Remembering Gandhiji in critical times

'During my nearly three decades of military service, both in war and peace, I have usefully drawn upon Gandhiji's storehouse of wisdom.'

'When military intelligence jobs require tightrope walking on the edge of moral and ethical dilemmas, I have looked up to Gandhiji,' notes Colonel R Hariharan (retd).

Col R Hariharan | Rediff.com | News | Column | January 30, 2021

https://www.rediff.com/news/column/colonel-r-hariharan-remembering-gandhiji-in-critical-times/20210130.htm

Rajghat in New Delhi will come alive with songs of Ramdhun and Vaishnava Janato on January 30 in memory of Mahatma

Raj Ghat in New Delhi will come alive with songs of Ramdhun and Vaishnava Janato on January 30 in memory of Mahatma Gandhi where he was cremated 73 years ago.

Political netas of different hues, would sprinkle flowers at his memorial, dispense homilies to suit their current political idiom and disperse to do their netagiri.

On other days, Gandhiji is remembered by Delhi Tourism circuit buses, which unloads tourists to ogle at the eternal flame burning at the Samadhi.

2020 was a difficult year. Not only for India, but for everyone in the world, coming to terms with the Covid-19 pandemic.

Perhaps, 2020 will go down globally as the biggest year of public health disaster, after bubonic plague in 1347 killed 20 million people in Europe alone in the five years, it lasted. 

Covid has played havoc not only with peoples’ health, but economy, trade, livelihood, employment and lifestyles everywhere.

For India, there were added woes of continuing state of confrontation and collusion on India’s borders with both Pakistan and China.

On the home front, India did not cover itself glory, despite the efforts of the government to improve the quality of life.

Power politics of caste and communal divide continued bleed social unity of the nation, needed to face tough times.

Only a fortnight before Gandhiji’s last birthday on October 2, 2020, the nation was hotly debating an act of national shame - the gang rape and killing of a Dalit girl by upper caste men in Hathras, in UP and the Kafkaesque cover-up of that followed the crime.

Events, that followed showed callousness has eaten into not, only our politics and administration but society as well.

Such sordid events mark our calendar with monotonous regularity, not only in UP, but other states ruled by the Opposition as well.

We frequently keep seeing gory images of these events, hair brushed to protect viewers’ sensitivity, on the visual media.

We keep watching finger-pointing political leaders, raucously debating the issues on television news discussions, aptly living up to their name ‘talk show’ gingered up to flaunt their TRP ratings.

Compassion is absent, or forgotten, in all the high drama. This shows that it is not acts of pure evil that have changed. We have changed. We have lost the sensitivity of our souls that was once nourished by Gandhiji’s thoughts.

If Gandhiji had been alive, he would have held himself responsible for the Hathras tragedy, and probably gone on a fast, to atone his feeling of guilt.

Will it work today? Probably not; even if Rahul Gandhi, who made a yatra to Hathras, had gone on a fast just as his Gandhi namesake did, he would have been laughed out by the people.

Because, all Gandhis are not Gandhiji, who wore his beliefs on his non-existent sleeve, and practised what he believed in.

Gandhiji used to reflect the conscience of the common man, because, he could relate to them in simple, moral and ethical terms, interspersed with some religious wisdom familiar to the people.

He can neither be copied, nor comprehended easily. Though the Mahatma’s words are simple to articulate, they are difficult to imbibe philosophically or to practise them politically.

Many of us, who grew up when he dominated national political thought, attribute it to his uniquely esoteric Indian construct: the use of Satyagraha and Ahimsa, in his anti-colonial struggle.

This is perhaps what perplexed the Anglo-Saxon minds of colonial rulers of India to politically pin him down.  They adopted the easy option of incarcerating Gandhiji, as and when he got under their skin.

In the first three decades of independence, politicians found it fashionable to quote Gandhiji at the drop of a hat.  

​One reason for the fading away of Gandhiji from political narrative is the rise of Indira Gandhi, conveniently with the same surname.

