Sirisena comes calling: An opportunity for India

More than a month after the unexpected turn of political events that witnessed the ouster of a seemingly invincible Mahinda Rajapaksa in Sri Lanka, the new Sri Lankan President Maithripala Sirisena will be in India starting 15 February. As he makes the first overseas trip, the question uppermost in those watching the island nation’s affair is this: Would the new President be able to make a marked departure from the policies followed by Rajapaksa for over a decade both in domestic and international affairs? 

Rajapaksa, who won a famous if controversial military victory over the dreaded Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) in May 2009, continued to deny the minority Tamils a fair deal in granting them the much-promised devolution of power after the war ended. A genuine reconciliation between the majority Sinhalas and the Tamils, who mainly inhabit the Northern Province, remained elusive. 

Sirisena’s biggest challenge will therefore be to gain confidence of the Tamils who have voted in huge numbers for him if only to defeat Rajapaksa. That may not be easy though since Sirisena heads a hastily put together anti-Rajapaksa coalition that comprises of chauvinist Sinhala far right parties opposed to any preferential treatment to minorities. 

Sri Lankan President Maithripala Sirisena

 Sirisena has begun well. During his Independence Day address, two prominent leaders of the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) R Sampanthan and deputy secretary M A Sumanthiran attended the celebrations for the first time in over 40 years! More significantly, the new government has made some symbolic gesture towards reconciliation. A Declaration of Peace read out on Independence Day in early February stated, among others, that "As we commemorate the 67th Independence Day of our nation today, we pay our respects to all the citizens of this country, of all ethnicities and religions, who lost their lives due to the tragic conflict that affected this land for over three decades, and for all the victims of violence since Independence."  A Columnist in Sri Lanka surmised: “The breadth of this statement included the rebels who died as well, not only in the LTTE led separatist conflict but in the JVP insurrections as well.”

Meeting the internal aspirations of people and parties that have propelled him to an unexpected victory apart, President Sirisena’s major task will be to but re-calibrate Sri Lanka’s relations with India, in the wake of a decade long period of pro-China policies pursued by Rajapaksa. Foreign Minister Mangala Samaraweera made New Delhi his first stop after taking over. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi is also most likely to visit Colombo in March. Incidentally, Modi will be the first Indian Prime Minister to make a bilateral visit to Sri Lanka in over a quarter century! 

China, because of its large strategic and commercial investments in Sri Lanka over the last decade, is very well entrenched in Sri Lanka. The Sirisena-Wickramasinghe combine, is not supposed to be well-disposed towards Beijing. But China cannot easily be shrugged off. Consider this: Between 2005 and 2012, China provided $ 4.761 billion as assistance to Sri Lanka. Of this only two per cent is outright grant while the remaining 98 per cent is in the form of soft loans. By contrast, a third of India’s 1.6 billion dollars assistance programme to the island comprises of outright grants. 

However, only a change of regime will not automatically witness India’s return to a more active role in Colombo. New Delhi will need to reach out to the new dispensation quickly and assure full and unequivocal support.

​ Sirisena will also have to repair ties with Western nations who had ostracised ​ Colombo over allegations of human rights violations. India must also stand with Colombo in its standoff with the West that seeks to punish the country for alleged human rights violations. New Delhi must push for a just probe not coloured by prejudices of the West or driven by calls for retribution against the Rajapaksa brothers. In his defeat, Rajapaksa’s contribution in ending one of the world’s most brutal insurgencies waged by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) must not be forgotten or underestimated.​

http://www.abplive.in/author/nitingokhale/2015/02/14/article501636.ece/Sirisena-comes-calling-An-opportunity-for-India

I do not fear any retribution: Gotabaya Rajapaksa

Gotabaya Rajapaksa, former Defence Secretary of Sri Lanka, former Army officer and brother of former Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa, was largely seen as the driving force behind Sri Lanka's Eelam War IV that decimated the Tamil Tigers and ended an intense, quarter century long civil war in the island nation in 2009. 

Considered a hardliner in the recently ousted Mahinda Rajapaksa government in Sri Lanka, Gotabaya has been accused variously of war crimes, of militarising the Sri Lankan society, of driving Colombo into Chinese arms and much more in the nearly nine years that he headed Sri Lanka's defence ministry.

