Book Review - "Cadres of Tibet": Personalities involved in China’s acculturation process in Tibet

Col R Hariharan | February 23, 2018 | Chennai Centre for China Studies Article No 010/2018

https://www.c3sindia.org/defence-security/book-review-personalities-involved-in-chinas-acculturation-process-in-tibet-by-col-r-hariharan 

Recently, the Tibetan Autonomous Region (TAR)’s highest decision making body – the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) committee - is reported to have held a high level meeting with religious personnel (Tulku or living Buddha in the CCP jargon) to educate them on the 19^th Party Congress ‘guided’ by President Xi Jining’s new guiding philosophy for China in the new era.  At the meeting all the eight Tulkus unanimously agreed to study and implement the four “must uphold” golden rules for religious personnel to act in accordance with the spirit of the 19^th Party Congress.

The four golden rules are: politically reliable, religiously high standing, morally righteous and last, but not the least, politically effective.  Or in short, as Tibetan researcher Tenzin Tseten says, briefly the golden rules are “religious personnel must be patriotic, party loving, law-abiding and influential. In that sense, the Communist Party is the ‘living Buddha’ and Xi’s philosophy on religion is the modern Buddhist script.” According to him, long before it captured power in China,  the CCP had understood that Tibetan Buddhism was integral to Tibetan identity and nationalism.

 In this context, well known China watcher and commentator Jayadeva Ranade’s book Cadres of Tibet [January 2018; published by KW Publishers Pvt Ltd, New Delhi 110002] will be welcomed by all those interested in understanding not only China and Tibet but how the CCP systematically carries out the process of acculturation in Tibet. The book is a compendium of personalities who influence and execute Beijing’s policies at all levels – at the top, at Tibetan Autonomous Region (TAR) and down to administrative division. It includes brief biographical sketches of important officials and cadres of the CCP at the national and autonomous regional level.  

The CCP in TAR is led by Wu YungJie, the 61-year old Han Chinese, who is described as more Tibetan than Chinese, for his intimate knowledge of Tibet with fluency in Tibetan and long work experience in TAR (available in pages 19-23). It is personalities like Wu Yung-Jie with specialist knowledge of Tibet and its culture are spearheading the acculturation process in Tibet for nearly six decades.  However, Tibetan Buddhism and culture still continues to be the beacon of Tibetan identity for Tibetans not only in TAR and Tibetan prefectures and counties existing outside TAR, but also Tibetans scattered around the world pining for their homeland. 

The book also includes useful background information on the CCP TAR’s two important projects - the Aid Tibet Programme (ATP) and the United Front Work Department (UFWD). It also provides a list of 36 leaders who influence the Tibet policy as well as salient points of talks held between the official envoys of China and the Dalai Lama from April 24, 1982 to January 26, 2010.

The chapter on the two-decade long ATP provides insights on how the CCP has gone about to systematically integrate Tibet with the rest of China by involving other provinces as stakeholders. According to the author, under the ATP more than thousand cadres from inland provinces, central ministries and state enterprises are sent to work in TAR on a three-year contract.  They are assigned to work in political positions from the municipal level upwards. Each TAR municipality is provided sponsorship and assistance from two inland provinces to enhance governance and carry out major infrastructure projects. But ATP’s work is much more than integration of Tibetans with the rest of China or assisting the development of Tibet; it is also an instrument of acculturation of Tibet.

The self-immolation of Tibetan monks is an expression of enduring protest against CCP’s acculturation of Tibetan identity with Tibetan Buddhism at its core. Self-immolation of monks started when Tapey, a young monk of Kirti monastery set himself in Ngawa city in Sichuan which was reported in Tibet on February 27, 2009. In particular, the self-immolation of Phuntsong on March 16, 2011 in Ngawa county triggered a huge of wave of immolations that really shook Chinese authorities, who blamed the Dalai Lama in exile for inciting them, though he totally dissociated himself with this form of protest.  According to Free Tibet website as on June 5, 2017 there have been 148 confirmed and two disputed instances of self-immolation of Tibetans.The wave of self-immolation of Tibetans had also spread outside Tibet.

