Bangladesh Fast Moving Toward Great Disaster

Bangladesh is moving toward great disaster. On one hand, startling activities of the Awami League government has begun in the name of amending the constitution, and on the other the apex court is being made the judicial sister concern of the Awami League in cold-blood through well-drawn out plan. Such irregular incidents are being taken place in the apex court because of the order of the Awami government from the remote-controlled that have not been seen in the local and foreign judiciary in recent times. A person who was the president of Gopalganj unit of the Awami League for 18 years has been appointed the judge to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court. His name is Shamsul Huda. As he is very close to the Awami League, therefore, Shamsul Huda has been appointed to the Appellate Division superseding 51 judges of the high court. In the same way, a judge of the high court named Mamtaj Uddin has been appointed to the Appellate Division superseding 47 judges.

According to the experienced, there is no precedence of such blatant suppression in the seven countries under the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC). The incident of violating seniority in appointing chief justice has been identified as the black stain of infamy. Before that A.B.M. Khairul Haque had been appointed the chief justice superseding two senior judges of the Appellate Division. Shah Mohammad Naimur Rahman and justice M.A. Matin were seniors to him. Feeling shame and humiliation Abdul Matin went on a long vacation and took the retirement while on leave. After the violation of seniority Shah Mohammad Naimur Rahman was the seniormost judge in the Appellate Division. Educated and concerned people thought that although the Awami League was not fair to him in the first turn, Sheikh Hasina would straight up her injustice and unfairness in the second turn. But after the retirement of Khairul Haque, Mozammel Hossain has been appointed the chief justice superseding Naimur Rahman again. In protest of this acute injustice and unfairness justice Naimur Rahman has resigned. This resignation protesting the violation of seniority in the apex court is unprecedented in the subcontinent.
Let God Save Judiciary
This is not said by the Weekly Sonar Bangla. This prayer has been uttered by Advocate Khandakar Mahbub Hossain, president of the Supreme Court Bar Association. He also said: "Justice Khairul Haque has murdered the judiciary in cold-blood". A huge anarchy has consumed the Supreme Court. Pro-Awami attorney general and pro-Awami minor part of the Bar Association have given reception to the two newly appointed judges superseding 51 and 47 judges. Thirty-five judges of the Hugh Court abstained from joining that reception. Chairs in the front row were vacant as they did not join. One of the senior justices Nazrul Islam was standing in the back row. Then, chief justice Khairul Haque requested him to sit-in the front row but he did not keep that request. With courtesy he said: "My Lord, Please forgive me." Such incident is also unprecedented in the high court or Supreme Court.
Elected Bar Association wanted to hold reception for the outgoing chief justice Khairul Haque. But M. Khairul Haque did not go to their reception. Then, the Bar Association held the "gayebana (offered in absence of anyone according to Islamic traditions) reception" in his absence. In giving speech in this gayebana reception Bar Association president Advocate Khandakar Mahbub Hossain said after taking the responsibility as the chief justice you have represented the Awami League in the last seven months. Justice Haque has destroyed the judiciary. At the same time he is saying good-bye putting the country in great disaster by destroying the constitution. We pray that the God save the judiciary from your destructive activities. Terming the chief justice ABM Khairul Haque as a cunning man of cold-blood president of the bar association also said the chief justice is a very gentle and kind man. At the same time he is cunning. Like killing people in cold-blood he has murdered the judiciary. Khandakar Mahbub Hossain said after the assumption of power by the Awami League not a single institution is out of politicization. The Appellate Division is also made the part of the Awami League. Being appointed as the guardian of the judiciary the chief justice Khairul Haque had represented the Awami League in his full tenure. After issuing verdict against the government in a bench of the high court he has written the nasty part of politicization by stripping off the power of that bench. Taken decisions in the executive council of the Awami League are being implemented through the Appellate Division. Taking the advantage of annulment of the Fifth Amendment Article 96 of the constitution has been reinstated. As a result, the judiciary has come under the government. The judiciary has faced the massive problem. For these reasons you have to seek forgiveness to the nation.
Judiciary and Administration Are on Verge of Ruining
Noted lawyer of Bangladesh Dr Kamal Hossain directly complained that the judiciary and administration are at the verge of ruining due to excessive politicization. People are not getting justice in the apex court. Daughter of Dr Kamal Hossain, Barrister Sarah Hossain, in a talk show of the television said that she is unable to understand why verdicts to some political cases are being given selectively. It is seen that in every verdict one side is getting satisfied while the other side is getting discontented. Indirectly indicating to Justice Khairul Haque Barrister Sarah Hossain said the way he is giving one-sided verdicts against the political cases, it seems he has not thought where he is pushing the country.