She made a big difference to brand Gandhi, because she provided a more virulent and politically smart and "clever" alternative to the original version of humility in political conduct of the man clad in a loin cloth.

Her rise to power saw the sleight-of-hand political rhetoric, replacing the moral high ground in governance and ethics in national conduct of leaders, because her version suited their objectives.

Starting with her, the Gandhi dynasty took over, from Indira to Rajiv, to the infamous Sanjay to the later day claimants including Sonia, Rahul and Priyanka.

Too many Gandhis are now clouding the horizon. They have diluted even the remnants of Gandhian pretensions the Congress party used to have.

The political trade name of the one and only Gandhiji, we all and the world knew, has irretrievably been pushed aside.

Sadly, Gandhiji is reduced to the icon that stands at cross roads in most of the towns.

Gandhiji standing on a pedestal mutely watching, forgotten by the public, remembered only by crows that perch upon him, is an eloquent testimony for the present state of Gandhian affairs. 

Juxtaposed against innumerable instances of political and moral dilemma in Gandhiji’s life, I realise that for allowing the Hathras tragedy, the devil is in all of us.

We have allowed our political leaders and parties to view governance, purely in political terms.  

This is not the first time such gross disregard for the right to life of ordinary people has been shown, nor it will be the last.

How do we change that? Future looks very gloomy. 

“Be the change you wish to see in the world”, Gandhiji said. Whenever I read these words of Gandhiji, I feel guilty.

How should I change my attitudes to the unsavoury happenings around me, as much as I expect the rulers to change theirs? It is extremely difficult to think of this, in the midst of gloom and negativity abounding in Covid times.

Gandhijis thoughts imbibed in our family in the early years of life come to my mind, particularly, in times of crisis.

During my nearly three decades of military service, both in war and peace, I have usefully drawn upon Gandhijis storehouse of wisdom.

When military intelligence jobs require tight rope walking on the edge of moral and ethical dilemmas, I have looked up to Gandhiji.

He had a ‘mantra’ for every occasion. I find he had thought about it in Hind Swaraj, the booklet he wrote in 1909:

The fact that there are so many men still alive in the world shows that it is not based on force of arms but on the force of truth or love.

Therefore, the greatest and most unimpeachable evidence of the success of this force is to be found in the fact, that in spite of the wars of the world, it still lives on. 

In the same booklet he said: "Unrest is, in reality, discontent. This discontent is a very useful thing. As long as a man is contented with his present lot, so long is it difficult to persuade him to come out of it. Therefore it is that every reform must be preceded by discontent. We throw away things we have, only when we cease to like them."

This is the charm of Gandhiji in provoking our mind to look around and put things in perspective to survive gloomy times.

I find no point in depending upon zodiacal charts, gurus, babas, fakirs and their chants and talisman for explaining the situation created by us.

Let us get ready to face the reality as they are and act justly to resolve them as a nation; there is no easy way.

So let us march into 2021 with firm resolve to lick the problems before they undo us.

Col R Hariharan served as an MI specialist on South Asia and terrorism and insurgency. He is associated with the Chennai Centre for China Studies and the South Asia Analysis Group. E-mail: haridirect@gmail.com Blog: https://col.hariharan.info

 

 

Human rights: Army plugs key loophole with Additional Director General appointment

The army has often been plagued by rights’ abuses as it battles counter-insurgency in various states. To ameliorate the situation, an Additional Director General (Human Rights) has been appointed.

Col R Hariharan |Cover story |IL Feature| India Legal |January 29, 2021

https://www.indialegallive.com/cover-story-articles/il-feature-news/human-rights-army-satp-defence-vcoas/

 

The New Year eve announcement of the Indian Army appointing Major General Gautam Chauhan as Additional Director General (Human Rights) formally recognises the importance of human rights in military operations. This is in keeping with the global trend of increased human rights awareness, particularly in unconventional and low intensity conflicts.