According to Tsering Tsomo, Tibetan human rights activist, “in September 2013, China announced that it had sent 60,000 Party cadres into Tibetan villages and towns to educate, manage and provide ‘public services.’ In reality these are foot soldiers of China’s war on separatism in Tibet. This is part of the drive for acculturation of Tibet to cut it off from its cultural moorings and the unique Tibetan identity.

Tibetans are forced to express their ‘gratitude, love and loyalty’ for the Party in political education sessions. Thought reform is used, even to this day when China has built high-speed trains. In the many visible and invisible detention centres, Tibetans who had committed ‘political crimes’ are forced to write self-criticism letters repeatedly until they break down and comply.

The book would have been more useful for general readers if the author had added chapters analyzing CCP TAR’s growth and influence in policy making in Beijing and how Tibetan policy is being shaped and executed on ground.

Col R Hariharan, a retired Military intelligence officer, is a member of the Chennai Centre for China Studies and the International Law and Strategic Analysis Institute. The views expressed in the article are  of the author.          E-mail: haridirect@gmail.com Blog: http://col.hariharan.info

Defence Forces: A Low Priority?

The distrust between the two was evident when an army officer’s father approached the Supreme Court for succor. Will the plummeting ties blunt the cutting edge of the armed forces?

Col R Hariharan |My space | Civil military relations|                                        

India Legal February 26, 2018

http://www.indialegallive.com/viewpoint/defence-forces-a-low-priority-44273

Civil-military relations in India have been on a downslide for a long time.  They touched a new low when the Supreme Court was approached by a serving officer’s father to protect his son from prosecution while performing his official duty. The Court asked the J&K government and the centre that “no coercive action shall be taken” against Major Aditya Kumar based on an FIR filed in connection with the death of three civilians in alleged Army firing in Shopian last month. That the Army convoy was on bonafide military duty in an area under the AFSPA is a matter of detail.

The Court was responding to a petition filed by Lt Col Karamveer Singh challenging the action taken against his son who was named wrongly under sections 303, 307 and 3336 of the Ranbir Penal Code. The Court also issued a notice to seeking the response of the state and centre within two weeks. Incidentally, the Ranbir Penal Code or RPC is a criminal code applicable in Jammu and Kashmir (J&K). IPC is not applicable under Article 370 of the Constitution.

In addition, the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) has taken cognizance of a complaint by three children of Army officers alleging violation of human rights of the army personnel in recent incidents in the state. NHRC has sought a “factual report” from the Ministry of Defence in four weeks. The children have also appealed to the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) against the violation of human rights of soldiers, adding an unsavoury international dimension to the issue.

Apathy, confusion and contradiction sum up the present state of civil-military relations.  While the centre has not been able to overcome its indifference, state governments are no better.  The mess in J&K is a testimony to the mindless way in which the BJP-PDP coalition government headed by Mehbooba Mufti is functioning.  For too long, this coalition of convenience had been running with the hare and hunting with the horses at the same time.  Driven by the sole desire to continue in power, Mehbooba has been adopting a soft approach to lynch mobs and Pak Fifth Columns targeting the security forces, while “cooperating” with the centre in the operations against infiltrating terrorists. And the BJP in the state, with its double-speak, bears equal responsibility for this.

The J and K government's handling of the "killing" of three stone throwers by an army convoy escort on January 27 in Shopian is a case study of botched civil-military relations.  Though the army escort fired to protect the convoy from the mob which damaged army vehicles and injured seven soldiers, including a JCO seriously, Mehbooba wasted no time in registering an FIR against Major Aditya and his unit on charges of murder, attempt to murder and endangering life. 

Former army chief General VP Malik tweeted that the incident affected the morale of security forces working on the ground. He also found political leaders’ silence inexplicable.  However, a media report quoted Mehbooba as saying “I do not accept that the Army gets demoralised by such actions. The Army is an institution and has done a wonderful job. But a black sheep can be anywhere…. If some Army officer has committed a mistake, an FIR has been lodged and it is the duty of the government to take it to a logical conclusion.”