Double Standard in Declaring Verdict in Political Cases
Khairul Haque has declared verdicts to three outstandingly vital political lawsuits. These three lawsuits are: Fifth Amendment to the constitution, Seventh Amendment, and 13th Amendment. All three amendments are being annulled. If the amendments were annulled on the legal aspect fully then those would be discussed from different point of view. But, in fact, it is seen that in each of the three lawsuits the verdicts are given in such a way that in all the three verdicts it is the Awami League that becomes the benefactor unexpectedly and hugely. Although firmness has been shown externally on the question of legal aspect, if these three verdicts are reviewed then it is seen that Khairul Haque has left enough space for Awami League for maneuvering in all the verdicts. The main theme of the annulment of Fifth Amendment was that martial law is illegitimate and unconstitutional. When it was said that the Fifth Amendment was given approval by the Jatiya Sangsad (parliament) by necessary margin according to the constitution then counter logic was given that that election of Jatiya Sangsad was held under the martial law. Therefore the second Jatiya Sangsad election held in 1979 is illegitimate and the formed Jatiya Sangsad through illegitimate election is also illegitimate. For that reason, that Jatiya Sangsad has no legal right to approve. But for General Ershad that Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, i.e., Khairul Haque has practiced a mysterious silence. Third Jatiya Sangsad election was held on 7 May 1986 and that election was also held under the martial law of Ershad. Then Ershad became the president through another election under the martial law on October 1986. Both parties Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) and Awami League boycotted that election. Silence has been maintained in the final verdict of the Seventh Amendment regarding the legitimacy of the Jatiya Sangsad election held in 1986 and the president election held in the same year. If the Jatiya Sangsad election held under Zia in 1979 is illegitimate then both the Jatiya Sangsad election and president election held in the Ershad period are illegitimate and unlawful. But Khairul Haque bypassed that issue. Is it for this reason that Ershad is the coalition partner of the Awami League government?
Prof Asif Nazrul of Law of University of Dhaka raised a vital question in a talk show aired on Bangla vision at midnight on of 16 May on the basis of constitution and Jatiya Sangsad. He said that all political questions could not be weighed against the standard of law. Existing reality is needed to be taken into consideration as well. There is no system in the constitution called martial law. Based on this logic if several governments and parliaments become illegitimate then the election of 1970 is also become illegitimate. Because that election was held during the martial law of General Yahya Khan and under the Legal Framework Order promulgated by Gen Yahya Khan as the chief martial law administrator. The election of 1970 was held under the martial law. The main responsibilities of those who became the members of the then National Council wining in that election were to frame the constitution of Pakistan. At that time Bangladesh has not become independent. Therefore, their job was not to frame the constitution of Bangladesh. Asif Nazrul said these are all legal statements. But the hard reality is that Bangladesh has become independent through armed struggle. Therefore that legal version of law is not applicable to Bangladesh.
Political Face of Khairul Haque Is Revealing
For obvious reasons questions have been surfaced that if the deeds under the Fifth Amendment are declared null and void against the logic that the Fifth Amendment is the outcome of martial law then why did not Khairul Haque declare the Fourth Amendment, i.e., BKSAL system (Bangladesh Krishak Sramik Awami League -- a political platform launched in 1975 amalgamating all the political parties) as illegitimate? Khairul Haque called the named of president Zia in the verdict of annulling the Fifth Amendment. But he did utter a single word against the massive autocratic step like BKSAL. In replying question regarding this he said the scope of his trial was 15 August 1975 to 9 April 1979. No period before or after that. If that is the case, would he provide reply that his main theme of consideration was whether the Moon Cinema Hall was to be returned to its owner or not. But he talked off the subject. That means, in returning the cinema hall he declared all rules, including Mostaque, Sayem, and Zia. He saved Ershad tactfully in annulling the Seventh Amendment and in annulling the 13th Amendment, i.e., caretaker government he has ensured its existence for another two terms. BNP leader M.K. Anwar and Moudud Ahmed have said for sure that none has made so much harm to the judicial system along with country that Khairul Haque did. This loss is not to be fulfilled easily.

Success of SAARC After 25 Years of Establishment

The South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) summit is often described as being a mere photo opportunity for south Asian leaders who should actually be using the comatose organization to reinvent regional cooperation in a globalize world. Such pessimism is inevitable if one takes stock of the progress that SAARC has made over the period of time. There exists a SAARC convention to deal with all issues that have a certain salience in the regional context. Yet, even 25 years after its inception the organization is found wanting both in terms of forming a regional identity and of forging any sense of a regional belongingness. This is where the problem lies. Contested national identities constructed by member states have not encouraged an identity based on common socio-cultural heritage to take root.
South Asian countries engage readily and often with powerful states in the international system, yet when it comes to regional engagement, their bilateral relations have remained strained, and are characterized by mistrust and suspicion thus making regional cooperation hostage to bilateral politics.
Gaining Strategic Space
At present, consisting of eight members, SAARC has the potential to expand its membership to include Myanmar. What has been intriguing in the recent past is that while many in South Asia have written the obituary of SAARC as a vehicle for fostering regional cooperation, there are countries who are vying with each other to become part of it as observers. One of the observers aspiring for membership is campaigning for it through its regional proxies. It is too early to say whether SAARC, which could not inculcate a sense of regional solidarity within its membership, will be able to deal with observer countries who are more interested in gaining strategic space rather than in regional cooperation.
