Tuesday, 25 December 2018
Mass Killings: How About a Law for Genocide?
~By Colonel R
Hariharan | India Legal | December 22, 2018| http://www.indialegallive.com/
The sentencing of Congress leader Sajjan Kumar to life
imprisonment for his role in the 1984 anti-Sikh riots, where more than 2,700
were killed in the capital, is not the first case of mass killing. Nor is it
the first time when the long arm of the law was not strong enough to deliver
justice as the accused had the right political connections.
This is an apt case study for a host of things that are wrong
with our law enforcement, judicial system, criminal prosecution, et al. When
it comes to handling real life cases, particularly mass killings like the 1984
anti-Sikh massacre, politics seems to take precedence over all other
considerations.
In this context, the observations of the Delhi High Court bench
of Justices S Muralidhar and Vinod Goel while convicting Sajjan Kumar are
relevant. They said “cases like these are to be viewed in the larger context of
mass crimes that require a different approach”. Noting that in Delhi alone,
2,733 Sikhs were killed and nearly 3,350 Sikhs done to death all over the country,
the judges said
this was “neither the first instance of mass crime, nor tragically, the last”.
They indicated a
familiar pattern of killings in Mumbai in 1993, Gujarat in 2002, Kandhamal,
Odisha, in 2008 and Muzaffarnagar in UP in 2003. The common link in such crimes
was targeting of minorities and “attacks spearheaded by dominant political
actors being facilitated by law enforcement agencies”.
While they were stating the obvious, this is not the first time
judges have made such a statement. On August 21, 2009, additional sessions
judge Surinder S Rathi in Delhi had found three persons guilty of rioting,
attempt to murder and arson. He had observed: “Though we boast being the
world’s largest democracy and Delhi the national capital, the sheer mention of
the incidents of 1984 anti-Sikh riots in general and the role played by Delhi
Police and state machinery in particular makes our heads hang in shame in the
eyes of the world polity.”
In a way, the
1984 riots were a watershed in Indian politics. Delhi-based lawyer HS Phoolka,
who represented the 1984 victims, had said it showed the creeping
criminalisation of Indian politics. “Before the 1984 riots, there were no
criminals in politics. Criminals followed politicians. But 1984 made them
realise people leading mobs and killing others could get elected and become
leaders. So a way was opened for criminals to make politics a profession,” he
said.
This probably sums up the problem in handling mass
killings—political actors and subservient law enforcement agencies conniving to
protect criminal elements. Politics rides on the back of governance like King
Vikram’s Vetala, a spirit that would not get off, until the King solved the
riddle. Unfortunately, governance is not the king in our case, so it is the
politician, the Vetala, who solves the riddle to suit his end.
The judges also called for changes in criminal law to include
specific offences for “crimes against humanity” and “genocide”. Such a loophole
allowed the accused responsible for mass crimes to evade prosecution and
punishment. The bottomline is that India has not defined genocide by law,
though the UN convention on genocide ratified it in 1959. “Genocide” does not
find a place in the Indian Penal Code.
The UN General Assembly adopted the Convention on the Prevention
and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide on December 9, 1948, as Resolution 260.
It came into force on January 12, 1951. And on December 2017, 149 states
ratified or acceded to the treaty. India had participated in the 1948 genocide
convention and contributed to its drafting. India ratified it on August 27,
1959.
Actually, by ratifying the convention, India has recognised
genocide as an international crime, which it has undertaken to prevent and
punish as per Article I of the Convention. It has also undertaken to enact the
necessary legislation “to give effect to the provisions” of the Convention, to
provide effective penalties for persons guilty of genocide or any other acts
related to genocide through a competent tribunal.
The Convention in
Article II defines genocide as “any of the following acts with intent to
destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as
such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental
harm to members of the group: (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group
conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole
or part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(and) (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group”.
Article III renders punishable not only acts of genocide but
other acts related to it like conspiracy to commit genocide, direct and public
incitement to commit genocide, attempt to commit genocide and complicity in
genocide.
Though the Narendra Modi government showed alacrity in reopening
the 1984 anti-Sikh riots case of Sajjan Kumar, it still does not seem to be in
a hurry to recognise the need for enacting laws in conformity with the UN
convention on genocide. In fact, in the Rajya Sabha on March 2, 2016, a
question was raised about the government’s plans in enacting laws in conformity
with the UN convention on genocide and racial discrimination and, if not,
reasons for not enacting them. Answering the questions, Kiren Rijiju, minister
of state for home, said:
“By acceding to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment
of the Crime of Genocide in 1959, India has recognised genocide as an
international crime. The principles embodied in the Co-Convention are part of
general international law and therefore already part of common law of India.
The provisions of the Indian Penal Code including the procedural law (Criminal
Procedure Code) provide effective penalties for persons guilty of the crime of
genocide and take cognisance of the acts which may be otherwise taken to be in
the nature of genocide.”
