Perspectives on political crises in Sri Lanka and Maldives

Colonel R Hariharan | World Focus | January 2019 issue | www.worldfocus.in

Introduction

Recently India’s Indian Ocean neighbours – Sri Lanka and Maldives – witnessed political crises after heads of state attempted to tinker with constitution to suit their political ends, plunging the country into chaos and uncertain future. This was due to fractious and personality driven domestic politics practiced in both the countries. However, they have managed to defuse the crises through democratic process, thanks to their own internal political dynamics and external pressure, mainly from the US and the European Union.

Both the island nations are important partners in India’s national and Indian Ocean security template.  So it becomes imperative for India to understand the external influences, notably China, which played a part in the crises situation.

Sri Lanka political crisis and its aftermath

President Maithripala Sirisena in a dramatic move on October 26, 2018 installed former president Mahinda Rajapaksa as Prime Minister, and sacked his coalition partner PM Ranil Wickremesinghe, leader of the United National Party (UNP), although it was the support of Wickremesinghe and the UNP that enabled him to, defeat Rajapaksa in the presidential election. The Sirisena-Wickremesinghe coalition had created the signature brand ‘Yahapalana’ (good governance) for their government to restore good governance and bring the perpetrators of corrupt acts during the Rajapaksa regime to book. So the President’s action was condemned as a betrayal of the people, who voted him to power.

The President prorogued the parliament till November 16, preventing Wickremesinghe from seeking a vote of confidence in parliament. After the President’s Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP)-led United Peoples Front Alliance (UPFA) and the pro-Rajapaksa Joint Opposition (JO) group withdrew support to the Wickremesinghe government, he ordered the dissolution of parliament and holding of fresh elections in January 2019.

However, Rajapaksa government could not legitimize itself after a defiant Karu Jayasuriya, the speaker of parliament declared the President’s action unconstitutional; he went ahead and convened the parliament to pass a vote of confidence in Wickremesinghe government twice. 

The political developments in Sri Lanka stunned the US and the EU as they had supported the forming of Sirisena and Wickremesinghe coalition to keep Rajapaksa out of power. During his rule as President, Rajapaksa had defied their demand for investigating alleged war crimes during the Eelam War and other aberrations of governance and human rights violations. The Western powers and India were uncomfortable with Rajapaksa developing cosy relations with China. He had facilitated huge Chinese investments in infrastructure projects like the Hambantota port complex strengthening China’s presence in the IOR.

The US came out publicly in support of the speaker’s request to the President to constitutionally resolve the issue. After PM Rajapaksa could not muster majority support in parliament, he resigned when the supreme court held the president’s actions unconstitutional. President Sirisena had no option but to reinstate Wickremesinghe as PM on December 16, 2018 ending political uncertainty that lasted 51 days.

Though the crisis has been defused, there is uncertainty about the future as President Sirisena has openly expressed his aversion to work with PM Wickremesinghe after the latter assumed office.

India, which always haunts Sri Lanka politics with its “Big Brother” image, maintained a surprisingly low profile. There was probably an attempt by unknown anti-Indian elements when a news report hinting at the Indian intelligence agency RAW’s hand in a suspected plot to assassinate President Sirisena and former defence secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa, surfaced. This had probably further aggravated Preident Sirisena’s suspicion about a conspiracy hatched by the UNP to rid of him. 

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. India did not allow such provocations to affect its decision to keep out of any political controversy during the crisis period.

On the other hand, China was happy to see Rajapaksa, its favourite Sri Lankan leader, staging a comeback to power. China’s ambassador in Colombo Chen Xueyuan was one of the first diplomats to meet Rajapaksa soon after he was sworn in as PM. He presented a congratulatory message from PM Li Keqiang.  After social media took China to task 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.

Maldives political crisis        

The recent political crisis in Maldives, Asia’s smallest country of 26 atolls located in the Indian Ocean, ended with the election of President Ibrahim Mohammed Solih. He defeated the outgoing President Abdulla Yameen who had become increasingly autocratic. The presence of Prime Minister Narendra Modi at the swearing in ceremony of President Solih indicated the importance India attached to his election. This was followed by President Solih’s maiden state visit to New Delhi during which he was warmly welcomed. At a joint press conference, PM Modi announced a grant of $1.4 billion in budget support, currency swap agreements, and concessional lines of credit to Maldives to tide over its financial crunch.  