The organization has yet not delineated the possible role of the observer countries. In this context it is not clear whether their engagement will benefit the SAARC countries. Some member countries like Sri Lanka and Bangladesh have expressed hopes that the observers would play a positive role. AARC has progressively addressed 'hard' issues that confront the region more than 'soft' issues. If one compares the agenda of the organization when it was formed with its current goals then SAARC can be seen to be slowly moving towards regional integration in the real sense. This integration is beyond having just a common approach to issues like poverty, telecommunication, weather, sports, culture, etc., as was envisaged in the beginning. The translation of its agenda into a meaningful cooperation has also not been possible due to the declaratory approach the leadership has taken and endorsed without having any real commitment towards these goals. The reason could be that the leaders perhaps feel compelled to demonstrate to the people of the region that they are committed to the process of regional cooperation without appearing to be spoilers. There exists popular support for regional cooperation. The people want less rigid visa controls and free exchange of goods and ideas, while keeping the current borders intact. Regional cooperation is a reality. An economic raison d'être is a prerequisite for regional politics in a globalized world where regional cooperation is the only option. The transnational character of problems relating to terrorism, drug trafficking or climate change cannot be addressed individually by countries which share porous and, many a time, un-demarcated and contested borders. The countries of the region realized this but are yet to shed their securitized state-centric mindsets. Regional cooperation without regional commitment Regional engagement among south Asian countries has been minimal compared to their engagement with Western countries. Whether it is security or economics, SAARC countries are more integrated with the global order than with their regional arrangement. There are no underlying economic compulsions that bind the countries of the region as was the case with the European Economic Community (EEC). The countries of south Asia do not have common security concerns to unite them. Threats are mostly seen arising from within the region rather than from the outside. Therefore the problem is: how can the countries of South Asia cooperate with each other when they perceive each other as being responsible for their instability? Because of this mistrust, many of the conventions--such as the Additional Protocol of the SAARC Convention on Terrorism--have become defunct. Each country faces the challenge of terrorism yet South Asian countries have not been able to devise a common approach to it. They neither share intelligence nor is there any commitment to stop cross-border support to terrorist groups. If one analyses the various clauses of the Additional Protocol of Terrorism which criminalised the collection or acquisition of funds for the purpose of committing terrorist acts, it becomes amply clear how the very purpose of dealing with the issue has been defeated because of the double standards prevailing among states in the region. Though SAARC has a Terrorism Monitoring Desk in Colombo it has not yet come out with any report. The SAARC interior ministers' meeting has also not made any concrete suggestions on how best to cooperate. The issue of terrorism has rather been addressed bilaterally. If one studies the speeches of the heads of states at the recently concluded 16th SAARC summit it will be seen that they devoted much time to expounding their countries' achievements in dealing with various socio-economic and terrorism-related problems. Some of these speeches were prescriptive in nature when what was required was how their countries had promoted regional cooperation. The leaders reiterated the importance of regional cooperation without specifying how to take this cooperation forward. The president of Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai, in his speech put greater emphasis on terrorism and said: 'Until all members of SAARC, without exception or reservation, commit not to allow their territories to be used directly or indirectly to shelter, arm or train terrorist groups . . . the wild fire of terrorism will not discriminate in choosing its target'.1 He also stressed that with current bottlenecks, expeditious overland movement of goods and benefits of a modern transport infrastructure would not be felt. Maldivian president, Mohamed Nashid called for a 'comprehensive review of the on-the-ground effectiveness of SAARC'. He asked for greater dialogue between India and Pakistan and expressed the frustration of the smaller countries of south Asia who have often found themselves hostage to the Indo-Pak conflict. The president said that the 'neighbours can find ways to compartmentalise pending differences, while finding areas on which they can move forward'.2 Bhutan felt that SAARC was losing its focus because of the requirement of close to 200 meetings per year. It therefore suggested a substantial reduction of activities and meetings to ensure focus.3 The Indian prime minister said that the countries of south Asia need to accept that the glass of regional cooperation is half empty and the institutions are not empowered sufficiently to be proactive.4 The Bangladesh prime minister rejected anyone using the cloak of Islam or any other religion to perpetuate violence and categorically stated that Bangladesh will not let its territory be used for launching terrorism elsewhere.5 Pakistan's prime minister Sheikh Hasina Wazed, said that SAARC has not made much progress due to historical legacies, differences and disputes while the Sri Lankan president, Mahinda Rajapaksa, said: 'We often tend to provide priority to our engagements with extra regional actors, without devoting sufficient attention to further developing and strengthening the links within our own regional organisation'.6 SAARC needs to follow a bottom up approach rather than a top down one. In this context good relations between the countries can help regional cooperation rather than the other way round. Moreover, even though there is a people's SAARC at the civil society level, attempts should be made to build synergy between the official SAARC and the people. The reason is that SAARC is yet to connect with people and its agreements and commendable conventions have not touched the lives of the people on whose behalf these declarations have been made. Moreover, issues like terrorism are addressed at a bilateral level. This shows that the countries do not have much faith in the regional approach. Even though there exists a convention on terrorism and an additional protocol, Bangladesh has put forward a proposal for forming a regional task force. India, which has been a victim of terrorism and shares its borders with many South Asian countries, has taken up the issue of terrorism bilaterally. Some issues where bilateralism is adopted even though relevant SAARC conventions exist are as follows. The previous Bangladesh