Gotabaya Rajapaksa (centre) as Defence Secy

Gotabaya, who lived in the US before returning to Sri Lanka in 2005 to help his brother fight the LTTE,  has been under intense pressure from the new Sri Lankan government that is probing various acts of omission and commission allegedly committed by the previous regime. 

Exactly a month after the Rajapaksas lost power in Sri Lanka, Gotabaya agreed for his first detailed interview with me on email. Although one short interview is not enough to understand the man and his action--"I have to be careful these days," he says--here's a short glimpse into his thought process and actions. Excerpts.

Q: You handled the Sri Lanka's security apparatus for a long time. How do you react to the charge that your government has left the country more militarised? That you created a military disproportionate to Sri Lanka's size?

Ans: We did not leave the country ‘militarised’ as you say. Quite the contrary would be true in fact. The Sri Lankan military establishment was expanded during the war to the extent that was necessary to win the war against terrorism. You have to remember that the terrorists that we were up against in Sri Lanka were categorised even by the FBI as the world’s deadliest terrorist organisation. Defeating such an organisation was no easy task. It took an integrated land, sea and air offensive to defeat the LTTE. One of the key requirements was to have enough manpower to hold the territory that the ground forces wrest from the control of the terrorists. We expanded the military for that purpose. But after the war there was no more expansion. Furthermore, after the war, we did not allow any of the anti-LTTE armed groups in the north and east to carry weapons any more. If we wanted to, we could have allowed the anti-LTTE and anti-TNA groups in the north and east to continue to carry weapons on the excuse that there were over 11,000 rehabilitated ex-LTTE cadres around, and therefore weapons were necessary to ensure the protection of the anti-LTTE groups. If these groups had continued to bear arms the whole voting pattern in the north and east would be different. It was we who brought freedom from armed conflict and terror to the north and east as well as the rest of the country. Today people are free to vote for whoever they like because of the achievements of our government.

Q: Have you left the country polarised?

Ans:  I don’t think so. We were in government, so people opposed us and politically motivated people don’t usually say good things about their political opponents. Some say that we left the country polarised. There was no question about the fact that we had to take on the LTTE. But that was not a war against the Tamil people. It was we who liberated the Tamil people from the LTTE. When the Tigers were around where the Tamil people ever able to vote freely at elections? At the presidential elections held in 2010, the Tamil people of the north and east have voted in large numbers for the army commander who served in our government during the war. At the 2015 presidential elections, the Tamil people of the north and east once again voted for the cabinet minister who held the position of acting minister of defence when the president went overseas during the war. That should be sufficient proof that we did not leave the country polarised.

Q: Your critics allege that the President Mahinda and you ran Sri Lanka like a dictatorship with midnight raids, surveillance and intimidation of opposition being a common occurrence. How do you respond to these accusations?

Ans: Sri Lanka was never a dictatorship. We are a democracy and under the government that I served in, we held the most free and fair elections ever held in this country. After 2005 when our government was first elected to power there were elections almost every year. All those elections were free and fair. We lost the 2015 presidential election because the election was free and fair. As for these midnight raids, there may have been night time searches during the war, but never after that. This talk of surveillance and phone tapping is a figment of some people’s imagination. During the tenure of my government, none of the opposition parties were harassed or persecuted in any manner. On the contrary, the president had cordial relations with politicians of all opposition parties. The lines of communication were always open which is why so many members of the opposition joined our party at various times. Even a vociferous critic of our government like Mangala Samaraweera  was on the verge of joining our government when he was having problems in the UNP. That was possible because there was never any enmity between our government and members of the opposition. 

Q: Nearly six years after Eelam War IV  got over, looking back would you have done anything differently?

A: No.

Q: As defence secretary you took a decision to source most of your military hardware from China over the past decade. Was it a conscious move or was your hand forced by India's reluctance to help you?

