இந்திய-சீன எல்லை படைக்குறைப்பு ஒப்பந்தத்தின் முக்கியத்துவம் என்ன?

கர்னல் ஆர் ஹரிஹரன் | பெப்ரவரி 14, 2021

 

கடந்த ஆண்டு மே மாதத்தில் லடாக் எல்லையில் சீனா தனது படைகளைக் குவிக்க ஆரம்பித்த பிறகு, அதைத் தொடர்ந்து ஜூன் 20 ந்தேதி கல்வான் பகுதியில் இந்தியா-சீன ராணவங்களிடையே ஏற்பட்ட ஆயதம் அற்ற கைகலப்பில் இரு தரப்பிலும் உயிர் சேதத்தில் முடிய,  அது இந்திய-சீன உறவுகளில் மிகப் பெரும் தாக்கத்தை ஏற்படுத்தியது.  அது பிரதமர் நரேந்திர மோடி சீனாவுடன் நல்லிணக்கம் தேட எடுத்த பல முயற்சிகளுக்கு ஏற்பட்ட பெரும் பின்னடைவு என்று கூறலாம். 

 

அதைத் தொடர்ந்து இரு நாடுகளும் பல மட்டங்களில் நடத்திய பேச்சுவார்த்தைகள் முன்னேற்றம் காணவில்லை. அதற்கு மாறாக இரு தரப்பும் படைகளை எல்லைப் பகுதியில் குவிக்க, இரு நாடுகளுக்கும் போர் மூள்வதற்கான சூழ்நிலை உருவானது.

 

அத்தகைய போர் அபாயம் நிகழும் ஆபத்து தற்போது ஓரளவு தவிர்க்கப்பட்டுள்ளது என்றே கூறலாம். பாதுகாப்பு மந்திரி ராஜ்நாத் சிங் கடந்த பெப்ரவரி 11ம் தேதி அன்று, இந்தியா-சீனா நாடுகளுக்கு இடையே லடாக் எல்லையில் படைகளை குறைக்க ஒப்பந்தம் கையெழுத்தான செய்தியை பாராளுமன்றத்தில் அறிவித்தார். விரிசலான இந்திய-சீன உறவில் இது வரவேற்கத்தக்க முதல் முன்னேற்றம் என்று கூறலாம். 

 

லடாக் எல்லையில் கடந்த பத்து மாதங்களாக இந்திய-சீனப் படைகளுக்கு இடைய நிலவி வந்த பதட்டமான சூழ்நிலையை மாற்ற, கையொப்பமான படைக் குறைப்பு ஒப்பந்தத்தின் விசேஷ அம்சங்களை பாதுகாப்பு அமைச்சர் விளக்கினார்.

 

இந்த ஒப்பந்தம், இரு தரப்பு பிராந்திய ராணுவ உயர் அதிகாரிகள் மட்டும் அல்லாமல், இந்திய வெளியுறவு அமைச்சகத்தின் இணைச்செயலரும்  பங்குபெற்ற, பல சந்திப்புக்களுக்கு பின்னர், உருவாக்கப் பட்டது என்பது குறிப்பிடத்தக்கது. 

 

இந்த ஒப்பந்தத்துக்கான பேச்சு வார்த்தைகள் இழுபறியில் தொடர்ந்து நின்ற போது, இந்திய அரசு நூற்றுக் கணக்கான டிக்டாக் போன்ற மிக பிரபலமான சீன மொபைல் பயன்பாடுகளைத் தடை செய்து, சீன முதலீட்டு வியாபார நிறுவனங்களின் செயல் பாடுகளை ஆராய முனைந்தது. முதன் முறையாக, இந்திய—சீன எல்லையில் ஏற்பட்டுள்ள பதட்டம் நிலை தொடரும் போது, சீனாவுடனான மற்ற வணிக, பொருளாதார, அரசியல் உறவுகளும் பாதிக்கப்படும் என்ற இந்தியா, தன் புதிய நிலைப்பாட்டை செயல் முறையில் நிதர்சனமாக காட்டியது. முன்பு எப்போதும் காணாத, இந்தியாவின் திடமான நிலைப்பாட்டை, சீன அரசு புரிந்து கொள்ளவேதான், இந்த ஒப்பந்தம் உருவானது என்றே தோன்றுகிறது. 