National Party government provided shelter to Indian insurgent groups as strategic assets in violation of the SAARC convention. They were arrested and handed over to India only after the Awami League government came to power in Dhaka. This was largely the result of a bilateral initiative. Bhutan's decision to flush out Indian insurgent groups who took shelter in southern Bhutan is again a bilateral initiative. Similarly, the issue of cross-border terrorism originating in Pakistan was decided in 2004 on the sidelines of the Islamabad SAARC summit. The now defunct Indo-Pak Joint Terror mechanism is yet another bilateral initiative. Both India and Afghanistan have approached the United States a number of times to resolve the issue of terrorism emanating from Pakistan. This is in spite of the fact that Pakistan has been a frontline state and a crucial player in the global war against terror but it has been reluctant to cooperate either with India or Afghanistan. Post-Mumbai, Pakistan could have taken action under Article 7 of the Additional Protocol to confiscate funds of the Jamaat-ul-Dawa. However, this was only done following a UN resolution and under pressure from China and the US. This establishes that the regional approach to terrorism has been a non-starter. SAARC speaks of regional connectivity, but Bangladesh's offer to provide transit facilities to India and the use of its ports to India, Nepal and Bhutan has been entirely a Bangladeshi initiative. In the regional context Pakistan has not allowed Afghan trucks to carry Indian goods from Wagah. They go back empty. India also has been using Iran for its trade with Afghanistan. The concept of the South Asia Growth Quadrangle was another way to carry forward sub-regional cooperation under Article 6 of the SAARC charter. There is an urgent need to reactivate the Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh and India cooperation under the Growth Quadrangle. The 16th summit declaration: anything new? As has been the case with past summits, the 16th summit declaration says the leaders 'expressed satisfaction' that SAARC has achieved a number of milestones which are not specified. It is silent on whether these 'milestones' have made any difference to the region. Had that been the case the SAARC leaders would not have lamented the failure of the organisation even 25 years after its establishment. As was pointed out in the summit declaration, SAARC's relevance lies 'in providing a platform for regional cooperation'. However, it is up to the member countries to make the platform effective. It is therefore not surprising that now, after 25 years of existence, the leaders are discovering the need for a vision statement. The declaration further states that the: 'silver jubilee year should be commemorated by making SAARC truly action oriented by fulfilling commitments, implementing declarations and decisions and operationalizing instruments and living up to the hopes and aspirations of one-fifth of humanity'.7 The summit recommended public diplomacy to reach out to different sections of society. Such an aim can only be realized if the countries can implement some of the agreements they have signed and evoke these agreements to resolve problems. For example, in spite of two agreements on terrorism, why is there no cooperation between countries to deal with the menace? The member states reiterated their resolve to cooperate on terrorism and drug trafficking and reaffirmed their commitment to implement relevant regional conventions. Implementation will remain a big challenge as long as state sponsorship of terrorism continues. There are inherent contradictions in what the countries project. While Bhutan speaks of Gross National Happiness (GNH) and promises to hold workshops on GNH in the country, it has denied the right of return to its ethnic Nepalese who fled the kingdom in 1990. Economic cooperation between countries of the region is yet to take off and explains why, in spite of South Asia Free Trade Association (SAFTA) being ratified, regional trade has remained below five per cent. On the issue of energy there is no concrete cooperation for establishing a regional energy grid. India has offered to prepare a roadmap for developing a SAARC market for electricity, which needs enabling markets in the member states. One of the welcome developments has been the establishment of the South Asia Development Fund (SDF) which was envisioned in 2005 by reconstituting the South Asia Development Fund established in 1996.8 To make the SDF viable the countries first need to arrive at a consensus and identify areas where these funds would be used.9 One hopes this would not be bogged down by bilateral and trilateral disputes. The leaders have sagaciously agreed that 'the projects being funded through SDF are demand-driven, time bound and aligned with the developmental priorities of the region'.10 It would, however, take a lot of diplomatic sweating to translate this vision into reality. Perhaps one of the issues that SDF needs to address urgently is to fund infrastructure projects to enhance regional connectivity. The summit also recommended increased public-private partnership for greater intra-SAARC investment promotion efforts. This would help in the speedy implementation of projects as this is an effective way to deal with administrative bottlenecks pertaining to land acquisition, electricity supply and bureaucratic red tape. Intra-SAARC investment for the private sector would also be a welcome development. Given the tardy processes of regional trade and restrictions in foreign investment and long negative lists it will not be easy to attract private capital. To implement the public-private partnership trade it will be important to ensure liberalization, harmonization of standards as well as guarantee that products produced through this partnership would have access to regional markets.
Regional Cooperation
SAARC has already established the South Asia Regional Standard Organization. Efforts should be made to make it operational. Bilateral relations between the countries would be crucial to facilitate such investments as private businessmen are unlikely to invest given an environment of distrust which is not conducive for business. For example, bilateral proposals involving investments have already run into rough weather. Even after the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) announced a liberalized policy for investment by Indian businesses there continues to be resistance to Indian investment. An investment proposal by TATA, for example, got derailed due to Bangladesh's internal politics. A common market for south Asia is still in its infancy because of non-tariff and Para tariff barriers. Therefore, unless the tendency to politicize economics does not end, this vision of the leaders of the region will be added to the list of wishful thinking that the SAARC has accumulated over 25 years. The summit also took a decision to declare 2010-2020 the 'Decade of Intraregional Connectivity in SAARC'. It is important that SAARC leaders take steps to implement regional connectivity in order to drive growth, induce better synergy and give a boost to SAFTA.