Ans: All Sri Lankan governments since the war began in the 1980s sourced most of their arms and ammunition from China. That continued under our government as well. When the final phase of the war began in 2006 under our government, India was unable to sell us arms because of pressure from Tamil Nadu. If it was possible to buy weapons from India we would certainly have done so. I explained the situation to Vijay Singh my counterpart in New Delhi at that time. He too agreed that given the situation that Sri Lanka finds itself in, she has no option but to buy arms supplies from whoever is willing to supply them. 

Q: There was a period between 2006-08 when you had an excellent rapport with the Indian establishment but somewhere closer to the end of the war, the relationship seemed to have deteriorated? What really went wrong? If you can elaborate a bit?

Ans: I would say that the relationship with India remained on a very good footing until the war ended and even beyond. In the last few years however India may have misunderstood Sri Lanka’s relationship with China. We have always had excellent relations with China. In the last few years, a number of projects were initiated with concessionary loans from China. I think Indian policymakers misread this as a sign of Sri Lanka drifting into the Chinese orbit. 

Q: How important was India's help in your fight against LTTE?

Ans: India’s understanding of the issues faced by Sri Lanka during the war was crucial. On a mutual agreement we formed groups of key officials on both sides called ‘troikas’ with the external affairs secretary, defence secretary and national security advisor on the Indian side and myself as the defence Secretary, Lalith Weeratunga the secretary to the president and my brother Basil Rajapaksa as the advisor to the president on the Sri Lankan side. The members of these troikas could phone one another at any time of the day or night and Basil kept the Indian side informed about everything that was happening at the ground level in Sri Lanka. India was also aware of the threat that the LTTE posed to India as well. So this understanding helped.

Q: Were you disappointed with India's stand at the UNHCR?

Ans: I feel that India should have stood by Sri Lanka in the UNHRC given the fact that she had a policy of not supporting country specific resolutions in the UNHRC. But given the pressure that Tamil Nadu was able to exert on the Indian central government at that time, I understand that India did not have much of a choice.

Q: How important is India's support and friendship for Sri Lanka?

Ans: India’s friendship and support is very important to Sri Lanka. It is a matter of regret that India appears to have thought otherwise. There have been tensions between India and China for many decades, but Sri Lanka has traditionally had close relations with both nations. Sri Lanka’s relationship with China has always been of an economic nature. The docking of Chinese submarines in the Colombo harbour was only for re-supplying and not for any military purpose.

Q: Do you fear retribution by the new regime in Sri Lanka or even a witch hunt by Western nations now that you are no longer in power?

Ans: I do not fear any retribution from any quarter or Western witch hunts. We knew the risks involved when we took on the LTTE despite resistance from interested nations. We fought terrorism to a finish because that was our duty by our nation. The people of Sri Lanka still appreciate the sacrifices we made and the risks we took. Getting voted into office or voted out of office is a different matter. Churchill too was voted out of office soon after he won world war II but that did not mean that the British public did not appreciate the leadership he had provided during the war.

Q: Is there a possibility that LTTE rump or sympathisers of Tamil Eelam may try and make a comeback in Sri Lanka?

Ans: When we were in power, we were always vigilant about such a possibility. That vigilance has to continue. India too should be on her guard against any attempt by Tamil separatist forces to set up a base in Tamil Nadu. Tamil separatist ideology came to Sri Lanka through Tamil Nadu and Tamil separatism has a much longer history in India than it does in Sri Lanka. India made a bad mistake by encouraging Tamil terrorist groups in the 1980s. India should be careful about sending the wrong signals to the wrong people once again.

Op Sadbhavna has outlived its utility

For over 16 years, the Indian Army has conducted Operation Sadbhavna--as part of its WHAM (winning hearts and mind) doctrine--across Jammu and Kashmir spending something close to Rs 300 crore sanctioned by the Defence Ministry on running schools and orphanages, improving the living standard of the locals by constructing roads and bridges, installing hand pumps and electrifying villages and giving them free medical services. Excursion and education tours have also been organised during this period.

The Indian Army's doctrine of sub-conventional warfare released in 2007 in fact envisaged that Operation Sadbhavna would provide the healing touch during conflict and win over the alienated sections of people in the conflict zones.