 

இந்த ஒப்பந்தத்தில், படைக்குறைப்பின் பல்வேறு கட்டங்களில், எந்தத் தேதியில் எந்த இடத்திலிருந்து எந்த இடத்துக்கு, எத்தகைய கனரக ஆயுதங்கள்,  டாங்கிகள் ஆகியவை  விலக்கப்படும் என்ற முழு விவரங்கள் அடங்கியுள்ளது குறிப்பிடத்தக்கது. ஆகவே, இதன்மூலம் இரு தரப்பினரும் படைக் குறைப்பு உண்மையில் செயலாக்கப் படுகிறதா என்பதை தொடர்ந்து கண்காணிக்க உதவும். அதனால், படைக்குறைப்பின் போது, சந்தேகமான சூழ்நிலை ஏற்படுவதைத் தவிர்த்து, எல்லையில் அமைதியை தொடர்ந்து நிலைநாட்ட முடியும். 

 

மேலும், இந்த ஒப்பந்தத்தில், படைக்குறைப்பு பல்வேறு கட்டங்களாக முடிந்த பின்பு, லடாக் எல்லையில் இருநாடுகளுக்கும் சர்ச்சைக்கு உரிய மற்ற நிலைகளைப் பற்றிய பேச்சுவார்த்தைகளத் தொடரலாம் என்ற விவரமம் குறிப்பிடப்பட்டுள்ளது. 

 

எதிர்க்கட்சிகள் இந்த ஒப்பந்தத்தில், இந்தியா பங்காங்ட்ஸோ ஏரியின் வடக்கு கரையில் பிங்கர்-3 என்ற மலைவரம்பில் இருந்து பிங்கர்-8 மலைவரம்பு வரை உள்ள பகுதியில் இரு தரப்பு படைகளும் ரோந்துப் பணியில் ஈடுபடமாட்டோம் என்ற தாற்காலிக ஏற்பாட்டை ஒப்புக் கொண்டதற்கு கண்டனம் தெரிவித்துள்ளனர். இந்த ஏற்பாட்டுக்கான காரணங்களை ராகுல் காந்தியும் மற்ற காங்கிரஸ் கட்சித் தலைவர்களும் புரிந்து கொள்ளத் தயாராக இல்லை என்றே தோன்றுகிறது. 

 

இந்தியாவின் இந்த தாற்காலிக ஏற்பாட்டுக்கு இரண்டு காரணங்கள் உள்ளன. முதலாவது, இந்த தாற்காலிக ஏற்பாட்டின்படி பிங்கர்-3க்கும் 8க்கும்  இடையே சீனா ஆக்கிரமித்துள்ள பகுதியிலிருந்து  தனது படைகளை விலக்கி, மே 2020க்கு முன்பு பாங்காங் ட்ஸோ வடக்கு கரையில் நிலவிய எல்லை கட்டுப்பாட்டுக் கோட்டு  பகுதிக்கு திரும்பிவிடும். இது, எல்லையில் சுமூக நிலை திரும்ப இந்தியா வைத்த அடிப்படை கோரிக்கையாகும். 

 

இரண்டாவதாக, அந்தப் பகுதியில் சீனா ஏற்கனவே பிங்கர் 8ல் இருந்து பிங்கர் 5 வரை 1999ல் இருந்த காலடிப் பாதையை 2000-ம் ஆண்டு சாலையாக விரிவாக்கம் செய்துள்ளனர். ஆனால், இந்தியத் தரப்பில் பிங்கர் 3ல் இருந்து பிங்கர் 5 வரை பாதை இல்லை. ஆகவே ஒப்பந்தத்தின் விளைவாக இந்தப் பகுதியில் சீனாவின் ஆதிக்கம் தற்போது குறைக்கப் படும்.