Observers in SAARC China's growing influence in the region has been a matter of concern for India. China's entry into SAARC in 2005 has been significant and Nepal, Bangladesh and Pakistan played an important role in facilitating Chinese entry. China's presence is a matter of concern for two reasons. First, there is a growing nexus between China and Pakistan at the heart of which lies the policy to balance India. Its presence therefore cannot be considered neutral. Second, China's presence in SAARC is specifically for gaining strategic space. China has been following a strategy to engage with neighboring countries for defense and economic cooperation. Though China's trade ties with India have seen an upward swing, it has border conflicts with India and Bhutan. The relations between India and China have remained highly suspect. China shares good relations with the neighboring countries whereas India is looked upon with suspicion. In this context China's presence could be a pressure tactic that may be employed on India. A conflicted relationship with China would confine India to the region and prevent it from playing a larger global role. This has been one of the principles of China's engagement in the region. Since SAARC itself has hardly made any progress it is not clear how China can contribute to its progress. Some other observer countries have other interests in the region. For example, Japan is the highest aid donor to the region and the US is heavily engaged in the region to counter terrorism and has a stake in regional peace; Australia has the largest number of immigrants from this region. SAARC will now have to brace for an India-China contest apart from the one between India and Pakistan which was largely blamed for the slow progress of SAARC. The Chinese vice foreign minister said China would 'expand cooperation with SAARC and elevate our friendly and cooperative ties to a new level'.11 It proposes to hold a China-SAARC senior officials meeting. The Myanmar representative said that its geographical proximity, historical and cultural links prompted it to become an observer in SAARC. It also offered to act as a bridge between south and Southeast Asia. However, one has not been able to understand why Myanmar has not applied for membership. The representative of Iran said that Iran's geographical location and extensive transport network enables it to help South Asia in expanding its trade with other parts of the world. Conclusion Regional cooperation in the South Asian region lacks the commitment and dedication that is required to make it a success. Some countries have agreed to cooperate because they do not want to be spoilers while there are others who genuinely believe that this is the way forward. In spite of scathing criticism of SAARC by the leaders of the region on its 25th anniversary, one is not sure whether there would be any fundamental change in the attitude of the countries. Earlier, attempts were made to multi-lateralize bilateral issues but now efforts are being made to resolve some issues like terrorism bilaterally. The countries which do not have bilateral synergy will not be able to make a meaningful contribution to the success of SAARC.
Collective Self-Interest
To quote the Pakistani Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani: 'Only when we refuse to be held hostage to history, only when we sincerely and assiduously work to build trust, resolve disputes, bridge perceptions and see merit in an enlightened collective self-interest, will we be able to unleash our latent potential'.12 The big question that remains is 'When?' It is a tall order to expect regional cooperation between countries who do not see eye to eye even in bilateral matters.
Each country joined SAARC to forward its interests or to avoid getting sidelined, particularly within the Indo-centric region. Pursuing national interests is desirable but to pursue it under the cloak of regionalism is a recipe designed for the failure of SAARC. A regional identity is essential for the success of SAARC.
People-to-People Contact
If the countries try to undermine regional interests for their narrow political advantage then members can resign themselves to this forum becoming a mere talking shop. Even after 25 years it has failed to connect with the masses. Its promotion of people-to-people contact is restricted to judges, diplomats and the parliamentarians.
SAARC needs to get off its elitist pedestal and adopt a subaltern approach. However, the time to write the epitaph of SAARC has not yet come. In spite of all the misgivings, and non-implementation of various agreements and conventions, SAARC provides greater regional visibility to smaller countries and provides them with the opportunity and responsibility to contribute to the region in a meaningful way. For them even a failed SAARC is more attractive as a platform than being restricted to bilateralism in an India-dominated region.

India-Sri Lanka Relations: A Critical Review

India's policy toward Sri Lanka has undergone several twists and turns during the post independence period. From a policy of active involvement, it took a handoff policy after the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi. However, given the geographical continuity and ethnic affinity India cannot isolate itself from the developments in the island republic. The recent activities and policies pursued by Pakistan and China is also a matter of great concern to New Delhi.
India's long term interests in Sri Lanka will be a political solution which guarantees the safety and security of all minority groups in the unified country and the removal of extra regional forces which pose a threat to India's security environment. In this paper I propose to highlight some of the important issue which has a bearing on India and Sri Lanka relations.
For the Tamils in Sri Lanka and the also Tamil Diaspora scattered in different parts of the world, Tamil Nadu is their original homeland. For the Sinhalese India is the closest neighbor whom they can always lookup towards help and favor. Despite these close ties, India's policy towards Sri Lanka has always had a negative impact on bilateral relations. The love - hate relationship compounded with the fear of a big brotherly attitude had always made Sri Lanka look at India with suspicion. India, although being in an advantageous state, did little to install confidence in the southern neighbor. What is more New Delhi antagonized its neighbor by its short sighted policies. The ambiguous role played by Central Government in New Delhi and Tamil Nadu Government towards the protracted ethnic conflict between the Tamils and the Sinhalese also played a big role in India burning its hands by its involvement in Sri Lankan issue. While the ethnic crisis is an emotional issue, Indian policy towards Sri Lanka was also guided more by its strategic interests due to the location of Sri Lanka in the Indian Ocean. The Sri Lankan Government should also be given equal credit for contributing towards love – hate relations. Despite her awareness of India's security concerns, Sri Lanka has always tried to play a divisive role by inviting external actors in the affairs of Indian Ocean and thus act against India's interest. A telling example of this attitude became apparent when Sri Lanka allowed Pakistani Air Force to refuel during the Bangladeshi war of 1970. Thus Sri Lanka's self-interest is also one of the reasons for India's over arching security concerns especially on the issue of extra regional presence.
Impact of Ethnic Conflict
The Indian intervention in Sri Lanka, could have been avoided. The India Sri Lanka accord should have been signed between the Colombo and the Tamils and India should have acted as the guarantee. The Indian forces sent to Sri Lanka became a victim to the hasty and un co-ordinated policies of India. Having fought against the LTTE on behalf of the Sri Lankan Government the Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF) was sent out unceremoniously by the Sri Lankan Government. The Tamils who had welcomed the IPKF with open arms also played their part to get the IPKF out of Sri Lanka, bringing to an end India's controversial involvement in Sri Lanka. The end of Eelam War has opened a new chapter in India Sri Lanka relations. India need not now be worried about the presence of the third navy (Sea Tigers), Air Force (Air Tigers) and suicide cadres in the Indian Ocean. But the absence of LTTE does not mean that there is no threat arising from the Indian Ocean, rather the close relations of Sri Lanka with China and Pakistan has increased strategic concerns for India.