FILE PIC: AFP

 The projects, according to a study done by a scholar at the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA) are identified and selected jointly with the state administration and the people at the grass root level. The Army actsq as a facilitator and catalyst and actively assists in planning, provides technical assistance, makes available specialized equipment and supervises it.

The scholar, Dr Arpita Anat asserted in 2010 that implementation of the projects under this initiative has had an extremely positive impact on the minds of the local population. Various educational schemes and women empowerment centres have helped in employment generation and transformed many lives. However, a common refrain was that there is scope for improvement in coordination between the Army and civil administration. Dr. Anant’s interface with local journalists revealed that although the initiative of the Army was very praiseworthy, real peace will come only with the resolution of the political problem.

Five years on, my own travels in J&K have convinced me that Op Sadbhavna has outlived its utility and it is time for the Army to end the scheme. The changing dynamics of  on the ground situation in J&K makes it imperative for the Army to step back a little and let the other arms of the civil administration step up to the plate to deliver the basic services to the people.

Since Jammu and Kashmir is in a stage of 'conflict stabilisation,' the Army must consolidate its gains earned during intense and costly CI-CT (counter-insurgency, counter-terrorist) operations it has conducted over the past quarter century and not get distracted by civic action programmes like Op Sadbhavna.

Officially, the Army may not recommend dissolution of Op Sadbhavna but many officers and troops deployed on ground have increasingly felt that the project to win over the local population in J&K is showing diminishing returns over the past three-four years.

While violence may be down and the number of terrorists operating in the hinterland may have decreased dramatically, the demands of the people on the Army have been going up in direct proportion to the normalisation of the situation, straining the Army's limited manpower.

Since the scope of Op Sadbhavna was always small, the Army does not have the resources to meet rising aspirations of the people demanding better lifestyle and living standards. Normally, this should have been the State Government's and not the Army's  responsibility but during the high intensity conflict years the Army was the only contact point for the people in rural Jammu and Kashmir. Now, that bond is proving to be an albatross around the Army's neck.

Keeping everyone happy is becoming difficult and in any case the Army is not in J&K to win any popularity contest. It is time that the Army de-linked itself From Operation Sadbhavana which represented at best a tool for feasible transition to the political process.

Over the years, Operation Sadbhavana had put the organisational, medical, engineering, transport and educational expertise of the Army at the disposal of the people but if prolonged any further it may jeopardize the Army’s primary function of training and deployment for high-intensity conflict.

And that is something that the Army can ill-afford given that Pakistan is unlikely to end its proxy war in J&K any time soon. 

http://www.abplive.in/author/nitingokhale/2015/01/31/article489579.ece/Operation-Sadbhavna-has-outlived-its-utility

The Agni-V canister launch video

Video Courtesy: DRDO

The Army's Kashmir dilemma

The martyrdom of Colonel M N Rai, who died in Kashmir in terrorist firing, has once again opened the old debate on how the Indian Army should conduct its counter-insurgency, counter-terrorist operations under the changed circumstances in the border state.

Colonel Rai, a highly effective commanding officer, heading the 42 Rashtriya Rifles battalion, was killed in indiscriminate firing by two terrorists holed up inside a house in a village near Tral in South Kashmir even as he held back launching an operation after villagers requested him to wait for them to surrender.

Friends and relatives of the two local youth, who were hardcore members of a terrorist outfit, told Colonel Rai that they would prevail on the two men to surrender after the CO reached the village with his Quick Reaction Team following an intelligence tip off.

Even as he held back, the well-armed terrorists came out firing indiscriminately, killing Colonel Rai and a brave policeman, Head Constable Sanjiv Singh on the spot.

Colonel Rai's approach, part of an Indian Army doctrine based on WHAM -- Winning Hearts And Minds -- was correct under the circumstances that have prevailed in Jammu and Kashmir for at least a couple of years.

After nearly a quarter century of intense Counter Intelligence-Counter Terrorism ops bordering on outright war, the Army has seen the tempo tapering off a bit in the past few years, at least in the hinterland.

The 25-year long conflict is in fact going through a stabilisation phase that requires a combination of force and tact in dealing with terrorists taking shelter in populated areas. The handling becomes all the more difficult if the encounter involves local terrorists.