General Chauhan will head the Additional Directorate General for Human Rights under the Vice-Chief of Army Staff (VCOAS) responsible for planning and execution of operations. He will be assisted by an officer of SSP/SP rank from the Indian Police Service on deputation. Details of the Directorate’s structure, responsibilities and functions are not yet available.

The creation of an exclusive body under the VCOAS for dealing with human rights issues has not come a day too soon. For nearly 75 years, the army has been shouldering the humongous responsibility of fighting insurgency groups, wholly or partly, in tandem with civil armed police forces. According to India’s Conflict Map 2019, published in the South Asia Terrorism Portal (SATP), as many as 170 districts in 13 states of the country were affected by Left Wing Extremist (LWE) a collective term for the ultra-left, Maoists and Naxalites insurgency. In six north-eastern states, 69 districts faced some form of insurgency or extremism. In J&K, 19 districts are affected by militancy of a different kind because the Pakistan Army has been using militants and jihadi terror groups to bleed India. It had been providing arms, training and operational support to militants to continue a proxy war, launched from sanctuaries across the Line of Control in Pakistan-occupied areas. This makes the counter insurgency (CI) operations in the state a hybrid war, where the terrorists further Pakistan’s strategic objective. This further complicates the murky operational scene in J&K.

According to the SATP insurgency datasheet, in the last two decades, over 45,442 lives have been lost in the country in 23,166 incidents involving insurgents. The database shows 76 terrorist and insurgent groups are active, while 106 groups remain inactive. Each of the 13 affected states has its own political situation that has contributed to the rise of insurgent groups. They fight for their own ideological, ethnic, separatist or religious causes. Some of the states such as Nagaland, Manipur and Mizoram are prone to trafficking of humans, arms and drugs. These provide opportunities for insurgent groups to survive. The possibility of troops involved in every operation, committing human rights violations, intentionally or otherwise, is therefore real. In spite of these issues, the army has an enviable record as a disciplined force that respects human rights in carrying out CI operations even in an extremely provocative environment.

The Army Doctrine 2004 conceptualised CI operations in conformity with the emerging dynamics of social consciousness on human rights. It defined the military aim of CI operations as “conflict management” rather than “conflict resolution”, which is a larger political objective that requires a national strategy. Not harming an innocent person “even if a terrorist escapes” became the norm of the Doctrine. The army ceased to use the number of “kills” in CI operations to assess performance and replaced it with the ability to make a militant surrender. We can see its impact in current operations against terrorists in J&K. The army has also set up a feedback and grievance helpline—984101010—in the Kashmir Valley to allow people to report cases of human rights violations.

Much of the discussions on human rights excesses in CI operations focus on the Armed Forces Special Powers Act, which provides police powers to army personnel. They seem to miss the elephant in the room: weakness of the armed forces judicial system, based on the Army and Air Force Acts of 1950 and the Navy Act of 1957. These Acts of colonial vintage enable the armed forces to internalise the process of investigation, prosecution and defence and trial. It selects the panel of judges from its own ranks under the advice of their own judge advocate general.

The defence minister’s committee of experts in its 2015 report lays bare the weaknesses of the armed forces judicial system. Part V of the report “Matters concerning military justice and reforms thereon” says the Indian Military Acts, enacted soon after independence, reflecting “the mindset of a force of occupation and were modelled on the provisions of the Crown.” Though British laws had kept pace with changing times, the basic structure of Indian Military laws remained the same, except a few cosmetic changes or amendments forced by decisions of Constitutional Courts. Even these changes it averred “did not come as a way of introspection or desire to be abreast with global practices, but were forced and reluctantly adopted.” It said “the independence of judiciary and separation of powers in the civilian set-up in letter and spirit, which, even as on date, remains a far call in the military.”

 

Its comment on the claim of swiftness of military justice is worth pondering: “…swiftness or quickness of trial or a high rate of conviction may reflect procedural efficiency but not judicial soundness of the system.” It also says that “most of the democracies have moved on, but we are clinging on to a system long aborted by others”. Unless the military justice system is overhauled, the slur of human rights violations on troops will continue to linger, in spite of the sacrifices made by brave soldiers.