The catch in the
minister’s contention that the provisions of the IPC, including the procedural
criminal law, “provide effective penalties for persons guilty of crime of
genocide” is flawed because genocide is not defined in the IPC. This probably
shows the government’s reluctance to enact separate laws to handle genocide and
crimes related to it because Article IV of the UN Convention says “persons
committing genocide or any other acts enumerated in Article III shall be
punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public
officials or private individuals”. In other words, a separate law for genocide
would mean sacrificing the protection given to public servants from prosecution
under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which had been used
to prevent and delay prosecution of guilty public servants.
But Article 51(c) of the Constitution enjoins the State to
“foster respect for international law and treaty obligations”. Article 253
mandates the Parliament “to make any law for implementing any treaty, agreement
or convention”. So both the government and Parliament have an obligation to
enact separate laws for genocide and related acts as required by the UN
Convention.
HL Mencken, editor of The Baltimore Sun, described democracy as
the art and science of running a circus from the monkey cage. As the world’s
largest democracy, we seem to be a living example of it.
Bangladesh was able to overcome both domestic and international
roadblocks to prosecute those involved in the mother of all genocides in the
run-up to its independence? Why can’t we?
—The writer is a military intelligence specialist on South
Asia, associated with the Chennai Centre for China Studies and the
International Law and Strategic Analysis Institute
Tuesday, 4 December 2018
Sri Lanka Perspectives: November 2018
Col R Hariharan | 30-11-2018 |Courtesy: South Asia Security Trends, December
2018 | www.security-risks.com |
Breaking the political impasse
President Maithripala Sirisena is trying hard to work out a face
saving compromise to break the political deadlock created by him after
installed former president Mahinda Rajapaksa as Prime Minister, sacking PM
Ranil Wickremesinghe, three weeks ago. Though PM Rajapaksa and his cabinet have
taken over the government, the parliament has refused to accept his
appointment. The country is in a drift as day to day functioning of the
government is hamstrung by the crisis.
Former PM Wickremesinghe refusing to vacate the PM’s official
residence Temple Trees, and his party said to be meeting the expenditure for
his continued stay there, typically illustrates the confusing ground situation.
A defiant speaker Karu Jayasuriya, rejected President’s order to
prorogue the parliament and later dissolve it. He has ensured two no confidence
motions are passed against the Rajapaksa government. The parliament boycotted
by Rajapaksa’s UPFA-SLPP coalition, has passed yet another resolution to block
any expenditure by PM’s office.
A plethora of cases against President Sirisena’s actions dubbed
as unconstitutional by Wickremesinghe and his erstwhile coalition partners is
pending in the supreme court. These cases are likely to be disposed of on
December 7, 2018. Added to this,
Wickremesinghe’s quo warranto
petition filed to prevent PM Rajapaksa
from functioning filed in the Court of Appeal is coming up for hearing on
December 3, 2018.
With pressure building up on two fronts - in parliament and the impending
verdict in the cases in Supreme Court - President Sirisena has probably
realized the only way to defuse the situation is to work out a deal with the
opposition leaders. The Speaker agreed to arrange a one-on-one meeting between
the President with the leaders of the United National Front (UNF) constituent
parties led by Wickremesinghe and with the four-party Tamil National Alliance
(TNA) members led by the leader of the opposition P Sampanthan to explore a
possible way out of the crisis.
The meetings took place on November 30, 2018 as scheduled. But
it was probably inconclusive. According to TNA sources, the President is said
to have advised them to pass another no confidence motion against Rajapaksa
government in the parliament in accordance with the standing orders when it
meets on December 5, 2018. This could
pave the way for swearing in another UNP nominee as PM. President Sirisena has
repeatedly vowed not to accept Wickremesinghe again as PM again; so far the UNP
has not chosen another leader from the party to be the PM. The President will
probably withdraw the notification dissolving the parliament as the price for
striking a deal with the opposition. Seeking UNF cooperation for holding a
fresh parliamentary election could also be another trade off for President
Sirisena.
PM Rajapaksa in his first televised address after taking over as
PM said the country’s stability could be restored through a fresh round of
parliamentary election. He added that the UNP, unlike other parties, was not
ready to face the people. The PM said President Sirisena had entrusted him to
resurrect the falling economy and living standard of the people. Referring to
his government, he said “what we have now is only an interim government. When a
downward trend manifests itself, it is difficult to turn things around in a
month or two.” He alleged that the
Wickremesinghe government had borrowed $20.7 bn in three years and it would
take a while to turn things around.
However, in May 2018, when a no confidence motion against
PM Wickremesinghe was defeated, the PM described the motion as an attempt not
to just oust him, but the first step to topple the National Unity government
led by President Sirisena. He had asked the party should prepare for the coming
provincial, presidential and parliamentary elections. Is the UNP ready now for
a parliamentary election?
Arrest of the CDS
and attempted transfer of CID Inspector
President Sirisena speaking to foreign correspondents has
assured non interference in ongoing investigations into abductions, killing of
journalists, and other crimes allegedly committed by those connected to the new
government. He said ‘no one can interfere’ with police and courts. Apparently,
the President’s assurance was a damage control measure after political parties
raised a furore when Inspector Nishantha Adrian Silva of the CID branch,
investigating a number of highly sensitive cases, was suddenly transferred by
the Inspector General of police. It was allegedly done due to pressure from the
President’s office.