Approximately 17 years ago around this time of the year Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi landed at Colombo airport by an Indian Air Force plane in the thick of the Sri Lankan crisis.
He was not taken to the city in a cavalcade by road. Instead, he landed at Colombo's Galle Face by an Indian military helicopter as IAF planes guarded the airspace. Across the seafront were to be seen Indian Navy ships which had been positioned apparently for any contingency.
Sri Lanka was facing a grim situation caught as it was in ethnic crisis. President Jayawardene, who needed a helping hand, had clearly succeeded in persuading Rajiv Gandhi to lend him one.
The result was the India-Sri Lanka Agreement which the two signed later in the day. Among other things, it provided for India sending the Indian Peace Keeping Force to bash up the LTTE which was threatening to carve out an independent Tamil Eelam in the northern and eastern Sri Lanka.
One could feel the tension in the air. President Jaywardene's dissenting Prime Minister, R. Premadasa, stayed away to signal Sinhala opposition to the agreement.
By agreeing to send the IPKF, India instantly provoked a strong reaction among the Sinhalas so much so that on the following day a Sri Lankan Navy rating attacked Rajiv Gandhi with a rifle butt when he was inspecting the guard of honour. India's Prime Minister could have lost his life that day a few minutes before he boarded the IAF helicopter for the airport to fly back to India.
India had willy-nilly jumped into the Sri Lankan mess. In the process it actually earned the anger of both the Sinhalas who hated India for sending its troops to Sri Lanka and the LTTE which the IPKF was to fight against. What was essentially a fight between the Sinhalas and the LTTE became an open conflict between India and the LTTE. No wonder, President Jayawardene was known for his cleverness.
Whatever President Jaywardene's calculations, India's relations with much of the dominant Sri Lankan opinion had become suspect. The IPKF was seen as an occupation force, and India as a hegemonistic neighbor. Centuries of a happy relationship had given way to a quick-fix that did not work but left a legacy of intense distrust.
Seventeen years later, now one, however, experiences a sea-change in the relations between India and Sri Lanka. Distrust has given way to the belief that India means well for Sri Lanka and is a friend and not really a Big Brother, throwing its weight around.
India's Support
The end of the ethnic conflict was accompanied by the displacement of 300,000 Tamil civilians. New Delhi’s primary concern in recent months has naturally been about the rehabilitation of internally displaced Tamils. With an investment of $110 million, India has provided emergency supplies of medicines, temporary housing and cement, and undertaken demining of Tamil habitats located in the battle zones. But this is necessarily only a beginning, in a larger package of assistance that New Delhi has to provide to the Tamil population in the war-affected parts of the Northern and Eastern provinces of Sri Lanka. With plans underway to have an Indian Cultural Centre and renovate the famous Duraiappan Stadium in Jaffna, India would have to invest substantially in building higher educational and technical training institutions in Tamil areas to enable the Tamil population to integrate into an emerging pluralistic and economically dynamic Sri Lanka.
Politically, President Rajapakse should be persuaded to implement the provisions of the 13th Amendment to the Sri Lanka Constitution enacted in 1988, pursuant to the Rajiv Gandhi-Jayawardene Agreement of 1987. Moreover, if a return to a situation of Tamil discontent fuelling insurgency is to be avoided, it would only be wise for Sri Lanka to also enact legislation to implement the provisions of the “Constitution of the Republic of Sri Lanka Amendment Bill” of August 3, 2000, and effectively end human rights violations of innocent Tamils.
This Constitutional Amendment Bill was presented after extensive consultations by President Kumaratunga’s advisers G.L. Peiris and Neelan Tiruchelvan and was withdrawn because of domestic opposition. The implementation of this bill, together with the 1988 Constitutional Amendment, will largely address Tamil concerns and aspirations. But, at the same time, the Tamils of Sri Lanka would have to recognize that with the East becoming very different from the North in terms of its ethnic composition, demands for a united north-eastern province may no longer be tenable.
Concerns naturally exist in India about growing Chinese involvement in Sri Lanka and especially its partnership in the development of Hambantota Port. This port, being built with a concessionary Chinese loan of $300 million, will eventually have a LNG refinery, fuel storage facilities, three separate docks, together with facilities for ship repair and construction. It can serve as a base for bunkering and refuelling. Moreover, China has been the largest supplier of military equipment to Sri Lanka in recent years and is involved in projects for the construction of highways, railways and a coal-based power plant.
India has extended the Lines of Credit amounting to $592 million to Sri Lanka for upgrading of the Colombo-Matara rail link, the supply of railway equipment and construction of railway lines in Northern Sri Lanka. Proposals are under consideration for the interconnection of the grids in Sri Lanka and India. But New Delhi would do well to ensure that negotiations are finalized for constructing a 500 MW power plant in Trincomalee.
Tamil Nadu Issue
Tamil Nadu's role in the India-Sri Lanka relations can never be ignored. Due to the close ethnic and geographical proximity, Tamil Nadu had always tried to have a say in India's policy towards Sri Lanka. However on many occasions New Delhi bypassed Tamil Nadu in its crucial decisions.