Ironically, three days before the announcement of Gen Chauhan’s appointment, a police report alleged an army officer and two of his associates had planted weapons on the bodies of three labourers killed in South Kashmir to make it look as though they were militants in a staged gun battle. Further investigation identified the army officer and other personnel involved and the army is processing the case.

It underlines the enormity of the task that awaits Gen Chauhan in the uncharted waters of dealing with human rights issues in the army. Presumably, when he gets going, a lot of clarity will emerge in the process for handling accusations of human rights violations, which often remains murky. This is mainly due to aberrations outside the control of the army.

Many of the soldiers recruited in the army, invariably grow up in an environment deprived of some human rights such as equality, right to free speech and movement. Often, they carry their own baggage of social aberrations in terms of tribal, caste and communal prejudices and patriarchy, which condition their attitudes to human rights. On joining the army, under the Army Act, the soldier loses some of the fundamental freedoms that are available to the citizen. This is a functional requirement of the army to enforce discipline with an iron hand and is essential for successful conduct of operations. However, such an environment hardly encourages the growth of human rights consciousness. 

In his basic training, the soldier is trained to carry out conventional warfare, where shoot to kill is the key to his survival. In spite of this, the army is able to train and mould him to meet the basic requirement of carrying out CI operations, as part of a disciplined force. On moving to a CI scene, the soldier is invariably put through training that imparts skill in fighting a decentralised operation, using minimum force, to hunt out the extremists operating among civilians. But it is not easy. So, a great deal of interactive training will be required to improve the soldier’s basic understanding of the requirements of human rights. These are issues relevant not only to troops, but all the three limbs of democracy.

—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

Ties with Sri Lanka: A fine balancing act

As China gains a greater foothold in Lanka, India is cautiously watching if its influence in the region will be hit. Minister S Jaishankar’s visit to Colombo was an attempt to mend fences with the neighbour.

Col R Hariharan |Cover story |IL Feature| India Legal |January 15, 2021

https://www.indialegallive.com/cover-story-articles/il-feature-news/indo-sri-lankan-ties-who-covid19-unhrc/

Last year, 2020, may well end up as a landmark one, not only because of the Covid-19 pandemic, but due to the running feud between the US and China that set many prairie fires in global politics. Sadly, even though it was the 75th year of the founding of the United Nations, it will be one of its most forgettable years for non-performance, when most international institutions were reduced to debating societies.

Chinese President Xi Jinping in his address on the 75th anniversary of the UN on September 22, 2020, championed the cause of the global organisation to stand firm for justice, mutual respect and equality among all countries. He spoke strongly in favour of globalisation and climate control and cautioned: “Unilateralism is a dead end. All need to follow the approach of extensive consultation, joint contribution and shared benefits.” Clearly, with the US increasingly isolating itself, China is getting ready to steal the thunder in the global arena. If we go by the developments in 2020, China can be expected to play a greater leadership role in the UN in the coming years.

Two UN advisory bodies the WHO and the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) were probably affected more by US President Donald Trump’s version of American exceptionalism after he reneged on the leadership role the US played in these institutions. China has taken advantage of this and increased its influence in both bodies. WHO’s role became suspect in the western world during the Covid pandemic when it failed to pay attention to China’s dubious role in trying to suppress information on the origin and spread of the virus from Wuhan. China, which had been hauled up before UNHRC for human rights excesses against the Uyghur minority, is now a member of it. This gives it a vantage point when the UNHRC discusses Sri Lanka in March 2021. It is not clear how effective these bodies would be during this year as much would depend on how quickly the newly elected POTUS, Joe Biden, “takes back the country” to face China on his own terms and joins the UNHRC. And it is not going to be an easy task.