The cases he was handling included the assaulting of journalist
Keith Neyhr by suspected military intelligence personnel and the case of Lt
Comdr Hettiarachchi involved in the kidnapping and disappearance of 11 Tamil
youth in 2008-2009.
However, the police commission intervened to cancel the transfer
of Inspector Nishantha, indicating at least the Yahapalana government has indeed
made a difference in making the commissions function independently.
Curiously, while the whole drama
of the CID inspector’s transfer was being enacted, Sri Lanka’s highest ranking
serving military officer Chief of Defence Staff Admiral Ravindra Wijegunaratne,
appeared before Colombo Fort Magistrate and was remanded to custody till
December 5, 2018.
It is interesting to note that earlier the CDS failed to appear
before the CID and give a statement on
his alleged help to Lt Comdr Hettiararchchi to evade arrest in the case of
kidnapping 11 youth.
The arrest and prosecution of the CDS could set a precedent for
the arrest of other service officers allegedly involved in war crimes. President
Sirisena has repeatedly said he would never to prosecute armed forces personnel
on alleged war crimes. So, how he reacts to the arrest of the CDS is likely to
determine whether other cases involving two naval officers would be allowed to
take its logical course.
Tail piece: Even the constitutional crisis and its questionable status did
not deter the government from signing two contracts totaling more than $50
million with two Chinese firms. The contract worth $32 million with China
Harbour Engineering Company (CHEC) was to enhance the deep berth capacity of
the state-run Jaya Container Terminal in Colombo. The other contract worth
$25.7 million was for the supply of three cranes from Shanghai Zhenhua Heavy
Industries for the same project. India had expressed its concern at the deal
earlier as 80 per cent of its marine
trade passes through the port.
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, South Asia Analysis
Group and the International Law and Strategic Analysis Institute, Chennai. E-mail: haridirect@gmail.com Blog: http://col.hariharan.info
Monday, 3 December 2018
Security: Can India Handle Another 26/11 ?
Even 10
years on, the country is not fully prepared for another terrorist attack and is
bogged down by petty politics and lack of co-ordination between various agencies
at the grassroots level
By Colonel R Hariharan
| December 1, 2018| India Legal |
Are we better prepared for another attack like 26/11?
Unfortunately, the answer is not simple as it is interwoven with the
international environment, and internal political and structural dynamics.
On the 10th anniversary of the Mumbai attacks of November 26,
2008, in which 166 people lost their lives, relatives of the victims came
together at the Gateway of India, facing the iconic Taj Mahal Hotel which bore
the brunt of them. The media went on a high, bashing Pakistan and its “deep
state” while recounting details of the attack.
INTERNATIONAL
DIMENSION
Internationally, Israel and the US came out with strong
statements of solidarity with the victims of the attack and India. US Secretary
of State Mike Pompeo in his message said that the fact that the perpetrators of
the attack had not been prosecuted so far was “an affront to the families of
the victims”. He called upon all countries, “particularly Pakistan, to uphold
their UN Security Council obligations to impose sanctions against the
terrorists responsible for this atrocity, including LeT and its affiliates”.
International solidarity, particularly from the US and Israel,
is expected as their citizens were victims of the attack; moreover, they had
been in the forefront of the international war on jihadi terrorism. Despite
this, in the world of realpolitik, national interest is invariably the sole
consideration for nations aiding other countries in fighting their wars,
particularly terrorism. So India has to fight its own war on terrorism.
There is unlikely to be any change in Pakistan’s attitude in prosecuting Hafiz Saeed and
six others involved in the Mumbai attack. This was evident from the
presence of Punjab minister Fayyaz ul-Hasan at a function organised by the
Jamat-ut-Dawa, founded by Saeed, on November 26, 2018. The backdrop on the
stage was a huge blow-up of Elias Davidsson, author of the book, The
Betrayal of India: Revisiting the 26/11 Evidence. Hasan’s presence
at the function lends credibility to Pakistan’s right-wing narrative of how
India orchestrated the whole Mumbai “drama” in November 2008.
This was not unexpected. The Pakistan Army calls the shots
regarding defence and India policies and uses trans-border terrorists as a
strategy to bleed its neighbour.
In fact, there are clear indications of Pakistan trying to
revive Khalistani terrorism in Punjab, leveraging this movement’s connections
in Canada, Italy and the UK. On November 4, 2017, the Punjab police arrested
five men said to be part of a Khalistani module that killed RSS members in
Ludhiana, Dera Sacha Sauda followers and a Christian pastor in
October-November, 2017. The suspects, on interrogation, confirmed that
the Khalistan Liberation Force carried out the killings at the bidding of
Pakistan spy agency, the Inter Services Intelligence. Since then, Punjab police
and intelligence agencies have scaled up their vigilance on Khalistani
activities.