The political crisis has to be understood in the background of Maldives’ history of periodic political turbulence and faction fights in its inbred society ever since it became a republic in November 11, 1968. President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom who ruled for three decades after he was elected for the first time in 1978, brought some stability and boosted international tourism, which is the country’s main source of income. However, his autocratic methods and suppression of dissent made his six terms of presidency controversial.

Gayoom managed to survive three coup attempts in 1980, 1983 and 1988. The 1988 coup attempt, organized by a Maldivian businessman, using mercenaries of former Sri Lankan Tamil insurgency organization PLOTE was crushed with the help of Indian army parachute battalion flown in to round up the plotters, who had occupied Hulule airport. However, during his last term Gayoom’s ruling Maldivian Peoples Party (MPP) was increasingly facing popular demand for political reforms.

Due to increasing pressure from Mohammed Nasheed, a journalist, who founded the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) in 2003, President Gayoom allowed gradual reforms. A new constitution was approved in 2008 and Nasheed was elected president under the new constitution. 

However, Nasheed faced huge debt left by previous government, economic downturn dude to after-effects of 2004 tsunami leading to unemployment, corruption and drug menace. In spite of this, social welfare benefits were introduced for the aged and single parents. In 2011, President Nasheed faced increasing social and political unrest and demands for Islamic rule. He resigned after army and police elements mutinied in February 2012. Vice President Mohammed Waheed was sworn in as president. Nasheed was arrested and tried, under questionable circumstances, for terrorism and sentenced to 13 years in jail.

In the elections held in 2013, Nasheed was elected in the first count; however, supreme court annulled the election. In the re-run of the election Abdulla Yameen, half brother of former president Gayoom, was elected president. 

However, President Yameen surprised India, which has been a traditional ally and security guarantor, by adopting an increasingly pro-China stand. Chinese investments which had been surging since 2012 made a huge leap during Yameen’s reign.  President Xi Jinping made a historic visit to Maldives in September 2014, bringing China’s ties closer with the Maldives. President Yameen made a three-day visit to Beijing and signed 12 agreements including a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) and a tariff free import-export trade deal with China. China is supporting multiple housing projects, a power plant, a bridge costing $200 million connecting Male to the Hulule airport and a water and sewage treatment plant. The three projects alone are worth $1.5 billion, more than 40 percent of Maldives GDP.

These developments caught India off-guard. India was concerned when China was said to be looking to establish a joint ocean observation station at the westernmost atoll of Makhnudhoo not far from India. It will provide a vantage point to China overlooking the important sea route through which ships pass. Former president Nasheed has said China had already acquired 17 islands in Maldives and there was no clarity about China’s activities in these islands.

In the words of the Beijing tabloid Global Times, President Abdulla Yameen’s government had watered down the country’s traditional ‘India first’ foreign policy to successful court investment and assistance from New Delhi’s geopolitical rivals – China, Pakistan – and Saudi Arabia. It has also jailed several pro-India opposition figures, including former presidents Mohamed Nasheed and Maumoon Abdul Gayoom.

As political opposition against President Yameen gathered momentum, the supreme court ordered the release of nine political prisoners and reinstating 12 parliament members, which  increased the potential to impeach Yameen. On February 5, 2018 President Yameen declared a state of emergency and ordered the arrest of two judges of the supreme court including the chief justice.  Mass arrests followed and many constitutional rights were suspended. Crackdown on the media and anti-government rallies was carried out across the country. India criticized the state of emergency, called upon Maldives to observe the supreme court ruling to release the political prisoners. China warned India not to interfere in the internal affairs of Maldives.

The rest is history with the election of President Solih. In a surprise U-turn, after the defeat of Yameen, China changed its tune on India’s role in Maldives. The Global Times said Beijing had come up with a constructive “two-plus-one” mechanism – China and India plus another South Asian country as a demonstration of sincerity. “The mechanism cannot not only enhance mutual trust between China and India but prevent other South Asian countries from being caught in between” the editorial said.

Way forward

It is not enough to study the recent crises in Sri Lanka and Maldives through the traditional template of India- China rivalry. India-China relations are undergoing possibly a reset after PM Modi and President Xi Jinping had an informal summit at Wuhan in July 2018 in a bid to mend the relations between the two countries frayed after the 2017 military standoff between their armies at Doklam.