India saw China firming up its strategic presence in South Asia and the Indo-Pacific region at the cost of its own influence in its neighbourhood and the Indian Ocean region. In the face of the China-Pakistan strategic combine gaining strength, India is recasting two of its core beliefs strategic autonomy and building a win-win relation with China to protect its interests as a regional power. The Quad a quadrilateral network of the US, Japan, India and Australia has taken shape to protect their strategic interests in the Indo-Pacific region to tackle China’s aggressive pursuit of its interests.

During 2020, Sri Lankan President Gotabaya Rajapaksa carefully balanced his external relationship in the midst of these developments. When he served as defence secretary during his brother’s (President Mahinda Rajapaksa) decade long rule, both came under strong influence from China. However, President Rajapaksa tried to erase any such misgivings in India and swore that Sri Lanka would never do anything detrimental to Indian security.

In spite of this, Sri Lanka is fast becoming a case study of China’s influence on it, not only in economic policies and development agenda, but politics as well. It has affected the interests of its other traditional development partners such as India, US and Japan. The Rajapaksa government has not accepted the US offer of the $480 million Millennium Development Grant, though the proposal was mooted during President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s rule. The government has abandoned the Japan International Cooperation Agency-funded Colombo monorail project. It is a slight that would not be easily forgotten by Japan.

The Japan, India and Singapore joint project for development of Trincomalee is still in incubation. A slew of Indian-funded development projects have also faced bureaucratic delay. Indian partnership for the development of the East Container Terminal (ECT) project of Colombo Port, agreed upon by the Sirisena Wickremesinghe government faced trouble of a different kind. The government had signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with India and Japan to jointly develop the terminal, utilising a $500 million loan from Japan. India chose the country’s largest private port operator, the Adani group, for a joint venture with the Sri Lankan Port Authority and the local conglomerate John Keells for the project.

However, despite India prodding Sri Lanka at the highest level, the Rajapaksa government delayed taking a decision on it. As Columnist Ranga Jayasurya noted: “However, the ruling party-affiliated trade unions have opposed the joint venture with India. That is notwithstanding that China’s state owned enterprises and China Port Merchants own 85 percent of stake in the adjacent Colombo International Container Terminal under a 35-year Built-Operate Transfer Agreement.”

President Rajapaksa is in control of a highly centralised government, with strong military overtones, and run according to the Sinhala Buddhist religious and cultural ethos. The president has openly declared that he is beholden to the Sinhala Buddhist majority for electing him and giving him a two-thirds majority in parliament. His word has become the rule of law.

With Sinhala majoritarian rule a reality, Tamil and Muslim minorities fear they would lose even the few measures taken by earlier governments in meeting their aspirations. These fears seem to be justified considering the recent decisions taken by the government. These include indefinite postponement of the provincial council (PC) elections on the advice of Buddhist prelates, periodic threats to repeal the 13th amendment that created the PC and witch-hunting of Muslims by Buddhist fringe elements.

Perhaps the most far reaching of all his actions was to announce that Sri Lanka would no longer be cooperating with the UNHRC resolution 30/1, which the previous government had co-sponsored in 2015. According to the resolution, Sri Lanka was committed to “establish a judicial mechanism with a special counsel to investigate allegations of violations and abuses of human rights and violations of international humanitarian law”. It also affirmed that “a credible justice process should include independent judicial and prosecutorial institutions led by individuals known for their integrity and impartiality”.

However, though the Sirisena Wickremesinghe government made some hesitant moves to implement the resolution, it had to seek a two-year extension in 2017 to fulfil its commitment. After that, the ruling coalition developed cracks and the implementation process came to a grinding halt.

When the deadline ended in the UNHRC in 2019, Sri Lanka Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe managed to get another two-year extension through a resolution sponsored by the UK, Canada and Germany.

While announcing the withdrawal of sponsorship of the UNHRC resolution, the Rajapaksa government declared its commitment “to achieve sustainable peace through an inclusive, domestically designed and executed reconciliation and accountability process, including through the appropriate adaptation of existing mechanisms, in line with the Government’s policy framework”. This would imply that the government was in no mood to strike a compromise against foreign intervention as it considers it an affront to its sovereignty. It seems to be banking on the support of China, Russia, Cuba, Pakistan and Uzbekistan.