Mehbooba had also mentioned that she had reported the matter to Union Minister of Defence Nirmala Sitharaman. The minister broke her stoic silence on the CM’s statement only when she visited J&K when terrorists carried out two more attacks on security forces a few days later. While an attack on CRPF camp was thwarted in time, the one on family quarters in Sunjuwan garrison was prolonged and four soldiers and one civilian were killed.  The defence minister during her visit referred to the FIR on army personnel and reassured: “The government and MoD will stand by the Army, which is working under severe duress in J&K. We will not let our soldiers down.” Her words would have carried more credibility, had the state government immediately withdrawn the FIR issued against Major Aditya and his unit.  Evidently, the CM is looking for a politically opportune moment to withdraw the FIR or just ignore Sitharaman. In the meanwhile, Major Aditya will be kept on tenterhooks for the next few months or years, while the state pushes the case to its “logical conclusion,” whatever it is.

In the light of these happenings, the army has no option but to develop a thick skin to survive as a fighting force in the present political environment.  Troops fighting terrorists on the one hand will also now have to fend off the state government harassment.  Former IG of BSF Bhola Nath’s tweet neatly summed up situation: “My country, you throw ink, egg or shoe at any leader, you will get arrested on the spot immediately. But if you throw stones on forces, army….Army men may be arrested! Do we see such act of stone throwing on Forces in any other countries?” How much these mindless pinpricks will affect the fighting edge of the armed forces, while the civil administration hunts for black sheep among troops, is an open question.

The spontaneous flood of sympathy for the army in the social, print and electronic media was welcome, it does not appear to have shaken up the apathy of the political class. Their callousness was evident when a National Conference member of the J and K assembly shouted “Pakistan zindabad” during the assembly session, even as the bodies of dead soldiers were being prepared for funeral. For political class, it was business as usual.

The military fraternity, which is usually only seen and not heard, has become vocal about the Shopian incident because it adds to their angst about the government’s failure to live up to its promises on issues affecting national security and military’s professional capability. The low priority defence forces enjoy in the national scheme of things became evident when the prime minister and defence minister did not attend the army chief’s Army Day reception to the president for the first time ever.

Let alone the “One Rank One Pension” issue that left some residual bitterness and Pay Commission woes of the armed forces, many other proposals for making up the deficiencies in the armed forces’ command and control set-up and fire power continue to be caught in bureaucratic red tape and the compulsions of make in India. Ashley Tellis,  a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace has eloquently summed up the current state of affairs: “The structures that are dysfunctional, that have stopped the military from making smart choices, are still there…It's not the way to run a military of a major power. It has to be among the worst procurement processes of any major power.”

Our potential adversaries - China and Pakistan - have evolved two extreme models of civil-relations, which recognize the armed forces’ role in shaping the nation’s destiny. President Xi Jinping in his quest for consolidation of power has made “civil military integration” (CMI) his priority. It is one subject he refers as frequently in his speeches as the Bridge and Road Initiative and “the Chinese dream.” The State Council’s Information office on China’s military strategy in May 2015 envisages the creation of “an all element, multi-domain and cost- efficient pattern of CMI.”  China is systematically implementing the plan to optimise its military and civil capabilities in tandem to create a smooth organisational structure that would holistically strengthen the country’s national security.  

The Pakistan army has always been involved in civil administration.  Even now when an elected government is in power, the army continues to call the shots on how the civil administration behaves. The services chiefs brief the parliament on security matters from and decisions are taken through “consensus.”

As a democracy, India can take cue from the US and UK where civil military relations are founded on the bedrock of what Samuel Huntington calls “objective civilian control.” Our leaders would do well to follow the US Secretary of defence James Mattis’ advice: “The key  to healthy civil-military relations is trust on both the civilian and military sides of the negotiation: the civilian must trust the military to provide its best and most objective advice but then carry out any policy that civilian decision makers ultimately choose. The military must trust the civilians to give a fair hearing of military advice and not reject it out of hand, especially for transparently political reasons. Civilians must understand that dissent is not same as disobedience.” 