A series of follow-up decisions are being taken by the two countries thereafter to maintain and develop cordial relations. However, China’s conduct in  Sri Lanka and Maldives, two important partners in the BRI would  probably indicate how the India-China relations would shape up in the near future and impact the security environment not only in the two island nations but IOR as well. [Written on December 19, 2018]

[Col R Hariharan, a retired MI specialist on South Asia, is associated with the Chennai Centre for China Studies. He served as head of intelligence of  the Indian Peace Keeping Force in Sri Lanka from 1987 to 90.  His writes analytical articles in the areas of specialization including South Asian countries, terrorism and insurgency and China’s relations with South Asian countries and littorals of the Indian Ocean Region. E-mail: haridirect@gmail.com; blog http://col.hariharan.info ] 

Sri Lanka Perspectives 2018: A year of discreditable performance

Col R Hariharan | 31-12-2018 | Courtesy: South Asia Security Trends, January 2019 | www.security-risks.com |

Undoubtedly, 2018 will go down as a discreditable year for Sri Lankan politics, if we go by the 51-day political impasse created by President Maithripala Sirisena’s ill-conceived actions to dismiss Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe and install former president Mahinda Rajapaksa as PM. The Rajapaksa government flaunting all the perks ruling the country for 51 days, without a parliamentary mandate was the height of political ignominy. 

However, refusal of the parliament to endorse Rajapaksa as PM and the Supreme Court striking down all actions of the President that created the political crisis as unconstitutional, showed there is hope for democracy to survive in the coming year.

Though Sri Lankans don’t eat ‘the humble pie’ as they prefer hoppers, President Sirisena had to do just on December 15, 2018 when he swore-in Wickremesinghe once again as PM, after declaring, not once but twice a month ago that he, “will not make him prime minister ... not in my lifetime."  Also forgotten were his comments at his party meeting: "He [Wickremesinghe] is corrupt. His economic policies are not good for local industries. He pursued an extremely liberal form of government that is not compatible with our culture." 

Perhaps the President forgot that people voted him to power because they wanted a liberal government after President Rajapaksa’s authoritarian rule.

The President also directly attacked PM Wickremesinghe for appointing Arjuna Mahendran as the Central Bank Governor and the Bond scam, which was against the very principles on which the UNF government was elected in 2015. He said “Today the main suspect (Mahendran) is absconding and the Yahaplanaya Government and the UNP partners have been slow to act, thereby protecting the corrupt. They stifled investigation or subjected those investigating to threats.”

Evidently, this Bond issue will be milked to the full in the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe tug of war in the run up to the next general elections; but the moot point is will the politicians involved in the scam be prosecuted and punished? Successive governments in Sri Lanka have never covered themselves with glory in this regard. A recent example is the slow progress in a large number of criminal cases filed against the Rajapaksa family members. Despite all the political rhetoric and publicity, it is still work in progress.

Going by all indications the political situation is unlikely to improve even after Wickremesinghe’s return as PM. PM Wickremesinghe was clearly outwitted when Sirisena and Rajapa hatched the plan to dethrone him from power. Earlier, in his political career, Wickremesinghe has demonstrated his inability to astutely read political developments in real time. Can he overcome this leadership weakness?

Even in the recent political crisis it is the overwhelming public and civil society’s protest against President Sirisena’s cavalier action in sacking Wickremesinghe that strengthened his hand. This showed there is a strong, vocal public constituency that still believes in Yahapalana ideology. The media had also picked up the public mood and made common cause with them against the President’s actions.

PM Wickremesinghe’s success in 2019 would very much depend upon his ability to retain the support of this constituency. So the key question is can he meet their expectations, that is fulfilling the incomplete agenda of the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe combine. A few incomplete parts of the agenda have defied easy solution; these include drafting a new constitution which could satisfy the aspirations of Tamil minority while maintaining the unity of Sri Lanka.

The US, European Union and Japan had rallied to the support of Wickremesinghe during the political crisis in the hope that he would meet their expectations on implementing the UN Human Rights Council resolution on a host of issues of accountability for human rights aberrations including alleged war crimes and forced disappearances of civilians. 

These politically loaded issues require commitment and the ability to carry the government and the coalition to resolve them. Does the PM have the commitment to do so? If PM Wickremesinghe wants to make a difference, he has to find answers to these troubling questions. 