 

பங்காங்ட்ஸோ ஏரியின் தெற்கு கடற்கரையில் இந்தியப் படைகள் ஆகஸ்டு 29-30 தேதிகளில், சீனா சற்றும் எதிர்பாராத வண்ணம், சுஷூல் பகுதியில் முக்கியமான இடங்களை கைவசப்படுத்தின. இவற்றில், அந்தப் பகுதியை ஆதிக்கம் செலுத்தம் குருங் ஹில், மகர் ஹில், முக்பாரி, ரிஜாங் லா மற்றும் ரெசின் லா ஆகிய மலை உச்சிகள் அடங்கும். அதன் பிறகு, இந்திய டாங்குகள் அந்த இடங்களை அடைந்து போருக்கான தயார் நிலையை அடைந்தன. 

 

அதனைத் தொடர்ந்து, சீனா தனது டி-56 டாங்குகளை அந்த மலைச் சரிவுகளில் நூறு அடி தூரத்தில் நமது படைகளுக்கு எதிரே நிறுத்தின. இதைத் தொடர்ந்து எந்தக் கணமும் போர் வெடிக்கச் கூடிய அழுத்தம் ஏற்பட்டது. அப்படியே போர் மூண்டாலும் இரு தரப்பும் அந்த கடினமான சூழ்நிலையில் போரைத் தொடருவது மிகவும் கடினம். சீனர்கள், இந்த இழுபறி நிலையை சென்ற ஆண்டு மே மாதம் துவக்கி இருந்தாலும், அங்கே நிலவும் கடுங்குளிரில் போரை நடத்தும் மன நிலையில் தற்போது இல்லை என்று தோன்றுகிறது. 

 

ஏனெனில், எட்டாவது, ஒன்பதாவது சுற்றுப் பேச்சு வார்த்தை நடந்த போதே சீனத் தரப்பு, இரு தரப்பும் டாங்குகளை அங்கிருந்து விலக்கினால் அதற்கு தயாராக இருப்பதாக கூறியது. ஆனால், அதற்கு ஈடாக இந்தியத் தரப்பு பங்காங்ட்ஸோ வடக்கு கரையில் சீனா ஆக்கிரமித்து பகுதிகளிலிருந்து விலகி மே 2020க்கு முந்தைய நிலைக்கு திரும்பவேண்டும் என்று தொடர்ந்து அழுத்தம் கொடுத்தது. அதன் விளைவாக ஜனவரி 24ந் தேதி, சீனா வாயளவில் அதற்கு ஒப்புதல் தெரிவித்தது.

 

அந்த ஒப்பந்தத்தம் எழுத்து மூலம் வடிவாக்கப்பட்ட பின்பு, அதற்கு இந்தியா பிப்ரவரி 8ந் தேதி ஒப்புதல் தெரிவித்த மறுநாளே, சீனாவும் அதற்கு தனது ஒப்புதலை தெரிவிக்க, ஒப்பந்தம் 10ம் தேதி கையெழுத்தானதும், சீனாவின் 200 டாங்குகள் மோல்டோ தளத்திலிருந்து விலகி, 100 கி. மீ தொலைவில் உள்ள ரூடாக் ராணுவ தளத்திற்கு திரும்பின. இது 12ந் தேதி துவங்கும் சீன "எருது" புத்தாண்டின் துவக்கத்தை கொண்டாட ஏற்பட்ட அவசரம் என்று கருதப்படுகிறது. இந்த விஷயத்தில் இந்திய டாங்குகள் 30 கி. மீ தூரத்தில் உள்ள பகுதிக்கு திரும்பி உள்ளன.

 

ஒப்பந்தத்தை விளக்கிய பாதுகாப்பு அமைச்சர், இது ஒரு துவக்கம் என்றும், இனி தொடர்ந்து சச்சரவுக்குரிய எல்லை நிலைகளான டெப்சாங், பி. பி. 17 ஆகியவற்றைப் பற்றிய பேச்சு வார்த்தைகள் நடைபெறும் என்று தனது அறிக்கையில் கூறினார். 