According to the Punjab police chief, tech-savvy young men are influenced by
Khalistan separatist propaganda on social media. The grenade attack by two
Khalistani terrorists on a Nirankari satsang in a village near Amritsar on
November 18 is a strong reminder that Punjab could emerge as an option for
Pakistan-supported terrorist operations in the near future. So the question
really is not our readiness to face yet another Mumbai-type attack, but to face
a massive attack launched by educated, tech-savvy and indoctrinated terrorists
and aided by inimical powers. And the way to face them is to overcome our core
weaknesses in the war against terror and structurally improve our systems.
IMPROVE SYSTEMS
The abysmal response of the counter-terrorism apparatus to the
26/11 attacks showed that the national leadership had failed to establish a
fool-proof system to handle terrorist threat. In fact, these attacks showed the
same systemic weaknesses seen in the earlier Mumbai blasts case of 1993 and the
parliament attack in 2001.
The 26/11 episode revealed that there were glaring systemic
weaknesses, both at the state and central levels. There was lack of
co-ordination in intelligence gathering and dissemination which could forewarn
and help agencies respond before a terrorist strike. After an attack takes
place, the security response is often uncoordinated, tardy and delayed.
CO-ORDINATION OF
INTEL
After the 26/11 attacks, Union Home Minister P Chidambaram
mooted a radical overhaul of India’s security and intelligence apparatus. The
National Intelligence Grid (NATGRID), a network to collate data from the
databases of various agencies and ministries, came up in 2016. NATGRID’s data
is now available to 11 central agencies, including the Research and Analysis
Wing and the Intelligence Bureau. Two phases of NATGRID have been implemented
and two more, related to banking transactions and internet usage, are in the
offing. The National Investigation Agency was created on December 31, 2008, to
combat terror. Its director-general, YC Modi, has claimed it is a success story
with a conviction rate of 95 percent in 165 of the 185 cases registered since
its inception.
However, the National Counter Terrorism Centre (NCTC), modelled
on the lines of the National Counter-terrorism Center of the US and meant to be
receiving actionable intelligence inputs, has run into rough weather due to
political wrangling. Many chief ministers see it as an instrument of the centre
to poach on the preserve of states where public order and policing are
concerned. This stalling is a major failure in intelligence sharing on a real
time basis between states and the centre.
State policing continues to be the weakest link in national security. Many
states have not implemented the recommendations of successive police
commissions to improve the quality of policing. So, after 2008, though the
centre allocated more funds to improve and strengthen state police forces,
their capability varies widely from state to state.
MARITIME SECURITY
The fact that 10 LeT terrorists could travel by sea unchecked
for four days and infiltrate Mumbai to carry out the 26/11 strikes exposed the
vulnerability of our maritime security. To rectify this, the Coastal Security
System was refurbished with more fund allocations for coastal infrastructure,
including police stations and radar installations.According to the Indian Navy website, at the apex level, the
National Committee for Strengthening Maritime and Coastal Security (NCSMCS)
co-ordinates all matters related to maritime and coastal security. Joint
Operations Centres have been set up by the Navy in Mumbai, Visakhapatnam, Kochi
and Port Blair, manned by the Navy, Coast Guard and marine police. They act as
command and control hubs for coastal security. As a result, inter-agency
co-ordination between nearly 15 national and state agencies has improved. Also,
a chain of 74 automatic identification system receivers, complemented by 46
coastal radar installations, cover the entire coast.
After Prime Minister Narendra Modi came to power, a proposal to
create a National Maritime Authority to ensure cohesive policymaking and
effective co-ordination for coastal security figured in the president’s address
to Parliament in June 2014. However, this has not materialised so far; so
NCSMCS continues to be an ad hoc solution. Overall, our coastal security is
better than it was in 2008 but it is still a work in progress. Its weakness is
the continued neglect by states, reflected in the indifferent performance of
coastal police personnel who lack marine capabilities.
LEGAL ASPECTS
The world over, governments have been grappling with enacting
laws to handle terrorist threats. India is no exception. Our judicial process,
never known for speedy disposal of cases, adds to the agony of enforcement
agencies. There is lack of a viable counter-terrorism act. There is confusion
in jurisdiction between multiple central and state security agencies. Cross-border
issues, with political ramifications, also affect the apprehension and
prosecution of terrorists in sanctuaries abroad.
The Indian Penal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,
already contain provisions related to terrorist activity, including the offence
of waging war against the government, sedition to bring hatred or contempt or
inciting disaffection towards the government. These have been used in
prosecuting terrorists involved in almost all cases of terrorist attacks,
including the 1993 Mumbai blasts case and 26/11 terrorist Ajmal Kasab’s trial.
After the assassination of Indira Gandhi in 1984, the parliament enacted in
1985 the terrorism-specific Terrorism and Disruptive Activities (Prevention)
Act (TADA). It was used extensively to combat insurgency in Punjab. The
Act defined “terrorist act” and “disruptive activities”, put restrictions on
the grant of bail and gave enhanced power to detain suspects and attach
properties. After widespread allegations of misuse, TADA was allowed to lapse
in 1995.