Unless the government shows greater interest and changes its patchy response to military issues, it may blunt the cutting edge of the armed forces. That would be a monumental tragedy for the country.

  -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

Twitter: @indialegalmedia Website: www.indialegallive.com Contact: editor@indialegallive.com

The Empire Strikes Back

Rajapaksa triumphs in local elections, his shadow looms again over Sri Lankan politics

R Hariharan |Edit Page |World |Times of India| February 21, 2018

https://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/toi-edit-page/the-empire-strikes-back-rajapaksa-triumphs-in-local-elections-his-shadow-looms-again-over-sri-lankan-politics/

The shock waves of the landslide victory of the newly formed Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) party, backed by former President Mahinda Rajapaksa, in local government (LG) elections held on February 10, has left the fragile coalition of President Maithripala Sirisena’s Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe’s United National Party (UNP) in total disarray. Many members of both parties are pressuring the leaders to quit the alliance and form the government on their own, while the two leaders are blaming each other for the debacle.

The election had built in uncertainties as this was the first time mixed voting system of proportional and first-past-the-post voting was adopted for LG polls. Moreover, the parties had to nominate women for 25% of their contestants. The two partners of the coalition contested separately on their own and there was a lot of acrimony between them during the campaigning. Sirisena tried and failed to win back SLFP members in the opposition who were supporting Rajapaksa. UNP’s own internal leadership squabble affected its performance.

70% of 15.8 million Sri Lankans voted to elect a total of 8,293 members to 340 local bodies (24 municipal councils, 41 urban councils and 275 divisional councils) in the election. According to official results, SLPP secured 44.65% of votes and captured 231 local councils, UNP was a distant second polling 32.63% votes to secure only 34 councils; the Sirisena-led SLFP and its National Peoples Freedom Alliance (NPFA) got the worst drubbing, polling a dismal 13.38% votes to capture only 9 councils. The Ilankai Tamil Arasu Katchi (ITAK) – the lead party of Tamil National Alliance (TNA) – captured 41 local councils.

Undoubtedly, SLPP’s vote mostly came from southern Sinhala rural voters indicating the former President Rajapaksa has maintained his support base in the Sinhala heartland. Though LG elections do not necessarily reflect political trends in parliamentary polls, Rajapaksa seems to have retained much of the 47.6% votes he polled in the presidential election in 2015.

Though local issues dominate LG elections, they serve as a barometer of political parties’ strength at the grassroots. Moreover, the much delayed LG elections were also a mid-term reality check on the performance of the ruling national unity coalition which had defeated Rajapaksa not once, but twice, in presidential and parliamentary elections in 2015. If Rajapaksa’s current revival continues, he may well bounce back on political mainstage when elections for nine provincial councils and parliament are held in 2018 and 2019 respectively.

The main reason for the failure of UNP and SLFP appears to be people’s disillusionment with the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe coalition for failing to deliver upon their promises of good governance. Perhaps, the most glaring failure related to the inordinate delay in punishing those responsible for misuse of office, corruption and cronyism during the Rajapaksa regime even though 34 such cases involving Rajapaksa family members and their cohorts have been investigated. On the other hand, Sirisena government had its own baggage of scams like the one involving Raja Mahendran, governor of Bank of Ceylon in issuing sovereign bonds in 2015 and inclusion of tainted members in the coalition.

The government’s co-sponsorship of a UNHRC resolution to investigate human rights excesses and war crimes allegedly committed by the army during the Eelam War probably hurt the nationalist sentiments of many southern Sinhala voters. Sirisena is now reported to be trying to force Wickremesinghe to step down from the PM’s post. On the other hand, Wickremesinghe is said to be contemplating a government on UNP’s own strength.

Finance minister and UNP leader Mangala Samaraweera said, “LG polls 2018 is a timely wake-up call to Yahapalana [good governance] government to get back on track.” Civil society leaders are pressuring both parties to work unitedly, as they do not want Rajapaksa’s autocratic rule once again.