Rajapaksa may be down but not out. Despite the recent setback in his political bid to become PM, Rajapaksa’s loyal support base among Southern Sinhala rural constituency is intact. A strong-willed leader Rajapaksa will do his best to bounce back to power. The Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) has decided to form a broad political alliance with the SLPP and other partners of the UPFA coalition including the Mahajana Eksath Peramuna, Communist Party, Lanka Sama Samaj, Nation Freedom Front etc. The weakness of this combine is the lack of adequate support from minority parties.

And the recent political impasse had exposed Rajappaksa’s limitations in attracting the support of minority Tamils and Muslim parties. When Rajapaksa was in power, he had indulged in political double speak in handling Sinhala Buddhist fringe elements which whipped up violent anti-Muslim activities. These Buddhist fringe groups might be encouraged to stage a comeback in the coming months, taking advantage of the political turbulence.

Though political headwind is blowing in PM Wickremesinghe’s favour, reviving his presidential ambitions, there are too many uncertainties that could dissipate the advantage as the presidential election is due only in November 2019.

Overall, the year has ended with disillusionment for the people, who voted Sirisena-Wickremesinghe combine to usher in good governance. After three and a half years their dream is shattered as good governance seem to be illusive because politicians do not seem to have changed their change their style. In this pessimistic environment, one can only hope the year 2019 will be a better one.

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

Col Hariharan's Flag Day interview in Tamil in DD Podhigai TV

Mass Killings: How About a Law for Genocide?

 Sajjan Kumar’s conviction shows the need for this law in India which has often been rocked by pogroms. But is there political will to do so when it could lead to prosecution of public servants?

                                                                                                                 

~By Colonel R Hariharan | India Legal | December 22, 2018|  http://www.indialegallive.com/viewpoint/mass-killings-how-about-a-law-for-genocide-58702

The sentencing of Congress leader Sajjan Kumar to life imprisonment for his role in the 1984 anti-Sikh riots, where more than 2,700 were killed in the capital, is not the first case of mass killing. Nor is it the first time when the long arm of the law was not strong enough to deliver justice as the accused had the right political connections.

This is an apt case study for a host of things that are wrong with our law en­for­cement, judicial system, criminal prosecution, et al. When it comes to handling real life cases, particularly mass killings like the 1984 anti-Sikh massacre, politics seems to take precedence over all other considerations.

In this context, the observations of the Delhi High Court bench of Justices S Muralidhar and Vinod Goel while convicting Sajjan Kumar are relevant. They said “cases like these are to be viewed in the larger context of mass crimes that require a different approach”. Noting that in Delhi alone, 2,733 Sikhs were killed and nearly 3,350 Sikhs done to death all over the country,

the judges said this was “neither the first instance of mass crime, nor tragically, the last”.

They indicated a familiar pattern of killings in Mumbai in 1993, Gujarat in 2002, Kandhamal, Odisha, in 2008 and Muzaffarnagar in UP in 2003. The common link in such crimes was targeting of minorities and “attacks spearheaded by dominant political actors being facilitated by law enforcement agencies”.

While they were stating the obvious, this is not the first time judges have made such a statement. On August 21, 2009, additional sessions judge Surinder S Rathi in Delhi had found three persons guilty of rioting, attempt to murder and arson. He had observed: “Though we boast being the world’s largest democracy and Delhi the national capital, the sheer mention of the incidents of 1984 anti-Sikh riots in general and the role played by Delhi Police and state machinery in particular makes our heads hang in shame in the eyes of the world polity.”

In a way, the 1984 riots were a watershed in Indian politics. Delhi-based lawyer HS Phoolka, who represented the 1984 victims, had said it showed the creeping criminalisation of Indian politics. “Before the 1984 riots, there were no criminals in politics. Criminals followed politicians. But 1984 made them realise people leading mobs and killing others could get elected and become leaders. So a way was opened for criminals to make politics a profession,” he said.

This probably sums up the problem in handling mass killings—political actors and subservient law enforcement agencies conniving to protect criminal elements. Politics rides on the back of governance like King Vikram’s Vetala, a spirit that would not get off, until the King solved the riddle. Unfortunately, governance is not the king in our case, so it is the politician, the Vetala, who solves the riddle to suit his end.

