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 |

http://www.indialegallive.com/cover-story-articles/focus/security-can-india-handle-another-26-11-57855

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

http://col.hariharan.info/2018/12/security-can-india-handle-another-2611.html

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.” 

Courtesy: Vidura | October-December 2018 | http://www.pressinstitute.in/category/vidura/

I don't know how many read book reviews that us​​ually 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.] 

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.

Sri Lanka Perspectives: October 2018

Col R Hariharan | 31-10-2018 |

Courtesy: South Asia Security Trends, November 2018 | www.security-risks.com

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 brand ‘Yahapalana’ (good governance) was coined to promote the rise of Maithripala-Ranil to keep the corrupt Rajapaksa family out of power and people voted to elect them. Now Yahapalana has become mockery; more than that, it is a betrayal of the people, who believed in Maithripala’s election promises.

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

Why India and China need to build ‘trust’ and not just ‘confidence’ in their relationship

Beijing does not appear to be in a hurry to change its stand on trans-border terrorism.

POLITICS | 6-minute read | 26-10-2018

COLONEL R HARIHARAN @colhari2

The series of follow-up decisions taken together by India and China after the informal summit between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and President Xi Jinping at Wuhan in July 2018  seem to indicate both are trying to mend their relations frayed in the wake of the 2017 military standoff at Doklam. But much will depend upon how soon their mutual confidence building measures are turned into trust building actions.

Perhaps, the most significant move was the signing of an agreement between the two countries on internal security cooperation to “strengthen and consolidate discussions and cooperation in the areas of counter-terrorism, organised crimes, drug control and other relevant areas”. It could be path-breaking if pursued in earnest. (The caveat is Chinese official statements frequently contain the word “relevant” to suit the country’s ambivalent stand on some of the related issues.)

The internal security agreement was signed at the first-ever India-China high-level meeting on bilateral security chaired jointly by Union home minister Rajnath Singh and the visiting state counsellor and minister for public security Zhao Kezhi.

A notable feature was China’s grudging acceptance  of minister of state for home Kiren Rijiju presence as part of the Indian delegation. Rijiju, who hails from Arunachal Pradesh (claimed by the Chinese as their territory), drew the wrath of the neighbouring country when he accompanied the Dalai Lama, who was invited to participate in a religious ceremony at Tawang (Arunachal Pradesh) in April 2017.

The apparent acceptance of Rijiju’s presence indicates nothing more than China’s situational management of its “traditional” objections to suit its specific requirement. It would be facile to interpret this as an indication of a possible change in China’s stand on territorial claims in the Northeast.

Equally significant is China not accepting India’s request to support its long pending application to the UN to include Masood Azhar, chief of the Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) and mastermind of the 2016 Uri attack, in the global list of terrorists. China’s foreign office has categorically stated that there was no change in its stand to decide on the issue on its “merits”.

China’s on Masood Azhar is a show of solidarity with Pakistani perceptions on the Jihadi terrorist despite China’s own heavy crackdown on Uyghur Muslim population in Xinjiang under the pretext of fighting Uyghur separatists. The Azhar case would probably “merit” favourable action from China, when it seeks a “trade off” from India, ie, when a Uyghur separatist seeks refuge in India.

At the talks, India had also requested China not to give shelter to United Liberation Front of Assam (ULFA) leader Paresh Baruah, who had been on the run. Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson’s terse comment on the request was that there was no change in China’s adherence “to the principle of non-interference in internal affairs of other countries”. By early 1990s, China officially abandoned its policy of supporting insurgent groups in India’s Northeast and Myanmar.

However, Chinese-made weapons continue to find their way to Naga hostiles and Manipuri and ULFA extremists holed up in sanctuaries in parts of Myanmar close to the Indian border. Apart from this, China is increasingly influencing the politics in India’s neighbourhood. In such an environment, China’s much avowed “principle of non-interference in internal affairs of other countries” lacks credibility. So Paresh Baruah is likely to be held as yet another trump card of minor value in China’s suite in its dealings with India.

It would seem that despite the rhetoric on strengthening and consolidation of “cooperation in the areas of counter-terrorism, organised crimes, drug control and other relevant areas” contained in the internal security agreement, China does not appear to be in a hurry to change its stand on trans-border terrorism. So, we can expect this to continue to be an irritant in the relations between the two countries.

Even otherwise, the fundamental asymmetry between India and China in tackling the terrorist threat can come in the way of furthering cooperation. China has introduced draconian counterterrorism laws; these are heavily loaded against Uyghur Muslim separatists denying the entire population freedom to practice their religion and culture. China has brazenly justified curbs against Islamic and Tibetan Buddhist religious practices and the brutal suppression of Uyghur minority’s struggle to preserve their cultural and linguistic identity.

On the other hand, India is a strong functional democracy that guarantees freedom of expression and religion. Government actions to curb insurgency and terrorism are frequently challenged by civil society activists and human rights watch dogs. India’s strong judiciary continues to be the guardian of citizens’ rights and freedom of expression. In this environment, the moot question is can India meaningfully cooperate with or learn from China in countering terrorism except for symbolic military training in counter insurgency?

In this respect, the decision to conduct the seventh edition of Hand in Hand, the annual joint military drill in November 2018 in Chengdu in China is only restoring the joint training exercise which was disrupted in the wake of Doklam standoff. The military drill continues to be more symbolic than substantive in scope and size. Military cooperation has the potential to be scaled up as Indian and Chinese armies are now working together in UN forces and exercising jointly in groupings like the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO). Better understanding at forces level could help avoid a flare up of the Doklam-kind along India’s troubled border. Hopefully, it would also hasten the process to establish direct one-to-one communication between the two armies at the top level.

The launching of the first ever India-China joint training programme for Afghan diplomats is one of the joint projects Modi and Xi had agreed upon at Wuhan. It is significant that India has replaced the US with which China had earlier agreed to conduct the joint training of Afghan diplomats. It indicates China’s acknowledgment of India’s role in Afghanistan, in spite of Pakistan’s objections to Indian presence there. It also recognises India’s contribution in developmental activity in Afghanistan.

However, multi-national initiatives involving China had not progressed well in Afghanistan in the past. Probably, China would like to avail of the widespread goodwill India enjoys in Afghanistan, to further its presence in the war torn country.

The controlled handling of the Maldivian elections and its aftermath by India and China, despite their clash of interests, shows both the countries are prepared to factor in each other’s interest in their decision-making. However, how far and how long they can maintain such a spirit remains a question. Both countries face strong internal pressures in their own way; both are also subject to the dynamics of strategic environment and realpolitik in the Indo-Pacific region.

This makes it imperative for both countries to deliberate upon their actions if they want sustained peace in South Asia and the Indian Ocean region. That would require not allowing their age-old trust deficit to overtake their decision-making; so they will have to go beyond confidence building to build trust.

#Kiren Rijiju, #Uyghur muslims, #Doklam, #India-China Relations

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

Courtesy: India Today opinion portal DailyO

https://www.dailyo.in/politics/india-china-relations-doklam-uyghur-muslims-uyghur-muslims-kiren-rijiju-rajnath-singh/story/1/27413.html