Fall of Sri Lanka’s unity government would be of some concern to India. India owes it to the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe coalition which restored balance in the country’s relations, skewed in favour of China during Rajapaksa’s rule. It suits India that TNA has been broadly supportive of the halting efforts of the national unity government to address the Tamil question.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi has gone the extra mile to win back Sri Lanka’s confidence, with success. Squeezed by China’s debt burden, Sri Lanka needs India’s helping hand more than ever before. So, we can expect Sri Lanka to pursue its current policy on India even if there is a change in the ruling coalition.

However, there is a qualitative change in the strategic setting in Indian Ocean region in Sri Lanka’s vicinity, after Maldives President Yameen declared a state of emergency defying a Supreme Court judgment to release former President Nasheed and 11 other parliament members from prison. China has a huge stake in the Yameen government and has explicitly warned India to desist from “interfering” in the internal affairs of Maldives.

Though such a contingency in Sri Lanka does not appear within the realms of possibility, India will have to watch developments in Sri Lanka carefully as China is increasingly dominating Sri Lanka in many facets. The handing over of Hambantota port to the Chinese on lease legitimises China taking suitable measures to protect its interests. This has increased Sri Lanka’s importance in India’s strategic security architecture and India would always prefer a stable and friendly government in Sri Lanka.

The writer served as the head of intelligence of the Indian Peace Keeping Force in Sri Lanka (1987-90).

Bouncing back from LG election drubbing

Colonel R Hariharan | Focus | Ceylon Today | February 21, 2018  www.ceylontoday.lk

After Mahinda Rajapaksa’s fledgling Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) handed out a shocking defeat to both the UNP and the SLFP in the local government elections, the three-way political power game has become more complex than before.  A gloating Rajapaksa, past master in political manoevuring, is demanding fresh elections after dissolving the parliament, though he knows it would not happen as both the SLFP and UNP would never oblige him.  

President Maithripala Sirisena and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe more than power, credibility has become the main issue. They are trying to retain their credibility on multiple fronts – as leaders of the unity coalition that set out to provide an alternative to Rajapaksa’s autocratic rule, to survive as leaders of the party in the face of challengers making deals to dethrone them and to show the people that they can still deliver on what they promised before the end of this term.

The current situation faced by the three leaders – Rajapaksa, Sirisena and Wickremesinghe – may be aptly described as ‘wheels in wheels’ – a number of different influences, reasons and actions which together make a situation complicated and difficult to understand, as Collins dictionary says. But, Sirisena-Wickremesinghe duo has a bigger burden than Rajapaksa, who is at the barricades, heckling them from the periphery.  

Notwithstanding their internal party leadership compulsions, the skills of both Srisena and Wickremesinghe will be tested on many aspects in the coming months as political uncertainty looms large in the horizon. The LG election results show, their rule has raised a whole lot of questions in the minds of people of all hues – Sinhalas, Muslims, Tamils and others who believed them and voted them to power.  Both of them need to answer these questions.

Perhaps, both the leaders need the multi-tasking ability of Avadhānam practitioners of ancient India. Avadhānaṃ used to be a popular literary entertainment performed in ancient days in India. It is still performed in isolated pockets of Andhra and Tamil Nadu.  It involves the partial improvisation of poetry using specific themes, metres, forms, or words.

In the two performances of Avadhanam I had seen in Tamil Nadu, it was performed in Tamil, though originally it was the preserve of Sanskrit scholars in ancient India. In Andhra Pradesh it is still in vogue. In both the performances I saw, the scholars show cased their mastery of cognitive skills in observation, memory, multitasking, recapitulation and logical reasoning in literature, poetry, music, mathematical skills and solving conundrums - all at the same time! Typically, the second line of a verse from a Tamil classic like Tirukkural or Kamba Ramayanam was quoted by the questioner (Prcchaka) and the Avadhani countered it with the first line of the verse. At the same time the Avadhani had to keep count of cowrie shells, continuously thrown on his back, while another questioner posed a mathematical problem on the black board. Surprisingly, the Avadhanis came out with very impressive performance.

After the LG election, the first priority for both the leaders is to consciously reassure, not only their followers, but also people who them to power that their alliance was not one of convenience, but to deliver value.