India had been keenly following the issue in the UNHRC as it is intimately linked to the ethnic reconciliation process, underwritten in the Indo-Sri Lanka Agreement in 1987. Moreover, its fate has political implications in Tamil Nadu politics where the Sri Lanka Tamil issue comes to the fore particularly during elections.

It is against this backdrop that we have to look at the two-day visit of Dr S Jaishankar, Minister of External Affairs, to Colombo in the first week of January 2021. During the visit, he called upon the president, the PM and the foreign secretary, as well as political leaders who included Tamil ones. According to media reports, during his meeting with the president, a number of issues, including ongoing projects and other areas of cooperation and development were identified.

Apparently, the Indian foreign minister had raised the delayed ECT project issue also with President Rajapaksa, because the president clarified the status of the project on January 13 to a group of the Ports Authority Trade Union representatives. He said: “The former government has made an agreement to sell the ECT to India. Following discussions the incumbent government had with India, it has now been agreed to retain 51 percent of its ownership and the administration of the Eastern Terminal with the Ports Authority.” He further added that the ECT development project was planned after careful consideration of regional geopolitical facts, the country’s sovereignty, generation of income and job opportunities. He explained that India contributes to 66 percent of re-exports at the ECT. Bangladesh contributes 9 percent to the shipment volumes and the rest are transshipments from other countries.

Jaishankar also addressed a joint media conference with his Sri Lankan counterpart, Dinesh Gunawardena. He reminded Sri Lanka that India was a dependable partner “open to strengthening its relationship with Sri Lanka on the basis of mutual trust, mutual interest, mutual respect and mutual sensitivity”. This was perhaps a subtle reference to the sensitive issue of Sri Lanka’s commitment under the 1987 Accord.

He said that it was in “Sri Lanka’s own interest that the expectation of the Tamil people for equality, justice, peace and dignity within a united Sri Lanka are fulfilled. That applies equally to the commitments made by the Sri Lanka government on meaningful devolution, including the 13th Amendment to the Constitution”. This was a signal that India would not be party to any action that compromises the Indo-Sri Lanka Agreement of 1987.

The Sri Lankan Tamil issue is already coming up as assembly elections are going to take place in Tamil Nadu in May 2021. The BJP is determined to make a mark in the state with its coalition partner, the AIADMK.

One can expect the Sri Lanka war crimes issue to gain momentum in the state when the UNHRC discusses Sri Lanka in March. With China, Russia and Pakistan ganging up to support Sri Lanka, India may have to do some tight-rope walking in managing it in the UNHRC.

—The writer is a military intelligence specialist on South Asia, associated with the Chennai Centre for China Studies

 

Sri Lanka Perspectives – December 2020: Sri Lanka needs a positive agenda for 2021, after a wasted year

Col R Hariharan |December 31, 2020| South Asia Security Trends | January 2021  www.security-risk.com

The year 2020 will go down as a tumultuous and inglorious year in Sri Lanka’s history. It was a bleak year on many fronts, after huge public expectations were kindled by President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s election 2019.  No doubt, the global Covid-19 pandemic contributed to the President’s woes. Its disastrous effect on the already debt-laden economy, brought three major sources of income and employment - tourism, maritime trade and expatriate income – to almost a standstill.

 

President Rajapaksa is known as a hands-on leader, who works with clear goals and a structured approach to problem solving. So, he managed the Covid threat with reasonable success, kept the economy afloat, with some patch-up credit from big powers. He spoke of stimulus package for economic revival and using technology tools to improve governance while explaining his vision in his address to the parliament. He restructured the national security apparatus.