The judges also called for changes in criminal law to include specific offences for “crimes against humanity” and “genocide”. Such a loophole allowed the accused responsible for mass crimes to evade prosecution and punishment. The bottomline is that India has not defined genocide by law, though the UN convention on genocide ratified it in 1959. “Genocide” does not find a place in the Indian Penal Code.

The UN General Assembly adopted the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide on December 9, 1948, as Resolution 260. It came into force on January 12, 1951. And on December 2017, 149 states ratified or acceded to the treaty. India had participated in the 1948 genocide convention and contributed to its drafting. India ratified it on August 27, 1959.

Actually, by ratifying the convention, India has recognised genocide as an international crime, which it has undertaken to prevent and punish as per Article I of the Convention. It has also undertaken to enact the necessary legislation “to give effect to the provisions” of the Convention, to provide effective penalties for persons guilty of genocide or any other acts related to genocide through a competent tribunal.

The Convention in Article II defines genocide as “any of the following acts with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group: (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (and) (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group”.

Article III renders punishable not only acts of genocide but other acts related to it like conspiracy to commit genocide, direct and public incitement to commit genocide, attempt to commit genocide and complicity in genocide.

Though the Narendra Modi government showed alacrity in reopening the 1984 anti-Sikh riots case of Sajjan Kumar, it still does not seem to be in a hurry to recognise the need for enacting laws in conformity with the UN convention on genocide. In fact, in the Rajya Sabha on March 2, 2016, a question was raised about the government’s plans in enacting laws in conformity with the UN convention on genocide and racial discrimination and, if not, reasons for not enacting them. Answering the questions, Kiren Rijiju, minister of state for home, said:

“By acceding to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in 1959, India has recognised genocide as an international crime. The principles embodied in the Co-Convention are part of general international law and therefore already part of common law of India. The provisions of the Indian Penal Code including the procedural law (Criminal Procedure Code) provide effective penalties for persons guilty of the crime of genocide and take cognisance of the acts which may be otherwise taken to be in the nature of genocide.”

The catch in the minister’s contention that the provisions of the IPC, including the procedural criminal law, “provide effective penalties for persons guilty of crime of genocide” is flawed because genocide is not defined in the IPC. This probably shows the government’s reluctance to enact separate laws to handle genocide and crimes related to it because Article IV of the UN Convention says “persons committing genocide or any other acts enumerated in Article III shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals”. In other words, a separate law for genocide would mean sacrificing the protection given to public servants from prosecution under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which had been used to prevent and delay prosecution of guilty public servants.

But Article 51(c) of the Constitution enjoins the State to “foster respect for international law and treaty obligations”. Article 253 mandates the Parliament “to make any law for implementing any treaty, agreement or convention”. So both the government and Parliament have an obligation to enact separate laws for genocide and related acts as required by the UN Convention.

HL Mencken, editor of The Baltimore Sun, described democracy as the art and science of running a circus from the monkey cage. As the world’s largest democracy, we seem to be a living example of it.

Bangladesh was able to overcome both domestic and international roadblocks to prosecute those involved in the mother of all genocides in the run-up to its independence? Why can’t we?

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

Sri Lanka Perspectives: November 2018

Col R Hariharan | 30-11-2018 |Courtesy: South Asia Security Trends, December 2018 | www.security-risks.com |

Breaking the political impasse

President Maithripala Sirisena is trying hard to work out a face saving compromise to break the political deadlock created by him after installed former president Mahinda Rajapaksa as Prime Minister, sacking PM Ranil Wickremesinghe, three weeks ago. Though PM Rajapaksa and his cabinet have taken over the government, the parliament has refused to accept his appointment. The country is in a drift as day to day functioning of the government is hamstrung by the crisis.

Former PM Wickremesinghe refusing to vacate the PM’s official residence Temple Trees, and his party said to be meeting the expenditure for his continued stay there, typically illustrates the confusing ground situation.  

A defiant speaker Karu Jayasuriya, rejected President’s order to prorogue the parliament and later dissolve it. He has ensured two no confidence motions are passed against the Rajapaksa government. The parliament boycotted by Rajapaksa’s UPFA-SLPP coalition, has passed yet another resolution to block any expenditure by PM’s office.