The second, but perhaps the most difficult priority is walking the talk. Most of the initiatives they had taken are held up due to pulls and pressures or tangled in bureaucratic maze. Nearly forty cases of corruption, misuse of power, human rights violations, economic crimes, cronyism and even murders, are stagnating in various stages of investigation or prosecution. They need to be taken to their logical conclusion. People have been waiting for answers to serious allegations made by responsible ministers that Rajapaksa family members and others had indulged in many of these crimes. And three years is a long time. As we say in Hindi, time has come for “Doodh ka doodh aur pani ka pani” (making things crystal clear). Otherwise, when Sirisena and Wickremesinghe go to the hustings again, people would not believe them. In this context, the duo has to speed up the prosecutions of the accused in Bond scam; then only the unity government can refurbish it tarnished image.

The third and equally difficult priority is to draft the new constitution now before time runs out. There is need for some honest soul searching on this issue among the leaders of political parties, civil society and media. They should help speed up the process for an equitable constitution. Otherwise, the lessons of the civil war in which over 100,000 Sri Lankan shed their blood would be wasted.  A business process approach of transparency in interactions among the stakeholders including the people and encouraging periodic interaction to take the public into confidence will create a less polticised environment for evolving a new constitution.

In the early days leading to World War II, when Russia’s attitude to the brewing conflict was not known, Sir Winston Churchill speaking on the radio in October 1938 said: “I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. The key is Russian national interests.” The Sri Lankan situation may be compared to Churchill Russian conundrum. Sri Lankan politicians would do well to remember that whatever they decide has to be in national interest; all other considerations are peripheral to this fundamental responsibility.  

Col R Hariharan, a retired MI specialist on South Asia, 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

A Policy to Secure India

With increasing threats to the country, the need of the hour is a national security policy document, establishment of a separate ministry and greater centre-state coordination

By Col R Hariharan | Courtesy: India Legal | 5 February 2018

www.indialegallive.com

American poet John Godfrey Saxe poem “The Blind men and the elephant” in the 19^th century, aptly depicts India’s approach to national security. The opening verse – “It was six men of Indostan/To learning much inclined/ Who went to see the Elephant/(Though all of them were blind)/That each by observation/Might satisfy his mind,” may well be a description of our lack of holistic understanding of the issue of national security.

Though a national security council was constituted as early as 1998, we still lack a national security policy document. Sadly, this is the state of affairs in a country that faces a wide range of conventional and non-conventional threats from external and internal sources. The 26/11 terrorist attacks in Mumbai that paralysed the nation for three days showed up the chaotic state of internal security management. The 1991 Kargil war showed the aberrations in our handling of hybrid threat. Both the incidents triggered a series of actions after some conventional knee-jerk responses to revamp the national security structure. In typical Indian style, there were many thoughts and ideas on various issues, but their laid-back implementation shows a lack of urgency.

Our halting response to Pakistani terrorist attacks on Pathankot Air Force station in January 2016 and on an army camp in Uri in September 2016 exposed the fact that national security is still a work in progress, perhaps forever, because we do not have a policy in this regard.

This formed the theme of a speech by J and K governor NN Vohra recently. He is perhaps the best qualified to analyse the issue, not only because of his 13-year long stint in Jammu and Kashmir  both as an interlocutor and as governor years, but because has been involved in the security management arena for over three decades.. His rich experience in the highest echelons of decision making in New Delhi, including as principal secretary to the PM as well as secretary in home and defence ministries, added value to his address.

The advent of terrorism in India has made the effective management of national security as “the most crucial challenge faced by the Union” Vohra said. Unless, there is a peace and normalcy, it would not be possible to achieve meaningful growth and development for promoting the welfare of our people.

Has our country been able to evolve a comprehensive national policy and the required infrastructure to safeguard it on all fronts? Vohra’s answer - “so far we have neither secured the required Union-State understandings, nor developed a pan-India approach, which would meet the requirements of a National Security Policy” is a damning indictment of the present state of affairs.

Constitutionally, states are “vested with powers to make all require laws to take all necessary executive decisions for ensuring internal security within their jurisdictions” while the centre has “the much larger responsibility of protecting against war and external aggression and internal disturbances.” However, in the last nearly three decades, issues relating to the management of internal and external security have got “deeply and inextricably intertwined.”