In 2001, after the terrorist attack on Parliament, the
Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA), 2002, was enacted. POTA covers political
dissent, allowed prolonged pre-trial detention and reversed the presumption of
innocence of an accused. Misuse of some of its draconian provisions led to
widespread protest and it was repealed in 2004. However, courts allowed
investigation and prosecution of cases booked under TADA even after repeal of
the Act. As a result, a number of cases are still pending and many
accused are languishing in jails without trial.
At present, the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA),
originally enacted in 1967, is used as the primary anti-terrorism law. It
enables the State to impose reasonable restrictions on the rights to freedom of
speech and expression, peaceful assembly without arms and formation of
associations or unions that threaten national sovereignty and integrity.
However, it has been amended by Parliament five times. It was under the UAPA
that five activists were recently arrested in the Bhima-Koregaon case for
alleged support to CPI (Maoist-Leninist) activities (it is a proscribed
organisation).
Since Independence, India’s integrity and unity have been
threatened from time to time by separatists, left-wing extremists and terrorist
organisations supported by Pakistan. However, its enactments to combat these
disruptive forces lack clarity. Law-enforcing agencies, too, have to respect
the constitution and be accountable for their actions to prevent misuse of Acts
like the UAPA. Unfortunately, with party polemics vitiating the political
climate, we may continue to meander in combating the forces threatening our
national sovereignty.
—The writer is a retired officer of the Intelligence Corps and
associated with the Chennai Centre for China Studies and the South Asia
Analysis Group
Saturday, 24 November 2018
Why authors need reviews now than ever before
There is a symbiotic relationship between author and reviewer because they thrive upon each other. But a word of caution to potential reviewers from author Kurt Vonnegut, says Col R Hariharan – “We are what we pretend to be. So we must be careful what we pretend to be.”
I
don't know how many read book reviews that usually form part of newspaper Sunday
supplements. Probably there are not too many, but I am one of them. It was an
early habit I picked up probably from my grandfather, a police sub-inspector by
profession. He was not only a collector of books, but also critical reviewer of
whatever he read. His reviews were oral, coming out loud and clear, whenever he
could round up a few of us as audience. His collection was mostly of Tamil
classics. Books on Indian philosophy and Sir Walter Scott’s novels were also
there.
I
was drawn to review of books, thanks to my grandfather's compulsive and at
times highly critical reviews, dished out sometimes with pungent humour. In
addition to being an avid reader of books, I became a selective reader of book reviews.
I also reviewed books occasionally. They included a wide range - management
studies, military history, memoirs etc.
I
was reminded of my grandfather's no-holds-barred style of criticism, when I
read Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's book The
Full Circle. Even though he never completed reading The Count of Monte Cristo, the Nobel Laureate for literature was
scathing in his criticism of the author Alexandre Dumas. The terrible memories
of his imprisonment during his exile, immortalized in Solzhenitsyn's book The Gulag Archipelago, probably made him
so critical of Dumas 'a free person.' He mocked at Dumas ignorance about the
horrors of prison life for writing about a “benevolent prison.” Poor Dumas'
Château d'If was a product of his imagination of another era, when writing
about prisoners carrying latrine buckets was just not done, as Solzhnetsyn had
wanted.
When
I read this, I realised how judgemental reviewers can be. Most of the reviewers
end up analysing the book and the author, based upon their own life experience.
Perhaps this is what adds colour to reviews, provided the reviewer fulfilled
two conditions: he had read the book and feels strongly about it. Otherwise,
the review will be bland, placid and quickly forgotten.
Well
known American post modern novelist Kurt Vonnegut once said "any reviewer
who expresses rage and loathing for a novel is preposterous. He or she is like
a person who has put on full armour and attacked hot fudge sundae."
Probably Vonnegut was expressing his dismay at the unfairness of author-bashing,
like a father who cannot stand to see his son bullied by armed ruffians.
However,
some authors take too badly to critics. Oliver Markus Malloy, author of some
'Comic' writing (as he describes his books) is caustic about critics. He says
"It is the Yelp effect. Every half-wit who eats food thinks he's s a food
critic. Don't get me started on people 'reviewing' books they didn't even read.
Who needs information when you can have an uninformed opinion?"
Sometimes,
when I read a book review, like Oliver, I also get the uncanny feeling that the
reviewer had only read the blurb on the book jacket, and not the book. Of
course blurb writing itself has become an art - a good blurb, though less
laudable in its purpose than a bikini, does the same job: covering essential
parts while creating interest.
Do authors need critics? Somerset
Maugham, one of the most popular story tellers of all times, was never a
favourite of critics. In fact, Bloomsbury literary elite never showed any
interest in him. He was fiercely self-critical as a writer with small
vocabulary, with little gift of metaphor and the "striking simile seldom
occurred" to him. But the great story teller did not need critics to make
him popular, but his media reviews did it.
All authors do not have Maugham's
gift of storytelling. In the electronic era, authors need critical acclaim to
gain attention; even some notoriety comes handy at times. So they need a
reviewer. Secondly, the internet seems to have made everyone an author; some of
them are budding, but many are blooming authors. So, even the world of pulp
romances has become congested. When 'tall dark handsome' has become a cliché,
how does an author make his or her mark writing yet another romance? The experienced
editor may suggest introducing a steamy sex encounter in page 20, and every ten
pages thereafter. This might have worked in the days of DH Lawrence, but not
anymore. I can hear some young voices asking the question
"DH... who." Actually their ignorance of the yore, provides the
answer. We are living in the era of live streaming sex scenes on call in the
ether. So commonsense tells us that not
many will be thrilled with sex on page 20.