A plethora of cases against President Sirisena’s actions dubbed as unconstitutional by Wickremesinghe and his erstwhile coalition partners is pending in the supreme court. These cases are likely to be disposed of on December 7, 2018.  Added to this, Wickremesinghe’s quo warranto petition  filed to prevent PM Rajapaksa from functioning filed in the Court of Appeal is coming up for hearing on December 3, 2018. 

With pressure building up on two fronts - in parliament and the impending verdict in the cases in Supreme Court - President Sirisena has probably realized the only way to defuse the situation is to work out a deal with the opposition leaders. The Speaker agreed to arrange a one-on-one meeting between the President with the leaders of the United National Front (UNF) constituent parties led by Wickremesinghe and with the four-party Tamil National Alliance (TNA) members led by the leader of the opposition P Sampanthan to explore a possible way out of the crisis.

The meetings took place on November 30, 2018 as scheduled. But it was probably inconclusive. According to TNA sources, the President is said to have advised them to pass another no confidence motion against Rajapaksa government in the parliament in accordance with the standing orders when it meets on December 5, 2018.  This could pave the way for swearing in another UNP nominee as PM. President Sirisena has repeatedly vowed not to accept Wickremesinghe again as PM again; so far the UNP has not chosen another leader from the party to be the PM. The President will probably withdraw the notification dissolving the parliament as the price for striking a deal with the opposition. Seeking UNF cooperation for holding a fresh parliamentary election could also be another trade off for President Sirisena.

PM Rajapaksa in his first televised address after taking over as PM said the country’s stability could be restored through a fresh round of parliamentary election. He added that the UNP, unlike other parties, was not ready to face the people. The PM said President Sirisena had entrusted him to resurrect the falling economy and living standard of the people. Referring to his government, he said “what we have now is only an interim government. When a downward trend manifests itself, it is difficult to turn things around in a month or two.”  He alleged that the Wickremesinghe government had borrowed $20.7 bn in three years and it would take a while to turn things around.

However, in May 2018, when a no confidence motion against PM Wickremesinghe was defeated, the PM described the motion as an attempt not to just oust him, but the first step to topple the National Unity government led by President Sirisena. He had asked the party should prepare for the coming provincial, presidential and parliamentary elections. Is the UNP ready now for a parliamentary election?

Arrest of the CDS and attempted transfer of CID Inspector

President Sirisena speaking to foreign correspondents has assured non interference in ongoing investigations into abductions, killing of journalists, and other crimes allegedly committed by those connected to the new government. He said ‘no one can interfere’ with police and courts. Apparently, the President’s assurance was a damage control measure after political parties raised a furore when Inspector Nishantha Adrian Silva of the CID branch, investigating a number of highly sensitive cases, was suddenly transferred by the Inspector General of police. It was allegedly done due to pressure from the President’s office.

The cases he was handling included the assaulting of journalist Keith Neyhr by suspected military intelligence personnel and the case of Lt Comdr Hettiarachchi involved in the kidnapping and disappearance of 11 Tamil youth in 2008-2009.

However, the police commission intervened to cancel the transfer of Inspector Nishantha, indicating at least the Yahapalana government has indeed made a difference in making the commissions function independently.

Curiously, while the whole drama of the CID inspector’s transfer was being enacted, Sri Lanka’s highest ranking serving military officer Chief of Defence Staff Admiral Ravindra Wijegunaratne, appeared before Colombo Fort Magistrate and was remanded to custody till December 5, 2018.

It is interesting to note that earlier the CDS failed to appear before  the CID and give a statement on his alleged help to Lt Comdr Hettiararchchi to evade arrest in the case of kidnapping 11 youth. 

The arrest and prosecution of the CDS could set a precedent for the arrest of other service officers allegedly involved in war crimes. President Sirisena has repeatedly said he would never to prosecute armed forces personnel on alleged war crimes. So, how he reacts to the arrest of the CDS is likely to determine whether other cases involving two naval officers would be allowed to take its logical course.

Tail piece: Even the constitutional crisis and its questionable status did not deter the government from signing two contracts totaling more than $50 million with two Chinese firms. The contract worth $32 million with China Harbour Engineering Company (CHEC) was to enhance the deep berth capacity of the state-run Jaya Container Terminal in Colombo. The other contract worth $25.7 million was for the supply of three cranes from Shanghai Zhenhua Heavy Industries for the same project. India had expressed its concern at the deal earlier as  80 per cent of its marine trade passes through the port.

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

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.]