According to Vohra, after Pakistan’s proxy war in Jammu and Kashmir obliterated “the scope for segregating the management of issues relating to internal and external security.”  According to him, it would no longer do to merely focus on defending our frontiers. This is because sources of security threats have extended far beyond our immediate neighbourhood to countries in Southeast Asia, Middle East and the western hemisphere and relate to innumerable targets and activities within our country.

Vohra bemoans the failure of the states to become self-reliant in effectively managing internal security. They need to take urgent steps to carry out long pending police reforms. As a consequence, states have been relying on the centre for deploying central armed police forces and even the army for restoration of normalcy in the disturbed areas. He also takes states to task for failing to set up Police Complaints Authority and State Security Commission, segregate law and order from investigative functions and to set up separate intelligence and anti-terrorist units.

He is equally hard on them for not providing unstinted support to the centre’s efforts to safeguard national security, particularly in taking pre-emptive action to deal with emerging internal disturbance. This has probably resulted in the centre refraining from deploying central armed police forces unless the state requests it.  He cites the case of demolition of Babri Masjid as a case in point. 

He finds the UK Intelligence Services Act (1994) providing for a parliamentary intelligence and security committee to examine the administration and policies of intelligence agencies, worthy of emulation. Intelligence agencies are holy cows and their functioning and accountability continues to be grey areas. This is one area requiring urgent action as their role in areas that impinge upon national security has increased. But the moot point is, will they be amenable when parliament has members with questionable security baggage in the house?

When the dividing lines external and internal security are increasingly blurred, an understanding between the centre and states is essential for successful security management. Vohra points to the tortuous course taken to establish the National Counter Terrorism Centre (NCTC) in the wake of 26/11 attack as an example of the lack of understanding between the centre and states on the imperatives of national security. Unfortunately, with different political parties in power at the centre and in states, such a suggestion is viewed with distrust and suspicion.

It is well known that political parties in power, particularly in states, use the police for their own political advantage, rather than to aid good governance.  Vohra points to the findings of the inter-ministerial committee on Mumbai serial blats, which revealed the unwholesome nexus between corrupt politicians, dishonest public servants and organized crime and criminal mafia of the Dawood Ibrahim gang. This enabled several tons of RDX to be brought for the blasts. Obviously, unless states implement police reforms, not only will rule of law be vitiated, national security will also be threatened.

Vohra emphasises that to “move towards assured national security management” it is essential to implement reforms and improvements in the entire criminal justice system. Speedy delivery of justice plays an important role in this and the judicial reforms are essential as well. The moot point is how the states can be compelled to carry out police reforms? Will the political parties set aside their differences and come as one in the interest of national security?

What should be the elements of national security for India? Professor Prabhkaran Paleri in the book National Security: Imperatives and challenges (2008) lists as many as fifteen elements of national security, ranging from the military security and energy security to more obscure ethnic security and genome security.

In fact, Vohra is in sync with Paleri when he says “It has …. become extremely essential to safeguard almost every arena and to particularly secure arrangements relating to food, water, energy, nuclear power, science and technology, environment, ecology, finance, business, commerce, banking, cyber space and other important quarters.”

In conclusion, NN Vohra has suggested three viable actions:

• ·       The centre in close consultation with states should evolve and promulgate the National Security Policy and draw up a time bound action plan and establish a national frame work.
• ·        The centre should establish the National Security Administrative Service to run security related organisations and “progressively” the security management apparatus of the states.
• ·        As Union Home Ministry is burdened with the management of disparate subjects and overburdened, a national security affairs ministry should be set up.

In a nutshell, it is Prime Minister Narendra Modi who should get his act together. But despite enjoying a comfortable majority, his government is facing flak from a desperate Opposition on every initiative. If he can convince them to join hands to craft a national security policy, the nation will be thankful to him.

