Global Contradictions Over Lankan Politics

Waves of political violence which threatened the country during the presidential election have now translated into a political tug-of-war. This, which commenced just after the election peaked on 26 January when a special battalion commanded by Major General Sumith Manawadu besieged the Cinnamon Lakeside Hotel in Colombo, is now on the boil.
The shockwaves let loose in Southern Sri Lanka following the arrest of General Sarath Fonseka at his office by the military police on o8 February continue to reverberate throughout the country.
The Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna leader Somawansa Amerasinghe, who was with Sarath Fonseka at the time of his arrest said 15 military police personnel stormed Fonseka's office and arrested him while the hotel was surrounded by the Army. The arrest that took place while President Mahinda Rajapaksa was in Russia and opposition leader Ranil Wickremesinghe was in India not only triggered a state of tension in Southern Sri Lanka but widened the chasm of ill-will that existed between the government and Western countries.

Victory Over LTTE
We would do well to remember that the arrest of Sarath Fonseka will impact dramatically since he was the Army commander that took the war against the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) to victory.
The government is actively engaged in effecting extensive changes in the Army hierarchy as well as in the police. These structural changes that began with the conclusion of the presidential election on 26 January continued until Sarath Fonseka was arrested.
Approximately 40 high officials of the Army and 208 officials from the police were transferred. Fourteen other Army officials were sent on compulsory retirement in accordance with Army regulations introduced in 1992.
This was only the second time in the country's history that such a large number of Army officials have been sent home under compulsory retirement. Such compulsory retirement was enforced in 1999 too. Services of several front line commanders were terminated in that year. They were forced into premature retirement on the basis of military considerations but the recent spates of terminations were imposed for political reasons.
Following the "Unceasing Waves" operation launched by the LTTE in 1993 a large number of Army officials were sent on compulsory retirement on the orders of former President Chandrika Kumaratunge by the then Army Chief Srilal Weerasuriya. Lionel Balagalle, who was the chief of defense staff at that time, had terminated the services of seven Army officials after trying them in a military court.
Transformation in the entire Army structure is underway now. Consequent to Sarath Fonseka's arrest, there have been demonstrations in several parts of Southern Sri Lanka on 10 and 11 February. The demonstrations broke out into open clashes in several areas.

Charges Against Fonseka
The charges leveled against Sarath Fonseka by the government are as follows:
* Engaging in political activities while in service.
* Conspiring in a plot against the president.
* Providing refuge to over 1,500 Army deserters.
* Committing fraud in arms purchases.
The government is preparing to prosecute Fonseka in a military court. But opposition parties allege that the objective of the government to try him in a military court is targeted at suppressing the opposition and expelling Sarath Fonseka from the political firmament.
It is alleged that the government is attempting to secure a large majority at the next parliamentary elections by suppressing opposition parties.
Against this backdrop, fears are being expressed that there are possibilities of Sri Lanka being converted into another Myanmar which China dominates now through the suppression of opposition political parties. Sarath Fonseka's future depends entirely on whether the West will permit this to happen or not.
As far as China is concerned, the experience is that she always abstains from expressing views openly on internal affairs relating to neighboring countries. She adopted the same strategy on the affairs of Myanmar as well. But China subsequently strengthened its ties with Myanmar through economic, military, and infrastructure assistance. When close ties between China and Myanmar were established, Myanmar expelled India and other countries which sought to exercise undue influence in her affairs. Subsequently, China came out openly in support of Myanmar.
China and Russia jointly supported Myanmar at the UN Security Council using their Veto power to full effect. Western diplomats now view developments in Sri Lanka through the prism of the Burmese precedent. The recent views expressed by the Chinese president and the Chinese foreign spokesman, on Sri Lanka, are seen as significant policy stances in the Chinese foreign policy choices.
The Asian Human Rights Organization has said that the economic development achieved in China over the last two decades and its domination over Myanmar made this country feel that its close ties with China was essential.