Colonel Rai's colleagues, his subordinates and some veterans say he did exactly what any CO of the Indian Army has done for years in Kashmir: Deal with terrorists/militants in a humane manner.

So when the villagers requested Colonel Rai to wait until they persuaded the two terrorists to surrender, he readily acceded. Little did Colonel Rai know that his trust would be betrayed.

Increasingly, Rashtriya Rifles battalions deployed in large numbers in Kashmir's interiors are faced with this dilemma. On the one hand, there is a need to reduce the Army's footprint and the earlier overwhelming, in-your face presence, and on the other not weaken the CI-CT grid that allows area domination.

Caught between these two opposite requirements, COs and company commanders, often young men with less than five years service, find it hard to strike a balance.

In coming months and years, this dilemma will only become more acute posing a serious challenge to the Army's endless 'No War, No Peace,' existence in Kashmir.

All COs and their superiors are sure to have taken note of the betrayal that killed Colonel Rai. Corrective measures will be taken quickly. And the Indian Army will continue to do its duty without rancour and remorse.

That is what makes the Indian soldier unique

(http://www.rediff.com/news/column/winning-hearts-or-fighting-terror-armys-kashmir-dilemma/20150130.htm)

Ensure every soldier gets to vote, an Army Officer's wife writes to the Prime Minister

A PIL seeking efficient mechanism to ensure voting rights to the armed forces personnel and their families in their place of posting is likely to come up in the first week of February. Filed by a practicing Supreme Court advocate, who also happens to be the wife of a serving Army officer, the PIL is seen as a landmark application for ensuring voting rights to the soldiers, long denied mostly because of practical difficulties. 

The government has been internally discussing the tricky issue with Army HQ briefing at least four senior ministers on Wednesday about the practical difficulties in implementing what everyone agrees is a fundamental right of every Indian citizen.

Meantime, the Advocate, Neela Gokhale has written to the Prime Minister highlighting the need to give the soldier his due right. Read on: 

To

The Prime Minister of India

South Block

New Delhi

“ Be it the altitude or bitter cold, nothing deters our soldiers. They stand there, serving our nation, They make us really proud”

 Your words Mr. Prime Minister … a testament to the commitment of every citizen of this country, to the national  security and sovereignty and acknowledgement of the sacrifices made by the soldiers for the safety of its citizens. Your decision to spend Diwali with the soldiers on the glacier reveals a discernible patriotic undercurrent. This symbolism encourages me to write to you, sir and bring to your notice some fundamental deprivations faced by the armed forces and their families. 

The Constitution of India enjoins the elections to Parliament and legislative assemblies to be held on the basis of adult franchise. So this means that every citizen of India, who is not less than 18 years of age and not otherwise disqualified on the grounds of non residence, unsoundness of mind, crime, corruption or illegal practice is entitled to be registered as a voter at such election. So then, why is it that there is no efficient mechanism yet, to facilitate the soldier on the far flung glaciers to participate in the electoral democratic process of the country. Or he is just not significant enough in that respect?

Notwithstanding that the Election Commission did commendable work in undertaking processes to reach out to individuals in the most remote localities of the country, yet the process has once again eluded the armed forces personal and their families, posted in far flung areas of the country. The law, as it stands today, only permits the armed forces personnel to register as ‘service voter’ at the place of his ordinary residence, which is deemed to be that place which, but for his posting, would be his ordinary residence. Simply put, his ordinary residence means his native place. It is obvious that many have been away on their call of duty for a long time and thus are not aware of the nuances of their native constituency or the suitability of the candidates seeking to be elected. So they are expected to participate in the process blindfolded, without formation of their own opinion, which reduces the exercise of the right of franchise to an exercise in futility. Even the present postal ballot system has admittedly failed to ensure maximum encouragement to participate in the formation of a vibrant democracy. The factum of ordinary residence of a soldier is created by his posting order, issued by the government itself, purely on operational considerations and none other.  Yet he uncomplaining accepts his orders and performs his duties without demur. Mindful of the fact that permitting enrolment at the place of posting may affect the demographic equations of a constituency, especially in places such as J&K etc, where the army personnel may at times outnumber the general populace, yet the resolution lies somewhere in the middle of the devil and the deep sea.

