu and Myanmar Buddhist fringe elements. This came to the fore once again when a Buddhist mob led by monks, said to belong to Sinhala Ravayya, attacked a small group of 31 Rohingyas who were rescued by Sri Lanka navy in April 2011 and was being looked after by the UN High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) in Colombo. 

Though the government spokesman condemned the incident and called the attackers of innocent persons “animals” follow up action by police had been tardy, as in the past.  Though the attackers had uploaded their action in the Face Book,  police have arrested only one person in connection with the incident. While Sri Lanka civil society and the JVP have condemned the attack, Buddhist clergy, particularly the Mahanayakas (prelates) had been silent.  

The incident has unnerved Muslim minority who had faced attacks by Buddhist fringe elements in the past, the last one being in May 2017  when a mob of BBS followers incited by Gnanasara Thera attacked Muslim business and torched a shop in Panadura.

Col R Hariharan, a retired MI officer, served as the head of Intelligence of the Indian Peace Keeping Force in Sri Lanka from 1987 to 90. He is associated with the Chennai Centre for China Studies and the International Law and Strategic Analysis Institute, Chennai. E-mail: haridirect@gmail.com  Blog: http://col.hariharan.info