In the initial stages of the ethnic conflict while the Tamil Nadu and the Central Government in New Delhi were keeping a close watch on developments in Sri Lanka, they scrupulously refrained from doing anything that could be considered interference in Sri Lankan affairs, in spite of there being tremendous support from the opposition parties and other key players of Tamil Nadu for a more active policy toward Sri Lanka. However, Tamil Nadu's role became inevitable only after the Tamil militants began to play an active role in Tamil Nadu. Their presence in Tamil Nadu activated the Tamil social constituency in India and many Tamil public figures, media organizations and even local politicians started sympathizing with their cause. Tamil Nadu factor should be analyzed on the premise of two important factors; first: role of Tamil polity of both Tamil Nadu and Sri Lanka during the initial period of ethnic crisis, second: their role since the beginning of ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka. Until the movement of Tamils militants into Tamil Nadu, the Tamil Nadu Government was only giving lip service and not real involvement, particularly in terms creation of Tamil Eelam.
Sri Lanka is strategically placed to exploit the geopolitical struggle unfolding in the Indian Ocean between China and India, with the United States having its own agenda for retaining its influence. While Pakistan is playing for stakes in Sri Lanka with Chinese acquiescence to queer the pitch for India, the Russians too are keeping a hawk eye on any activity in the Indian Ocean.
Considering that Sri Lanka sits adjacent to the shipping lanes that feed 80 per cent of China’s and 65 per cent of India’s oil needs, its strategic importance can hardly be ignored.
With the bulk of China’s trade passing through the sea-lanes in the Indian Ocean, Sri Lanka thought it prudent to enter into a quid pro quo with the Chinese. While it drew upon Chinese support in terms of sophisticated arms and diplomatic backing, Colombo conceded strategic concessions, particularly a major new southern port at Hambantota, to Beijing. Ironically, it was India that Sri Lanka first approached for setting up a port at Hambantota, but when the Indians showed lack of enthusiasm, Colombo wasted no time in going to the Chinese.
China has developed similar port facilities in Myanmar (Burma), Bangladesh and Pakistan as part of a “string of pearls” strategy to develop its naval reach and protect crucial oil and other supplies shipped via the sea-lanes in the Indian Ocean.
In the run-up to the decimation of the Tamil Tigers, the Chinese were not only generous with weaponry but they also encouraged Pakistan to train Sri Lanka Air Force pilots and supply small arms. China sold Jian-7 fighters, anti-aircraft guns and JY-11 3D air surveillance radars to the Sri Lankan army, leaving the Pakistanis to meet the small arm needs of the Lankans.
In July last, for the first time, Sri Lanka attended the Shanghai Cooperation Council meeting as a dialogue partner, a blessing bestowed by Russia and China in recognition of its importance in the new Indian Ocean strategic game.
For India, it was none-too-easy to arm the Lankans to combat the Tamil Tigers due to the fallout this would have had in southern India, but it did provide defensive weapons and intelligence to the Sri Lankan government, besides economic aid, so as to maintain a degree of leverage with Colombo.
The Sri Lankans acknowledge that given its southern compulsions, India did give useful help in fighting the Tamil Tigers in the crucial stages. It helped the Sri Lankan navy through vital intelligence; it gave off-shore patrolling vessels and also provided a blockade against LTTE vessels.
The focus was on preventing Sri Lanka from falling into the Chinese lap and if that meant opening the purse-strings to counter-balance the Chinese supply of arms, Indian strategists were perfectly in tune with it.
There was the classic example of a $2.4 billion loan sought by the Sri Lankan government from the IMF to tackle its balance of payments problem which was refused by the IMF. Ordinarily, Sri Lanka would have turned to China, but before it could do that the Indian government indicated to Colombo that it was prepared to extend that loan if the IMF did not come round. It was indeed a case of once-bitten-twice-shy, having seen how the Chinese had grabbed the opportunity to develop the Hambantota port.
As part of its strategy to make Indo-Sri Lankan relations attractive for Colombo, the Indian government has also taken the initiative to set up a high-capacity power transmission link between India and Sri Lanka which is likely to be completed by 2013.
The 285-km-long power link, including submarine cables, over a stretch of 50 km, would enable the two countries to trade their surplus power, thereby offering a cheaper option to bridge their power generation deficit and also manage their peak demands.
The link will also help Sri Lanka reduce its use of expensive fuels and import cheaper power from India’s surplus. For India, the link would help open up a new market for its projected surplus of power.
India currently faces an over 12 per cent power deficit, with a peak demand of 109,000 MW annually. The government hopes it could add at least 62,000 MW of generation capacity in the next couple of years, with additional capacities being set up by private investors through captive and merchant power plants. This, along with the power from ultra mega power projects has fuelled hopes for a tradable surplus.
India had also signed an agreement with Sri Lanka for the construction of a railway line between Omanthai and Pallai in the island’s war-torn Northern Province. It is all set to open a consulate in the northern town of Jaffna so as to enhance its involvement in “reconstruction and rehabilitation,” for which it has offered a $108 million aid package.
India is also involved in the rehabilitation of the southern coastal railway line from Colombo to Matara by providing credit worth $167.4 million. It has considerable investments in Sri Lanka, including in the retail fuel, telecommunications, hotel, cement, banking, tyre, rubber and information technology sectors.
India can draw satisfaction from the fact that in regard to Sri Lanka, its interests broadly converge with those of the US. The Americans are indeed as keen to ward off the Chinese challenge for hegemony in the Indian Ocean states as India is.
A report published by the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on December 7 last called for Washington to counter Beijing’s influence in Colombo through “a broader and more robust approach to Sri Lanka that appreciates new political and economic realities in Sri Lanka and US geostrategic interests”.