Being an army officer’s wife myself and concerned with the issue, I have approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing a writ petition and urging the court to address the issue and direct a suitable resolution. True to my faith in its invincible ability to deliver timely justice, as an interim measure, the Hon’ble Court permitted the  armed forces personnel posted in family stations, to enroll at their places of posting during the recent Lok Sabha Elections. That perhaps resulted in a greater than ever participation of the armed forces personnel in the recent elections.  The petition is yet pending determination by a larger bench.

It is a complex issue, but given the underlining theme of participatory governance adopted by your government and the reclamation of the grounds lost by the hereto before policy paralysis, it would be both, expeditious and consistent, that this imbroglio be addressed and resolved by means of your executive intervention than determination by the court. The letter of the law does seem to inculcate the principle of adult franchise vide cursory provisions for the ‘service voter’ in the RPI Act, but the spirit of the principle of franchise has been relegated to the intentions of the framers of the constitutions, which I feel sure, your government will correct at the earliest.

Neela Gokhale

Advocate

Supreme Court of India

China, India and the Sri Lanka Elections

(http://thediplomat.com/2015/01/china-india-and-the-sri-lanka-elections/)

Image Credit: REUTERS/Dinuka Liyanawatte

India has ceded influence in Sri Lanka to China. Could the upcoming election change that?

By Nitin A. Gokhale

In less than a week, President Mahinda Rajapaksa of Sri Lanka will be facing the toughest political battle of his life as the country votes in the presidential elections on January 8. The Sinhala strongman, credited with ending a 30-year war against the separatist Tamil Tigers in 2009 was expected to have a cakewalk until one of his closest colleagues Maithripala Sirisena walked out of the ruling combine and mounted a credible challenge after the fragmented opposition rallied around him.

The outcome of the polls will be watched keenly in at least two foreign capitals – New Delhi and Beijing – since both have large stakes in the island nation. While India’s strategic interests in Sri Lanka are vital, it also has cultural and religious ties with the Sri Lankan society going back centuries. China, a relatively new presence on the island, on the other hand, has made large strategic and commercial investments in Sri Lanka over the last decade, thanks to a decidedly pro-China policy adopted by Rajapaksa.

As the contest between Sirisena and Rajpaksa tightens with each day, there must be some worried folks back in Beijing. The Chinese presence in vital sectors of Sri Lanka is huge, and the opposition, led by Sirisena and backed by former President Chandrika Kumaratunga and former Prime Minister Ranil Wickramasinghe, is not exactly well-disposed towards Beijing.

Consider this: Between 2005 and 2012, China provided $4.8 billion as assistance to Sri Lanka. Of this only 2 percent has been in the form of outright grants; the remaining 98 percent took the form of soft loans. By contrast, a third of India’s 1.6 billion dollars in assistance to the island comprises outright grants.

There’s more. In the last two years (2012-14), China has committed in excess of 2.18 billion dollars, again mostly in the form of long-term loans. Most of these funds are destined for priority sectors like roads, expressways, ports, airports, power, irrigation, water supply and railways.

Rajapaksa’s supporters contend that all these projects are commercial ventures and Sri Lanka had no option but to depend on Chinese loans, given that the West has largely kept away, citing alleged human rights violations during the final phases of Eelam War IV. The argument is only partially true. The Chinese have cleverly played on Colombo’s fears of isolation and granted concessional loans. Critics of the Rajapaksa regime fear that the Sri Lankan government will be unable to repay such large loans in time, giving the Chinese an opportunity to turn part of the loan into equity, making them part owners of vital projects and installations.

The most glaring example cited by opponents of the Rajapaksas is the Hambantota Port Development Project. For the first phase, the Chinese provided almost 85 per cent of the total cost of $307 million. The second stage (signed in September 2012) will cost $810 million.

The interesting part is that the supply-operate-transfer agreement signed during Chinese President Xi Jingping’s September 2014 visit includes a 35-year lease of four out of seven container berths to a Chinese company. It is pertinent to note that the Hambantota project is just a few nautical miles from one of the world’s busiest shipping lanes, with more than 4,000 oil tankers passing by each year.