Change in Myanmar Government
Although China and Myanmar developed their ties on the underpinning of broad commercial interests, China subsequently began to influence Myanmar in political and foreign affairs.
China strongly backs the military junta in Myanmar to this day. Opposition parties in Myanmar were suppressed in the same manner in which China suppressed opposition at home. In short, China did not want to disturb the status quo of her financial/economic interests in Myanmar by effecting a change in the Myanmar Government.
The activities of opposition parties are totally suppressed in countries where China has a foothold, western diplomats say. Some of them contend that the changes taking place in Sri Lanka too incite similar fear in their minds.
Sri Lanka is trapped in a hive contradictions fenced in by China, India and Western nations. One of these forces will in the end succeed in getting a stranglehold over Sri Lanka. Other foreign powers will come into the equation, seeking allies within this country. Those allies could very well turn out to be the minority Tamils or the opposition alliance.

Pakistan's Hypocrisy Over Resolution of Kashmir Issue

Judging the present war of words between India and Pakistan on the foreign secretary level talks to be held in New Delhi, only a miracle can make them successful. The problem is not just that Pakistan is insisting on a composite dialogue whereas India wants terrorism to be the focal point of the talks. At the same time, Pakistan is trying to convince the world that its diplomatic skill has compelled India to climb down.

India's Alleged Interference in Balochistan
It is quite ridiculous for Pakistan to want a successful dialogue and also have the liberty to raise any issue like Kashmir, distribution of river waters, and India's alleged interference in Balochistan during the talks. Pakistan seems to be preparing for a wrestling bout rather than a dialogue. Right now, it is difficult to predict what kind of atmosphere will prevail during the talks and what issues will be raised. However, what is promising is that India has apparently abandoned its defensive attitude.
If Pakistan wants to add to India's problems on the pretext of discussions it is imperative for India to adopt the tit-for-tat policy. There is no other alternative. Even if Pakistan professes to want the Kashmir issue to be solved on priority basis, frankly speaking, Pakistan is least interested in settling the matter. Pakistan has been trying to corner India on the excuse of Kashmir only due to its weak diplomacy. Rightfully speaking India should have isolated Islamabad on the issue of Occupied Kashmir. After all, it is Pakistan that has forcefully occupied part of India's territory.

Basic Change in Kashmir Policy
India should now at least make a basic change in its Kashmir policy, which will convince the world that Pakistan is the obstacle in solving the Kashmir issue. If this is not done, Pakistan will continue to mislead the world by comparing Kashmir with Kosovo, Palestine etc. Instead of being accountable for the Kashmir problem, Pakistan has been acting arbitrarily on Occupied Kashmir, which is highly inappropriate.
Terrorist organizations have complete freedom there. Activities of Chinese companies in Occupied Kashmir are a problem that should be raised not only before Pakistan but also at an international level.

Pakistan's Discomfiture
As a matter of fact, every issue that will add to Pakistan's discomfiture should be raised. That is essential since Pakistan is demonstrating a diplomatic bias instead of heading toward a solution of problems. India should not hesitate to convey to the world that having a dialogue with a prejudiced Pakistan is sheer waste of time.
The dialogue, which is to be held between the countries, might please Pakistan and satisfy the United States. However, India is unlikely to gain much from the same.

Pakistan Faces Judicial Activism Against Executive

The tension between the executive and the judiciary seems to be declining after meeting between the prime minister and the chief justice. In accordance with the expectations, the executive have acceded to all demands of the judiciary and thus the ongoing arguments in the Supreme Court on the matter would perhaps now come to an end.
In view of many people, the executive had perhaps no other option because in a case wherein the Supreme Court is petitioner as well as jury, the chances of the acceptance of the government's viewpoint were very slight.

Appointment of Judges
During this confrontation, the numerous loyalists of the chief justice spread among the lawyers and in the courts also demonstrated their full strength. Although the Supreme Court had cancelled the official notification of the appointment of judges the same evening, the lawyers tried to observe strike throughout the country and in this effort, the judiciary also took part in performance of the constitutional duty of further strengthening the relations between the bar and the bench by extending full cooperation to the loyalists of the chief justice.
According to BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) reports, a group of lawyers appeared in courts at various places in Sindh opposing the boycott call but the judges did not sit in the courts. The executive committee of the Lahore High Court, in a meeting chaired by Chief Justice Khawaja Muhammad Sharif, decided to hear the cases of only emergent and immediate nature and instructions were issued to hear such cases in the chambers of the judges only. The rest of the cases were sacrificed for the loyalists of the chief justice.
It is pertinent to mention that the latest confrontation between the judiciary and the executive started with the elevation of Justice Khwaja Sharif to the Supreme Court and he had immediately refused to accept it. Thus, he had the status of a major party to the issue.