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

Sri Lanka Perspectives - January 2018: Bond scam blues

Col R Hariharan | 31-1-2018

President Maithripala Sirisena’s moment of truth seems to have arrived after a commission of inquiry held former Central Bank Governor Arjuna Mahendran was directly responsible for causing a loss of SL Rs 11,145 million to the bank in the issue of Central Bank bonds.  The commission said there was a conflict of interest during Mahendran’s tenure as his son-in-law Arjun Aloysius continued “to remain actively engaged with the operation of Perpetual Treasuries Ltd (PTL) contrary to the assurance” which Mahendran repeatedly gave to the Prime Minister.  

The commission was scathing in its indictment of Mahendran. Accusing of Mahendran of providing insider information, it said it was “reasonable to conclude that he directed that bids to the value of Rs 10.58 billion to be accepted” at the Treasury Bond auction on 27 February 2015, “for the improper and wrongful collateral purpose of enabling” PTL to obtain high value treasury bonds at low bid prices and high yield rates. It said evidence established that Mahendran and Deputy Governor Samrasiri “deliberately and mala fide, misled and misrepresented the factual position” when they submitted a briefing note to Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe on the events related to the bond auction.  

Not only that, the commission has recommended legal action against former foreign minister Ravi Karunanayake, a prominent leader of Wickremesinghe-led United National Party (UNP). He was said to have had financial links with the tainted bond dealer Arjun Aloysius, son in law of Mahendran, who was involved in the scam. Aloysius firm Perpetual Treasures had bought over half of the bonds issued in the auction in 2015.   

The scam has left the President with little option but to do a damage control exercise by taking action against Mahendran, who was handpicked for the governorship by Wickremesinghe. The commission has also held that the PM failed to take action against the governor for his actions.

A huge public furore was raised in October 2016 after a parliamentary committee on public enterprises report held that Mahendran responsible for the irregularities in the sale of Central Bank bonds. The President had appointed the commission of inquiry in January 2017, probably as a political ploy to buy time and to live up to his image of a crusader against corruption. However, the commission’s findings have come as a big blow to the credibility of the coalition government of the two main parties - Sirisena’s Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) and the UNP, as they were voted to power by the people to deliver upon their promise to provide corruption free governance.

The SLFP-UNP relations within the coalition have come under tremendous strain ever since the President appointed the commission of inquiry. When the conduct of local government (LG) elections became imminent, the bond scam gathered more momentum in the media with stories of political posturing on the scam making it to the front page almost every day. The civil society and SLFP rank and file and the Joint Opposition became strident in their demand for action and forced Karunanayake to resign from his ministerial post.

The President in a television speech said he would “not hesitate to take steps to recover the loss” to the government and take legal action against the offenders and punish them. These are brave words, which would stand him in good stead during the SLFP’s campaign for the local government election to be held on February 10. However, if he walks the talk, the danger of the coalition coming apart appears real. If he does not, it would be a big loss of face for him affecting his image.

The SLFP leader’s exasperation at the political logjam he faced became evident when he spoke at an LG election rally at Ratnapura. He said “I can easily form an SLFP government with all the 96 MPs who were elected at the 8 August 2017 parliamentary elections supporting me.” Sirisena said that he would be changing the institutional structures so that corrupt could be punished after the LG polls, highlighting his USP (unique selling point) that helped him to get elected. 

However, the joint opposition and the Sri Lanka Podhu Jana Peramuna (SLPP), formed by pro-Mahinda Rajapaksa elements, are unlikely to be lured by Sirisena’s rhetoric as the bond scam has left him highly vulnerable. It provides them enough ammunition to garner votes during the LG polls.  Finance and media minister Mangala Samaraweera of the UNP has also pointed out that the LG elections could become a formidable challenge to the ruling coalition as SLPP was gathering momentum.

In the meanwhile, the PM has at last agreed to have a parliamentary debate on February 6 on the reports of the bond inquiry commission and the PRECIFAC (Presidential Commission of Inquiry to Investigate and Inquire into Serious Acts of Fraud, Corruption and Abuse of Power, state resources and privileges). We can expect more political fireworks before the nation goes to polls on February 10 to elect members of local government.

Courtesy: South Asia Security Trends, February 2018 issue            www.security-risks.com

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