Although the Indian establishment will long regret not taking up Rajapaksa’s offer to develop Hambantota, New Delhi is surely worried about the Colombo Port City Project, a massive $1.4 billion plan to reclaim 233 hectares of land from the sea along a prominent promenade in Colombo. Of the 233 hectares, the Chinese are being given 88 hectares on a 99-year lease. Interestingly, another 20 hectares will be given to China on a freehold basis. In other words, China or the Chinese company will be a part owner of the project.

In the Sri Lankan capital, the South Container Terminal at Colombo Port is operated by a China-led consortium, which has a 35-year right of ownership under a build-operate-transfer agreement. The Chinese submarine that berthed in Colombo chose to use this terminal and not the main port and so did a Chinese naval ship earlier. The Sri Lankan government has tried to assure New Delhi on this count, by pointing out that all dealings with the Chinese are on a commercial basis and have no geo-strategic importance, a claim believed by no one in India. Why should India worry about increasing Chinese presence in the Colombo port? New Delhi has legitimate concerns since at least 70 percent of transhipment business at the Colombo port is India-related.

However, for India the greater worry should be Colombo’s enthusiastic endorsement of the 21st Century Maritime Silk Road and linking the development of Colombo and Hambantota Ports to the Chinese-led initiative. When Xi came to Colombo in September 2014, Beijing and Colombo announced the establishment of a Joint Committee on Coastal and Marine Cooperation to explore joint ventures in ocean observation, marine and coastal zone management, maritime security, search and rescue, and navigation security. This, Indian experts contend, would allow China a free run to carry out surreptitious maritime surveys and snoop on southern India.

The government of Narendra Modi is surely cognizant of these developments but it will take multi-directional efforts to regain the strategic space India has lost in Sri Lanka over the past decade. The previous UPA government, hampered by domestic political compulsions and its own confusion over India’s role in Sri Lanka, ceded ground to China once it refused to supply military hardware to Colombo in its war against the Tamil Tigers. In contrast, post-2005 China increased its military supplies to the Sri Lankan military manifold. By a conservative estimate, more than 60 percent of the equipment in the arsenals of the Sri Lankan Air Force and Army are of Chinese origin. In the near future, the Chinese are likely to take the defense relationship to the next level by supplying Sri Lanka with fighter aircraft and warships. Although annually more than 800 Sri Lankan officers across the three services still train in Indian military establishments, the Sri Lankan military’s dependency on Chinese equipment is surely something that worries India no end.

However, New Delhi would perhaps prefer to wait for the result of next week’s presidential election to recalibrate its own policies towards Sri Lanka, no matter who the eventual winner is.

Nitin A. Gokhale is the author of Beyond NJ 9842: The Siachen Saga.


A Race too close too call

(http://www.asianage.com/columnists/race-too-close-call-900)

For Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa, this is a moment of reckoning. His bid to get re-elected for an unprecedented third term, is facing a serious challenge mounted by the Opposition re-energised after Mr Rajapaksa’s long-time party and ministerial colleague, Maithripala Sirisena defected from the ruling combine.

Mr Sirisena, backed by former President Chandrika Kumaratunga and the United National Party’s (UNP) Ranil Wickramasinghe has turned the presidential election into a credible contest, a prospect that looked improbable even a month ago. A series of defections by smaller allies representing the Muslims has further eroded Mr Rajapaksa’s support.

Two major factors must worry Mr Rajapaksa. One is the division in his core Sinhala vote and the other is the prospect of minorities Tamils and Muslims voting heavily against him. This is a big change from 2010, when he won the elections comfortably thanks to a famous military victory over the Tamil Tigers that ended a 30-year war in the island nation.

Since then Mr Rajapaksa’s popularity has eroded considerably because of charges of authoritarianism, financial corruption and nepotism. A two-third majority in Parliament allowed the President to rewrite the Constitution and lift the restriction on holding the office of the President for more than two terms.