 

இந்திய-சீன உறவில் கடந்த ஆண்டு ஏற்பட்ட பெரும் தாக்கங்கள், இந்திய போர்ப்படைகளுக்கு வரவேற்க தக்க வாய்ப்பை ஏற்படுத்தியுள்ளது. பல ஆண்டுகளாக கிடப்பில் போடப்பட்டிருந்த ராணுவ தண்டவாளங்கள், நவீன கன ரக பீரங்கிகள், ஆயுதங்கள், நவீன போர் விமானங்கள், ஆகியவை  போர்க்கால அடிப்படையில் இறக்குமதி செய்யப் பட்டுள்ளன. 

 

நெடுங்காலமாக வாயளவில் பேசப்பட்டு வந்த பாதுகாப்பு உற்பத்தி, நவீன மயமாக்கல், ஆய்வுகள் ஆகியவை விரைவாக செயலாக்கம் அளிக்கப் பட்டு வருகின்றன. அதைத் தவிர, இந்தியாவின் முக்கியமான பல துறைகளில் சீனா இறக்குமதி பொருட்கள் இன்றியமையாத ஆதிக்கம் செலுத்துவதும் கண்டறியப்பட்டுள்ளது. இத்தகைய வெளி நாட்டு இறக்குமதி வணிக ஆதிக்கத்தை குறைக்க, பிரதமர் மோடி "ஆத்ம நிர்பர்" குறிக்கோளுக்கு தேசிய அளவில் செயல் படுத்த, முயற்சியில் அரசு ஈடுபட்டுள்ளது வரவேற்கத்தக்கது.

 

[கர்னல் ஹரிஹரன், ராணுவம் நுண்ணறிவுப் பிரிவில் தெற்காசிய மற்றும் தீவிரவாதத் துறைகளில் போர் முனை அனுபவம் பெற்றவர். ஈ மெயில்: haridirect@gmail.com. இணைய தளம்: https://col.hariharan.info] 

 

 

Myanmar coup: Military back in business

Aung San Suu Kyi’s huge win in the November polls in Myanmar probably triggered the coup because armed forces feared losing their influence over the election of the president and second vice president

Col R Hariharan |Cover story |IL Feature| India Legal, February 21, 2021

https://www.indialegallive.com/cover-story-articles/il-feature-news/myanmar-military-min-aung-hlaing-win-myint/

 

A week after carrying out a bloodless coup on January 31, Myanmar’s military chief Senior General Min Aung Hlaing made an official statement. The coup was triggered after the military, known locally as Tatmadaw, refused to accept the results of the November 8, 2020, general election, alleging electoral fraud. It is a matter of detail that the allegation was rejected not only by the Union Election Commission (UEC), but also by international observer groups.

The Tatmadaw chief announced a year-long emergency and justified the coup as the UEC of the Aung San Suu Kyi led government failed to take the military’s complaint seriously. The UEC action came under “acts or attempts to take over sovereignty of the Union by…wrongful means” under Article 417 of the Constitution. If the argument is accepted, the Tatmadaw’s action is legal, because the constitution is loaded in favour of the armed forces.

The military regime arrested 11 political and government leaders, including President Win Myint and the de facto president, Senior Counsellor Suu Kyi and placed them under house arrest. It also remembered to arrest some of the activists of the “88 Generation” movement, which triggered the people’s protest against military rule in 1988 and elevated Suu Kyi as the leader to spearhead the national struggle for democracy.

In a televised address, General Min Aung said the ruling junta would form a “true and disciplined democracy, different from the previous eras of military rule”. This is an oxymoron of sorts because the military has ruled Myanmar for nearly five decades from 1962 to 2008. The statement brings to mind the pithy quote from George Orwell’s satirical classic 1984: “We are different from the oligarchies of the past in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites…. We are not like that.”