 

As a good military strategist, the first time politician-turned-president, reinforced his power base by successfully holding the general election, in the midst of the pandemic. He cashed on the feeling of insecurity of Therawada Buddhist Sinhala majority, which zoomed after home-grown Jihadi terrorists’ suicide attack on the Easter Sunday in April 2019,  killing 259 people. In the process, his Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) gained two thirds majority support in the parliament, decimating the badly split main opposition - United National Party (UNP).  He minced no words to proclaim a unified Sri Lanka was for the Buddhist majority, who voted him to office, where Tamils and Muslims can live amicably. The die was cast to create him as a modern day Duttagemunu, set to restore the majoritarian pride and ensure a safe and secure country for the Buddhists.

 

President Rajapaksa used his political strength to regain the powers the executive presidency by pushing through the 19^th amendment to the Constitution. Within two months in office, he ensured the three Rajapaksa brothers, between them, controlled the ministries of defence, public security, finance, economy and policy development, Buddhasasana and cultural and religious affairs, urban development, water supply and residential facilities. His lack of trust in political leaders came out loud and clear, with creation of a super cabinet of sorts, packed with trusted military veterans and expert bureaucrats to oversee the government ministries performance.

 

The President halted the investigative agencies, like the CID and the Financial Crimes Investigation Division (FCID), which were investigating a number of criminal cases involving the Rajapaksas and military intelligence and naval personnel. Senior officers of these agencies actively working on these cases were hounded out. His Special Presidential Commission (SPC) constituted to probe those responsible for falsely implicating people has recently submitted its report.

 

It is clear that under President Rajapaksa’s dispensation, we have a highly centralised government, with strong military overtones, run on Sinhala Buddhist religious and cultural ethos. Only the President’s writ runs and the rule of law has become a dictated one. This has proclaimed death knell for minority political aspirations for an equitable society. They fear even the few measures taken by the earlier governments to meet some of their aspirations are likely to be undone. The delay in holding provincial council (PC) elections, periodic threat to repeal 13^th amendment that created the PC, repeated calls for changing the electoral system, delay in drafting a new constitution and the witch hunting of Muslims by fringe elements in administration and ruling parties are a few examples justifying minority fears. The latest in this series is the administration’s callous refusal to allow burial of Covid victims from Muslim community, as required by Islam, on specious health grounds.

 

The leaders of the badly mauled opposition parties, including Tamil and Muslim minority leaders, are equally guilty for this state of affairs. They should stop looking over the shoulder for external powers, to bail them out of their inability resolve their problems. They are neither united internally, nor networked externally, to evolve a game plan to provide an alternative agenda for the people.

 

President Rajapaksa continues to enjoy unmatched popularity and majority support in parliament. With total control of the government machinery in his hands, he had a great opportunity in 2020 to embark upon resolving long standing national issues stymieing the growth and development. These included ethnic reconciliation, restructuring democratic governance, removing human rights aberrations and restoring rule of law.  Unfortunately, he spent the year in strengthening his position and pandering to those, who politically supported him. He needs to recast his agenda on a broader national format.

 

Otherwise, President Rajapaksa is likely to spend 2021 in trying to manage the fall out of his flawed priorities. In the increasingly networked world, these issues are inextricably woven in Sri Lanka’s in external relations, as much as in internal relations. We can expect Sri Lanka to come under immense pressure in managing the strategic security polemics in the Indo-Pacific region, as China is expected increase its aggressive economic and military muscle flexing, during 2021. This is likely to further constrict President Rajapaksa’s space to do tight rope walking to further Sri Lanka’s national priorities.

 

His agenda should be to build a national consensus for a positive action plan for the year. It should include ethnic reconciliation, restructuring democratic governance, removing human rights aberrations and restoring rule of law. These issues are required to be resolved, because he appears to be the only leader capable to doing it at present. This casts a leadership burden on him, not to satisfy is any external power, but to be known as the true achiever, beyond winning wars.  Will he? The coming year only can tell.

 

 [Col R Hariharan, a retire MI specialist on South Asia and terrorism, served as the head of intelligence of the Indian Peace Keeping Force in Sri Lanka 1987-90. E-mail: haridirect@gmail.com  web: https://col.hariharan.info ]