That at least five of Mr Rajapaksa’s immediate family members are in key government positions gives ammunition to his critics. In the last five years, the party took a backseat, leading to widespread corruption, lawlessness and cronyism, the Opposition has charged. Mr Sirisena, for long an insider, now says the concentration of power in the hands of the Rajapaksa family and large-scale corruption forced him to leave the government.

The real battle is to gain maximum support from the majority Sinhala vote in the 15-million strong electorate. In the 2010 elections, Mr Rajapaksa had polled more than double the votes secured by his main opponent, former Army Chief Sarath Fonseka in the Sinhala majority areas of south, central and western provinces but this time, Mr Sirisena has the advantage of ultra-radical, right-wing Sinhala party like Jathika Hela Urumaya (JHU) and a prominent Buddhist monk Sobitha Thero, backing him against the President.

But it’s not a done deal yet.

Mr Rajapaksa, with his easy, if cultivated charm and an image of a decisive leader is adept at playing on Sinhala nationalist sentiment. He has already promised a new Constitution committing himself once again to the unitary status and has committed himself to establish a domestic investigative mechanism for probe into the alleged war crimes even while preventing any international scrutiny into alleged human rights violations. This appeals to the hardcore Sinhala voter base. In Colombo, revulsion against the Rajapaksas and yearning for change is palpable but the rural vote outside the capital still seems largely behind the President. Many Sinhalas, especially women, still root for Mr Rajapaksa’s “macho” image and his firm handling of terrorism.

Mr Sirisena also needs to make a dent in the Tamil heartland to get ahead of Mr Rajapaksa. With less than 10 days to go for the elections, Mr Sirisena has not spoken a word about the Tamil issue. His manifesto does not even mention the Tamils and their concerns although the influential Tamil National Alliance (TNA) that has widespread support in the North has decided on Tuesday to support him.

Mr Rajapaksa on the other hand, has launched an energetic campaign countrywide and is even touring the Tamil areas frequently. He has not only visited North and East more than once, but has made some promises, which will attract those who had suffered during the war.

Mr Sirisena in comparison appears wimpish and suffers from the perception that the Kumaratunga-Wickramasinghe duo and not him are the real power centres in the Opposition ranks. There is also lack of focus and cohesion among the disparate elements supporting

Mr Sirisena’s campaign. The JHU and the TNA for instance, hold diametrically opposite views on the contentious 13th Amendment that allows genuine devolution of power to the Tamils.

In the larger context these issues may not matter though since anti-incumbency against Mr Rajapaksa is giving the Opposition more than an even chance this time.

The close contest throws up another possibility. For the first time, Sri Lanka may be forced to count the preferential votes. According to the Constitution, a candidate, in order to win, needs to receive “more than one-half of the valid votes cast”, which is 50 per cent plus one vote. One possible scenario is that no candidate receives the required 50 per cent of the votes cast.

What happens then? The voters are allowed to indicate their second and third preferences when they vote in a presidential election. If no candidate receives more than one half of the votes cast, there will be a runoff and preferential votes will come into play. The process is complicated. Initially, all candidates except the two who received the most number of votes will be eliminated from the competition. Then, the second preferential votes of the eliminated candidates, if cast in favour of one of the remaining two candidates, will be added to their account. And finally, the third preferential votes of the eliminated candidates, if cast in favour of one of the two remaining candidates, will be added to their account. Only then the one who receives the “majority of the votes” will be declared the winner.

Political analysts in Sri Lanka say the country has never counted the preferential votes as there has always been a clear winner, even in some of the closest contests. In 1999 for instance, Ms Kumaratunga received 51.12 per cent votes while Mr Rajapaksa in 2005 scarped through with 50.29 per cent of the votes. Will it be any different this time? Will Sri Lanka be counting the preferential votes for the first time? President Rajapaksa would be hoping that the situation would not come to such a pass.

The outcome of the elections will be keenly watched around the world, especially in New Delhi. India’s relations with the Rajapaksas have been bitter-sweet and his tendency to play the China card against India has not really endeared him to New Delhi but Mr Rajapaksa’s alternative is an unknown entity so far. Whatever the outcome of the election slated for January 8, India will need to start afresh in recalibrating its relationship with Colombo.

The author is a strategic affairs commentator and long time Sri Lanka watcher