The General added that the election commission must be reformed to carry out a free and fair election. He promised: “We will have a multi-party election and we will hand over power to the one who wins the election, according to the rules of democracy.” Of course, he did not indicate any time-frame for holding the election. The ruling junta held the first multi-party election in 1991, but never accepted the results when Suu Kyi fought to end military rule and restore democracy and led the National League for Democracy (NLD) to a thundering victory.

After the failure of the “democratic experiment”, the Tatmadaw rulers took nearly two decades to craft the present 2008 Constitution, which perpetuates the military’s role in governance and legislature. It enables the Tatmadaw chief to appoint ministers in the ministry of defense, border affairs and home affairs which appoints key personnel who control police forces and the biggest economic entity of the country the Myanmar Economic Corporation.

In the legislature, the Tatmadaw picks officers to occupy 25 percent of the seats reserved for the military in the Constitution In fact, the Constitution has many warts, which gives the Tatmadaw enormous influence in tinkering with governance. The last point in Min Aung’s statement was “to make a request for every citizen that everyone should go with the true facts and not follow feelings of your own”, resonating with the Chinese pro­verb: “There are three truths. There is my truth, your truth and THE Truth.”

The coup came as no surprise because General Min Aung had been threatening to do so ever since the NLD won a whopping 315 of the 440 seats in the House of Representatives, the lower house of parliament. In the upper house, the NLD captured 115 of 244 seats. The military’s political proxy the Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP) came a distant second and was side lined as a political force.

The elections were held despite the Tatmadaw chief’s objections in the midst of the Covid-19 pandemic and after intensified operations against the Arakan Army insurgents in Rakhine state. During her five-year rule as the de facto president, Senior Counsellor Suu Kyi had suffered a double whammy. She lost her international recognition and adulation as a democratic icon, after she compromised on her promise to make the country a full-fledged democracy. On the other hand, she stoutly defended the Tatmadaw’s role to ward off allegations of genocide carried out against the Rohingya minority, in the International Court of Justice in The Hague. This was seen as a betrayal of her credentials as a fighter against military rule.

In spite of her tribulations, Suu Kyi’s huge success in the elections showed her undiminished popularity and support among the people. This was, probably, a moment of truth for the Tatmadaw chief that prompted him to carry out the coup. General Min Aung was also probably disillusioned with the failure of the 2008 Constitution the military had designed to safeguard the Tatmadaw’s interests, particularly its self-assumed role as the ultimate arbiter of the nation’s destiny.

It would be trivialising the issue to say that the General carried out the coup to stay in power because he was about to retire. A more relevant reason is probably the fear of the Tatmadaw losing its ability to influence the election of the president and second vice-president. After the NLD’s huge success, it gained control of 86 percent of the seats in the Assembly of the Union (235 in the House of Representatives and 135 in the House of Nationalities), which acts as the Presidential Electoral College for election. This gives the NLD more than the 67 percent majority needed to elect its own nominees for the two top posts.

The NLD’s success has made the role of the pro-military bloc (consisting of military nominees and the USDP) irrelevant in selecting its favourite candidates for the top jobs in the government and the legislature. The military chief also probably realised that the era of using Tatmadaw created political proxies in elections, was coming to an end, after most of the voters ignored the USDP. The election has also exposed the limitations of Tatmadaw’s use of fringe elements among the majority ethnic Bamar community and Buddhist clergy to whip up ethno-religious sentiment to support it and the USDP.

The biggest obstacle to the country’s democracy is the Tatmadaw’s mindset, groomed by General Ne Win, who described himself as its surrogate father. The maverick general’s rule from 1962 to 1988 spelt the death knell for democracy because Ne Win firmly believed “parliamentary democracy was not suitable for Burma”.