Institutional Strength
The foundation for rising up of the judiciary and lawyers as an institutional strength was laid during the movement that started in reaction to the confrontation between the judiciary and Pervez Musharraf in 2007. This institutional strength has, however, reached at this stage under influence of the desire of the judiciary to become a powerful party in the decisions on state affairs instead of gaining strength as an impartial institution.
During the movement for restoration of the judiciary in the Pervez Musharraf era, the leader of the movement, Chaudhry Aitzaz Ahsan, often used to say in his speeches that if the military is proud of its khaki uniform, we (the lawyers who wear black coats) are not less than anybody else. Thus, the lawyers, who did not refrain from torturing their opponents, continued increasing their street power. In the meantime, arrangements were made, under the slogans of the constitution duty of cooperation between the bar and the bench, for the lawyer leaders and the judiciary embracing each other. Perhaps, the two sides found this hug so much delightful that instead of separating, they now prefer to constantly stay attached to each other. Top institutions now also seem helpless in the face of the new power that emerged because of this prolonged hugging.

Restoration of Judiciary
Expressing his views about the 14 February strike of lawyers, Chaudhry Aitzaz Ahsan said that in principle he was opposed to it but he did not appear in the court on that day because a decision about the strike was taken by majority of the lawyers. It means that he can go to the extreme in opposing the majority decisions of his party for adhering to his principles and can also start a long march even against his party's government for upholding the principles. But despite showing his opposition before the power that emerged as an outcome of hugging between the judiciary and lawyers, he finds himself helpless before the majority decision. The snake charmers in the ranks of lawyers have set off such flames that nobody is now safe from their heat.
During the movement for the restoration of the judiciary under the Musharraf rule, the leaders of the movement often argued that new PCO (Provisional Constitution Order) judges led by Chief Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar are product of a dictator so the court would not be able to deliver justice in the presence of such partial judges. Those judges are gone but perhaps the judges having the same opinion could be appointed to fill the seats vacated by them.
Perhaps, this is not by chance that the Supreme Court full bench gives a unanimous decision and even a single judge does not oppose that decision. Just like the military discipline demands that every command of the chief justice is taken as the final, our independent judiciary too would possibly not disappoint its loyalists. With the mutual efforts of the bar and the bench, the power of the judiciary is now taking a new shape. Who says our institutions lack the discipline?

Opposition to Presidential Notification
Whereas the majority of lawyers opposed the first presidential notification for appointment of judges, some legal snake charmers touching the extremes in opposition to the notification accused the president of even the contempt of court and treason. Over many similar other steps of the contempt of court, however, they never issued a statement. According to one of our friends, a contempt of court case for the independence of an independent judiciary is pending since long and enjoys the status of a litmus test for providing the independence of the judiciary.
During the Pervez Musharraf era, Fakharuddin G. Ibrahim had filed an application in a court for return of Nawaz Sharif. The Supreme Court had ruled that Nawaz Sharif can return to the country and no hurdle is creating in the way of his comeback. All of us had, however, seen that in spite of the judiciary being independent during the Musharraf era, the former prime minister of the country was bundled into an aircraft and sent back. The sound of this power strike on the judiciary is still echoing. Now, the judiciary can exhibit its independence by giving a verdict in that case of the contempt of court.

Lacking Independence of Judiciary
Currently, Pakistan has a democratic government. The judiciary is independent and powerful. The legal snake charmers are vigorously playing their pungi (a wind instrument used by snake charmers). The petitioner (Nawaz Sharif) is also in the country and Fakhruddin G. Ibrahim is also present.
The government officials who had committed contempt of court by sending Nawaz Sharif back to Saudi Arabia are also there and the chief justice is also the same. But the independent judiciary is missing from this case in spite of having independence.