However, India is loathe to Washington’s influence increasing beyond reasonable proportions in its strategic backyard. India is no doubt counting on Washington’s assistance. At the same time, however, it is wary about the US achieving too much sway in its strategic backyard.
With Mahinda Rajapakse having won a second presidential term in Sri Lanka recently, India is pursuing its interests cautiously. New Delhi wants close ties with Colombo to counter the growing influence of rival China and to open up opportunities for Indian businesses. At the same time, it is concerned that political unrest in Sri Lanka, particularly communal tensions involving the Tamil minority, will have consequences inside India, especially in Tamil Nadu.
The Indian Government’s reiteration of the call for a “political solution” to the 26-year civil war in Sri Lanka through a power-sharing arrangement between the Sinhalese and the Tamils is unlikely to find favour with Rajapakse. While keeping the sensitivities of the Indian Tamils in mind, however, India will have to tread warily by not pushing too hard.
There can be little doubt that Sri Lanka under President Rajapakse would continue to take advantage of its strategic position by bargaining with the Chinese and the Indians. The days of India pushing its agenda with the Sri Lankans to the exclusion of China are indeed over. Indian diplomacy will indeed be on test.
Manmohan-Rajapakse Meeting
In November 2011, India and Sri Lanka agreed that the Joint Working Group (JWG) on Fisheries should meet and discuss steps to ensure that peace and harmony prevailed in the waters between the two countries and Indian fishermen are not attacked by Lankan navy.
The decision was taken at a meeting Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had with Sri Lankan President Rajapaksa on the sidelines of the 17th South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) Summit in the Maldives.
They were of the opinion that the JWG should ensure that fishermen of India and their counterparts in North Sri Lanka, both speaking Tamil, should meet and discuss issues of common concern.
Future Ahead
It can be said that it is important that India looks at the issue of internally displaced persons numbering to 300,000 in Sri Lanka. Their needs are enormous and immediate and any delay in delaying help to these people would put them into enormous trouble. The Sri Lankan Government with all its insincerity in giving a proper political package in the past has promised a political package for the Tamils. But the fear in most of the Tamils is that Sri Lankan government would again deprive them of a package unless Indian involves itself on the side of the Tamils.
It is imperative that India adopts a pro active policy towards Sri Lanka, to not only save the people but also for its own security reasons. Economy aid could be a big trump card in India's policy. Indian corporate houses have shown interest in investing in Sri Lanka. There is also a favorable mood in Colombo in allowing Indian houses to invest. India can use this leverage to not only develop the north and east that has been affected by the protracted war.
With the end of war, Sri Lanka has become closer to China, Pakistan and Israel because of their support to Colombo during the ethnic conflict. China building the Hambotota port cannot be ignored by India. Hence it is important that India looks at these developments with great caution and ensure a proper policy toward her closest southern neighbor. India needs to invest in Sri Lanka to keep the latter in its zone of influence. India's timely help during the Tsunami has proved to the world that we are capable of handling challenges facing the region. Having proved ourselves, it is important that India should consolidate the good will amongst the neighbors.

India-Pakistan Talks: Positive Indications

After the India-Pakistan foreign secretary-level talks followed by the foreign minister-level talks, it appears once again that the Pakistani Government is keen to extend cooperation to the Indian Government to enhance mutual partnership. Similar situations were witnessed in past years also. However, this time around, it seems somewhat different, as Pakistan has started perceiving the ground realities gradually, about which adequate realization has been missing so far.
People's Problems
Dictators and politicians of that country have been playing a game over the decades, out of which nothing positive had emerged. Instead, Pakistan's very survival seems to have been imperiled. People's problems have assumed far more serious proportions than before.
Now, Pakistan rulers have started realizing that the shoulders on which they had rested their guns for firing have started trembling. The seeds that were sown by Pakistan are now being harvested by itself. The sport of bloodshed being played by it claimed lives of thousands of innocent people. The sovereignty of the country is being challenged by militant organizations on a large scale. Pakistan appears entrapped in an utterly tight position. Under such circumstances, it seems it can ill-afford to remain constantly at loggerheads with India. Pakistani rulers have now undoubtedly taken a major turn.
Core Issue Between Two Countries
The core issue between the countries is that of Kashmir, and they are now desirous of a peaceful solution to it. They are holding out promises to each other to promote cooperation in this regard. On the problem of terrorism also, the two nations seem to be speaking in the same voice.
Foreign ministers of India and Pakistan have expressed the view that terrorism is persistently posing a big threat to peace and security. They have, therefore, assured that they are fully determined to wipe out the threat of terrorism in all conditions. At the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) meetings also, the issue of cooperation is often deliberated on. The two nations have, therefore, committed to cooperate with each other in the spirit of SAARC nations. They have expressed positive sentiments by talking in terms of relaxation of visa rules facilitate traffic on the Srinagar-Muzaffarabad road, and also on the Poonch-Rawalkot passage.
Economic and Trade Front
In addition to Kashmir, the outstanding issue of Sir Creek and Siachin are hanging fire for a long time now. The maximum emphasis was, however, laid on economic and trade related issues at this meeting.
In case these sentiments are actually translated into action, there is every likelihood of positive changes coming into the relations between the countries, and the overall environment in this region can get largely transformed.
At the same time, terrorist organizations have been at work to see that India-Pakistan ties do not improve. But the changing scenario tends to help and inspire to initiate more positive steps in bringing the two nations closer. It can usher in a new era of peace in the region.