This is where a review on multimedia
format comes in handy, because whether the book is good or a goof up, a review
provides exposure, even if it is negative. So a review has become more
important now than ever before for an author.
There is a symbiotic relationship
between the author and the reviewer because they thrive upon each other. But a
word of caution to potential reviewers from Vonnegut might be useful.
"We're what we pretend to be. So we must be careful what we pretend to
be."
[The
writer is a retired colonel of the Intelligence Corps. He writes and speaks on South Asia and its
neighbourhood as well as terrorism, the areas of his specialties during the
service.]
Monday, 19 November 2018
Sarkar: Making Sense of Censorship
The Tamil film, Sarkar, rakes in the big bucks, but not before
its producers bow to pressure from the ruling AIADMK, send it for re-censorship and agree to chop
off controversial scenes
By Col R Hariharan |Politics | Civil military
relations| India
Legal February 26, 2018 http://www.indialegallive.com/politics/sarkar-making-sense-of-censorship-57411
After two aging heroes of Tamil cinema—Kamal Haasan and
Rajinikanth—churned up the political waters of Tamil Nadu with their entry, it
seems to be the turn of yet another movie hero, Thalapathi (Commander) Vijay,
to jump into the fray, riding the political controversy generated in the wake
of his Diwali blockbuster, Tamil movie Sarkar.
Award-winning director AR Murugadoss, well-known for his
blockbuster movies, including the Aamir Khan starrer, Ghajini (2008), in Hindi,
has directed Sarkar. His two earlier films with Vijay as the hero—Thuppaki
(2012) and Katthi had also run into controversy.
Thuppakki’s problem was related to allegations of showing the
minority community in bad light, while Katthi faced the wrath of Tamil fringe
groups as the producer was a close associate of former Sri Lanka president
Mahinda Rajapaksa.
Gautaman Bhaskaran in a review described Sarkar as
“unashamedly a propaganda vehicle for Vijay”. The superhero techie flies into
Tamil Nadu to cast his vote, finds someone has voted in his place. Then he gets
into action singlehandedly to cleanse the corrupt political system, to take
over the reins of the government.
The ruling All
India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazagham (AIADMK) party was not amused with scenes
featuring a political party distributing freebies before elections, its
signature method of electioneering. It also objected to naming one of the
antagonists of the movie as Komalavalli, name of the party’s icon the late J
Jayalalithaa before she joined movies.
Tamil Nadu information minister Kadambur Raju asked the producer
Sun Pictures and director AR Murugadoss to remove the objectionable scenes from
Sarkar. He said, “The Sarkar scenes showing people throwing the Tamil Nadu
government free appliances into fire should be removed voluntarily from the
movie. If not, the government will take necessary steps to remove it.”
Other ministers dubbed the movie as a propaganda against the
party because producer Kalanithi Maran’s family connections with the DMK.
Hundreds of AIADMK supporters went on a rampage particularly in Madurai. They
tore down hoardings and posters showing the baby-faced hero Vijay, posing in
his signature stance a la Superman.
The director,
Murugadoss, received death threats; he sought anticipatory bail after an
individual lodged a complaint with the Commissioner of Police stating that the
director should be booked under acts of terrorism. The producers bowed to
the pressure from exhibitors and agreed to remove the so-called objectionable
scenes from the movie. Ironically, the AIADMK fighting internal wrangles, used
the Sarkar controversy as a rallying point for its cadres.
The Sarkar controversy has both political and constitutional
dimensions relating to fundamental freedoms. Politically, there is a
power vacuum in Tamil Nadu after the exit of two powerful leaders—Jayalalithaa
and M Karunanidhi of rival DMK. The ruling AIADMK party is in a self
destructive three-way leadership power struggle, while MK Stalin, who inherited
the DMK leadership, is flexing his muscles in the wings to capture power.
Already, all political parties are wary of the entry of Kamal
Haasan and Rajinikanth into active politics, who might end up poaching their
cadres to fulfil their own political ambitions. So Vijay’s entry into the fray
adds to their political apprehensions as he has a networked fan base like Kamal
Haasan and Rajinikanth.
Vijay has been nurturing political ambitions for some time now.
In 2008, he flew to New Delhi and met Rahul Gandhi to join the Youth Congress.
Since then he had been dropping hints about his imminent political entrance.
However, he sounded more ominous during the audio release function of Sarkar in
October 2018. When the anchor asked him whether he would become a real-life CM,
he replied, “If I become the CM, then I won’t just act like one, but do my job
sincerely.” Commenting on politics, he said,
The first thing I
want to change if I become the chief minister is corruption. The state needs a
good leader, only when the leader is corruption-free, others below him will also
be without corruption.” The film producers could not walk the talk. The film
raked in the big bucks, but only after, bowing to political pressure, its
producers agreed to remove some of the objectionable scenes.