Ethnic minority insurgent groups had been fighting the Tatmadaw since independence to protect their distinct identity in a federal democratic set-up promised by General Aung San. The prolonged ethnic insurgency has made the Tatmadaw consider itself the true guardian of the nation, reflecting General Ne Win’s considered: “Federalism is impossible, it will destroy the union.” This has affected the credibility of the government’s efforts to persuade over 14 ethnic insurgency groups to join the mainstream. As a result, Suu Kyi’s efforts to kindle General Aung San’s famous Pangong Spirit of federal democracy with the participation of all ethnic groups, have failed to transform the situation.

As stated earlier, the 2008 Constitution gave the Tatmadaw enormous powers to tweak both the government and the legislature, affecting the country’s democratic credentials. So the UK, EU and Australia were quick to condemn the military takeover. US President Joe Biden threatened to reinstate sanctions. ASEAN members have largely kept mum. China, the giant neighbour with strategic stakes in Myanmar, urged all sides to “resolve differences”. China also blocked a UN Security Council statement condemning the coup, in keeping with its policy of opposing international intervention in Myanmar.

India, the largest democracy with close relations with both the Myanmar government and the military, has the difficult task of looking at the coup beyond the strategic binary of India’s troubled relations with China. India has reacted with a cautious statement, expressing “deep concern”. It said: “India has always been steadfast in its support of democratic transition of Myanmar. We believe the rule of law and the democratic process must be upheld.” For the time being, India is waiting and watching the developments in Myanmar. Its policy in the past had been against international intervention in Myanmar.

There have been massive protests against the coup in many cities in Myanmar for the last few days. In keeping with the trend of other protests in many countries, there is increasing youthful participation. The Myanmar army is notorious for its ruthlessness in handling public protests in the past. Though, in the first three days of protest, police had used water cannon to disperse the crowds, it is using rubber bullets and live firing, which resulted in the death of a woman on February 2, 2021.

Much would depend on how the ruling junta handles the protests in the coming days. It knows the world has come a long way since the 1988 protests, which turned bloody, by violence unleashed on the people. So, it may attempt going slow to keep the protests manageable.

 

 

 

Sri Lanka Perspectives – January 2021: Is it payback time for reversing ethnic reconciliation process?

Col R Hariharan |January 31, 2021|

South Asia Security Trends, February 1, 2021 | www.security-risk.com

 

Overview

The first month of the year 2021 gave a glimpse to Sri Lankans of the three major, inter-related issues they are likely to confront during the year. These are: further hardening of government attitudes to ethnic reconciliation, more militarisation of governance and fighting a losing battle to managing the battered economy. Two of the issues are not new; but militarisation of governance can be attributed to the rise of majoritarian triumphalism after the army finally eliminated the LTTE-led separatists in the Eelam War in 2009.

The international tourist travel, national economy's lifeblood, is yet to recover from the effects of Covid pandemic. It is likely to slowly recover depending upon how Sri Lanka regains global credibility in the fight against the pandemic. Sri Lanka has to successfully turn international vaccine politics to its advantage, without annoying the major powers involved in it. At least for now, India has taken the lead, gifting half a million doses of Covishield vaccine. As it always happens, China’s terms of its gift of Chinese vaccine, are neither clear nor transparent. Russia has also entered the vaccine fray, saying it would allow Sri Lanka to manufacture the Russian vaccine, though details are not yet available.  

Confrontation Vs Consensus

The next two months are going to be testing times for the government, as it grapples with international fall out President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s decision to disown co-sponsorship of the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) Resolution 30/1. The resolution was rolled over twice to provide time to Sri Lanka to fulfil its promises on accountability for its actions on alleged human rights excesses during the Eelam war.  

President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s highly militarised government’s decisions, based on Sinhala Buddhist ethnocentric considerations, have rapidly reversed the progress on ethnic reconciliation made by his predecessors, including those of his brother and former President Mahinda Rajapaksa. Though many among the Sinhala majority consider their country as the last bastion of Theravada Buddhism, in politics Buddhist ethnocentric elements never occupied the central space. They seem to be calling the shots now. Even when Mahinda Rajapaka decided to wage the ‘final war’ to defeat the Tamil separatists of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), he leveraged ethnic reconciliation, rather than ethnocentric nationalism, in his political discourse.