Censorship of films has a long history dating back to 1920 when
the Indian Cinematograph Act came into force. Censor Boards were placed under
police chiefs in Madras, Bombay, Calcutta, Lahore and Rangoon. After
independence Central Board of Film Censors came to being in 1952. Film
certification rules were revised in 1963 and the Central Board of Film Censors
(CBFC) was renamed as the Central Board of Film Certification.
The CBFC guidelines for certification containing 20 clauses are
elaborate and all-embracing. It covers a whole range of “anti-social
activities” like not glorifying or justifying violence, method of operation of
criminals to scenes justifying and glamorising drinking, drug addiction and use
of tobacco. But some guidelines like “dual meaning words as obviously cater to
baser instincts are not allowed” are too vague. Even guidelines on “visuals or
words which promote communal, obscurantist, anti-scientific and anti-national
attitude” are open to interpretation.
Even after CBFC clearance, some of the movies face the wrath of
local governments which bow to populist or political pressure to block their
screening. The Padmaavat controversy is a very good example of this aberration.
In Tamil Nadu, the release of Kamal Haasan’s Viswaroopam was held up by the
state government ostensibly in the interest of public order and security.
So censor certification continues to be a major bugbear of film
fraternity. This is more so in Tamil Nadu where politics has umbilical links
with movies ever since playwright CN Annadurai founded the DMK with another
playwright, Karunanidhi, in 1949. Since then, there had been no stopping of
political propaganda, ostensibly carrying the message of social reform, finding
its way into Tamil movies.
Movies also provide platform for filmstars to leverage their
popularity to make it big in politics. Perhaps, the biggest of them all were
Karunanidhi, actors MG Ramachandran and Jayalalithaa who ended up as successful
chief ministers. Of course, some superheroes like Sivaji Ganesan failed to make
the grade in politics. The yin and yang of the relationship between politicians
and actors affects the fortunes of political leaders as much as filmstars.
Inevitably, this adds to the film certification woes of
producers and exhibitors in Tamil Nadu. It also raises the larger issue of censorship
in the country. It involves suppression of speech or public communication
regardless of freedom of speech protected in the Indian Constitution. On the
other hand, the constitution also places some restrictions on freedom of
expression for maintaining communal and religious harmony.
While this is understandable, it is difficult to accept
objectionable content, as per the Information Technology Rules 2011. These
include anything that “threatens unity, integrity, defence, security or
sovereignty of India, friendly relations with foreign states or public
order”. It is rules such as these, that are more prone to misuse, that
made Freedom House in its annual Freedom of the Press index give India a
freedom rating of “Partly Free” in 2016.
—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.
Friday, 2 November 2018
Sri Lanka Perspectives: October 2018
Col R Hariharan | 31-10-2018 |
President Sirisena's constitutional coup
President Maithripala Sirisena in a dramatic move on October 26
installed former president Mahinda Rajapaksa as Prime Minister, in place of his
coalition partner Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe, leader of the United
National Party (UNP). Evidently, political expediency prompted the President to
ignore the inconvenient fact that it was the support of Wickremesinghe and the
UNP that enabled him to come to power, defeating Rajapaksa in the presidential
election.
The President’s surprise action was well orchestrated with his
Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP)-led United Peoples Front Alliance (UPFA) and the
pro-Rajapaksa Joint Opposition (JO) group withdrawing support to the
Wickremesinghe government. After sacking the incumbent PM Wickremesinghe, the
President prorogued the parliament till November 16, preventing Wickremesinghe
from seeking a vote of confidence in parliament. By November 16, the
Sirisena-Rajapaksa government probably hopes to secure majority support in the
225-member parliament. Karu Jayasuriya, the speaker of parliament objected to
the President’s action as it was unconstitutional, and requested him to convene
the parliament early for a vote of confidence.
The Western world was stunned by the developments in Sri Lanka
as it had been supporting Maithripala-Ranil duo to keep Rajapaksa out of power.
They had felt Rajapaksa, already in their black books for his questionable
standards of governance, was getting too cosy with China for their comfort.
They supported the speaker’s request for convening the parliament immediately
to seek a vote of confidence. The President after meeting the speaker has now agreed
to convene the parliament on November 5. Probably he is confident that by then
Rajapaksa would be able get majority support.
According to the Hindu, as on October 30, both
Sirisena-Rajapaksa combine and Wickremesinghe’s UNP front enjoyed the support
of 100 members each. So the support of Tamil National Alliance (TNA), which has
16 members in parliament, has become crucial for Rajapaksa. He is said to have
met TNA leader R Sampanthan and asked for his support.
The Tamil leader sought a “specific plan, a time frame and the
manner of implementation” on the Tamil question from Rajapaksa before TNA MPs
and Allinace partners could consider the request. So the jury is still out on
whether Rajapaksa would be able to muster majority support when the parliament votes
on November 5.
The presidential action was not unexpected as he had met
Rajapaksa more than once. They had reportedly discussed the future course of
the Sirisena-led SLFP as trust deficit and friction with Wickremesinghe and the
UNP had reached the point of no return. However, the timing of his action
surprised everyone including the ousted PM.
The Sirisena-Rajapaksa duo probably decided to act after their
earlier effort to unseat PM Wickremesinghe through a no confidence
motion failed in April 2018. As the much delayed provincial council elections
are to be held shortly, they probably decided to bury the hatchet to regain
SLFP’s credibility, particularly after the drubbing received by both UNP and
SLFP in the local elections.
A suspected plot to assassinate President Sirisena and former
defence secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa, hinting at Indian intelligence agency
RAW’s involvement hand surfaced, seems to have further aggravated the
Preident’s suspicion about a conspiracy hatched by the UNP. According to a
media report, President Sirisena had talked about the plot at a cabinet
meeting. Later he spoke to Prime Minister Narendra Modi to clarify that he
never alleged India was behind the assassination plot. However, President
Sirisena seems to have been upset by the lack of quick response to the report
from Wickremesinghe, particularly after there were loud hints of involvement of
a minister behind the plot.
Legalities apart, President Sirisena’s action of not extending
even the normal courtesy of informing PM Wickremesinghe before he sacked him,
indicated the degree of bitterness in their personal equation. This was
dramatically illustrated when Ranil was served with an ultimatum to vacate his
official residence, followed by reduction of his 1008-strong security detail to
ten and the sacking of his secretary at the PM’s office.
In any case, it is now evident that the so-called National Unity
Front of SLFP-UNP combine was a marriage of inconvenience formed only to cash
upon popular sentiments against Rajapaksa family’s insensitive and corrupt
rule. While SLFP is left-of-centre, UNP may be called right-of-centre; so their
perceptions on free economy, private sector etc differ. This has always made it
difficult for them to act cohesively in cohabitation government.
So the coalition’s actions lacked sincerity on key issues like
cleaning up the corrupt system, investigation of corruption cases including the
Bond scam, ending the executive presidency and drafting a new constitution that
would satisfy minority aspirations.
President's action seems to have vertically divided the nation.
Civil society leaders and legal pundits for and against President
Sirisena’s action are battling it out in media columns quoting the same
Constitutional article 45(4). The Colombo daily Daily Mirror online
poll has reported that 72 percent of voters considered the President’s action
incorrect. However, this probably reflects urban middle class view, rather than
the rural masses on the political change. But it certainly reflected that
influential sections of society is not reconciled to the idea of Rajapaksa as
PM.
Apart from the unfulfilled political expectations,
Sirisena-Wickremesinghe coalition had come in for sharp criticism over mismanaging
the debt-ridden national economy. The rise in global oil prices and the fall in
the value of Sri Lankan rupee resulted in sharp rise in fuel and food prices
affecting the common man. PM designate Rajapaksa in his first media interaction
on October 31 has focused on this aspect, perhaps because it affects the people
most.
Usually, India is the fall guy responsible for any crisis in Sri
Lanka politics because it looms large in Sri Lankan politics. This time also
was no exception. There was some bad mouthing of India because all the three
stake holders in current political muddle – Rajapaksa, Sirisena and
Wickremesinghe - had visited New Delhi before the crisis unfolded. All the
three of them had called upon Prime Minister Narendra Modi. When Rajapaksa met
the Indian PM, he sought to assure that he had nothing against New Delhi, in a
bid to reduce the trust deficit.
The allegations against India were gingered up when an Indian
hand was suspected behind the plot to kill the President and Gotabaya Rajapaksa,
though it was officially denied. So it was not surprising that India
stayed “disengaged” as the controversial situation unfolded.
During his latest visit to New Delhi, Rajapaksa had reminded in
an interview had hinted that India and Western powers had helped formation of
the coalition to defeat him in the 2015 presidential election. Indian media has
now reported that Rajapaksa was trying to contact New Delhi for its support as
he was still short of 15 MPs for a majority. However, New Delhi had shown no
interest; after all between Rajapaksa and Ranil, the latter had a better new
equation in the Indian capital.
On the other hand, China was happy to see Rajapaksa, its
favourie Sri Lankan leader, staging a comeback in power. China’s ambassador in
Colombo Chen Xueyuan was one of the first diplomats to meet Rajapaksa soon
after he was sworn in; he presented a congratulatory message from PM Li
Keqiang. So it was not surprising to see social media flogging China
for supporting Rajapaksa. China clarified that it did not intend to interfere
in Sri Lanka’s internal affairs.
Chinese foreign ministry spokesman said that
China was closely following the changes in the situation in Sri Lanka. “We have
maintained communication with the relevant political parties in Sri Lanka. The
Chinese ambassador met Wickremesinghe and the new PM Rajapaksa” he added. In
simple terms, India’s strategies in Sri Lanka have become a little more
complicated with Rajapaksa back in power supported by President Sirisena. China
already established in Sri Lanka, can be expected to be even more assertive
now.
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, South Asia Analysis
Group and the International Law and Strategic Analysis Institute, Chennai. E-mail: haridirect@gmail.com Blog: http://col.hariharan.info
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)