So, it is not surprising that the UN Human Rights High Commissioner Michelle Bachelet’s report on Sri Lanka’s accountability issues is scathing on Sri Lanka government’s conduct.  The report will be discussed during the 46^th session of the UNHRC from February 22 to Mach 19, 2021.

The UN High Commissioner’s report says, “Nearly 12 years on from the end of the war, domestic initiatives for accountability and reconciliation have repeatedly failed to produce results, more deeply entrenching impunity and exacerbating victims’ distrust of the system....Sri Lanka remains in a state of denial about the past, with truth-seeking efforts aborted and the highest state officials refusing to make any acknowledgement of past crimes.” These words sum up, not only the views of the High Commissioner, but also reflect the views of many national and international civil society groups.  

Warning that this has a direct impact on the present and the future of Sri Lanka, Ms Bachelet states, “The failure to implement any vetting or comprehensive reforms in the security sector means that the State apparatus and some its members credibly implicated in the alleged grave crimes and human rights violations remain in place.”

Noting the 2015 reforms that “offered more checks and balances on executive power" have been rolled back, "eroding independence of judiciary and other key institutions further.” It says “the beginnings of a more inclusive national discourse that promised greater recognition and respect of and reconciliation with minority communities have been reversed. Far from achieving the ‘guarantees of non-recurrence’ promised by resolution 30/1, Sri Lanka’s current trajectory sets the scene for recurrence of the policies and practices that gave rise to grave human rights violations.” There cannot be a more scathing indictment of the Rajapaksa style of governance. 

She has also referred to the emergency security deployments in the wake of Easter Sunday terrorist attacks in 2019 “have evolved into an increased militarisation of the State.” In particular, the report notes the Government has appointed active and former military personnel, including those credibly implicated in war crimes to key positions in the civilian administration, and created parallel task forces and commissions that encroach upon civilian administration, reversing the democratic gains as a result of 20^th Constitutional amendment.

She has urged the Sri Lanka authorities to immediately end all forms of surveillance, including intimidating visits by State agents and harassment against human rights defenders, lawyers, journalists and victims of human rights violations and refrain from imposing further restrictive legal measures on legitimate civil society.

The High Commissioner has urged the HRC to take action on Sri Lanka for three important reasons. These are: failure to deal with the past will have devastating effect on the survivors of all communities, who need justice and urgent reparation; Failure to advance accountability and reconciliation undermines prospects of peace and development and carries seeds of potential conflict in the future; The trends highlighted in the report represent “yet again” an important challenge for the UN and the HRC. If no action is taken it will undermine its “efforts to prevent and achieve accountability for grave violations in other contexts.”

Sri Lanka should be particularly concerned with her call for the UN to set out a coherent and effective plan to advance accountability options at the international level. The options suggested include, taking steps towards the referral of the situation in Sri Lanka to the International Criminal Court, member states actively pursuing investigation and prosecution of international crimes committed by parties before their national courts, and applying targeted sanctions such as asset freezes and travel ban against state officials and other alleged persons responsible for committing such violations.  

While it was understandable that President Rajapaksa was angered by the UN High Commissioner’s report, it should not be allowed to override a nuanced, common sense approach couched in diplomatic nicety. According to media reports, Sri Lanka government's response appeared to be to confront the international body on its findings, rather than build a consensus towards fielding an alternate resolution.

Foreign affairs are one of the weakest links of the Rajapaksa government. On more than one occasion, its representatives had been found to be ham handed in handling foreign affairs issues. They have been found debating sensitive issues on public forums, rather than discussing them through private channel. How Sri Lanka fares in the UNHRC session may decide much of the international attitudes to Sri Lanka in the coming months.

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

 

 

 

Remembering Gandhiji in critical times

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How do we change that? Future looks very gloomy. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ties with Sri Lanka: A fine balancing act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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