The 13th Amendment and the Bhutanization project

Rajiv Gandhi and Narendra Modi, united in hegemonic intent

‘This is the beginning of the Bhutanization of Sri Lanka’ — Rajiv Gandhi

President Ranil Wickremesinghe has called on all political parties to submit their views on the 13th Amendment.  He, more than anyone else, should understand that right now the legitimacy of all political parties (including his) and all politicians (including himself) is suspect (and I am being kind here). Nothing illegal about his ascension to the post of president, nothing illegal about 225 persons representing various political parties remaining in Parliament, but legality and legitimacy are two different things.

Of course one may interject, ‘that’s subjective.’ Correct. If subjectivity is key then there was no case against Gotabaya Rajapaksa and those who bring that argument will have to say that the entire aragalaya and all the aragalists were out of order.

We can talk legality though, if that’s what you want. We can point out that the 13th Amendment was illegally ‘enacted.’ It was the product of an agreement signed by J.R. Jayewardene under duress. Rajiv Gandhi’s India (like his mother Indira Gandhi’s India before that) funded, trained and armed Tamil insurgents. This allowed those who had no qualms about frilling grievances in order to pad aspirations willy-nilly to marry fiction and thuggery. India helped up the ante to a point where it could orchestrate pernicious intervention ‘as a friend,’ and ‘to help resolve a problem (which of course India helped create in the first place!).’

The narrative of territory embedded in and which signatures the 13th was clearly based on a piece of fiction propagated by Tamil chauvinists enlarging on S J V Chelvanayakam’s pithy formula, ‘a little now, more later.’ It sought to legitimize a fictional homeland theory replete with well-defined boundaries that were randomly drawn by an invader (the British) with no basis whatsoever in history (or even legend!).

History and heritage don’t support the claims. We can go back to 18th century demographic data through the first official censuses or we could go back to the 10th Century AD and the time of Raja Raja Chola I. India’s Ministry of Culture will testify that the Archaeological Survey of India refers to various temples built by Raja Raja 1 using wealth plundered from various lands along with the names of the conquered territories. This island on which Rajiv Gandhi foisted the 13th Amendment at gunpoint was referred to as ‘The land of the warlike Singalas.’

If all that is ‘in the past,’ and it certainly is, we could go to today’s numbers. Those lines referred to above rebel against demographic reality; almost half the Tamil population live outside the so-called ‘exclusive traditional Tamil homelands.

Those who advocate devolution and have championed the 13th Amendment, even demanding ’13 Plus’ are fond of referring to the Sri Lankan population as being ‘multi ethnic’ and ‘multi religious.’ Correct. Only, they don’t talk about percentages. If they did, they would have to come up with some kind of justification for the fact that as per the current demarcation two thirds of the coastline and a third of the landmass would be controlled in the name of a community that barely makes 15% of the total population of the country. Except that this community, as pointed above, while concentrated in the Northern Province and parts of the Eastern Province (even as of now, more than half this province is made of what in separatist parlance could be called ‘Tradition Homelands of the Sinhalese’). In other words, mixed cultures or cultures amenable to mixing is what has always been the case. That’s not the same thing as assimilation, which of course can  happen. In any direction.

Those who talk of the 13th and even 13th Plus, don’t dare talk about 13 Minus. The 13th precipitated an uprising that led to the death of around 60,000 people in just two years. The 13th prolonged a conflict for a further 22 years. The costs are incalculable. Those who want to hang the ridiculous charge of genocide (the Canadian Prime Minister and the Canadian High Commissioner both need to take Canadian History 101 and Canada Today for the Indegene 101 at some point, the sooner the better) on Sri Lanka talk about hundreds of thousands being massacred. Well, India paved the way for that. If you want to argue it that way.

The almost 40 years that have passed clearly indicate that provincial councils are white elephants (during C V Wigneswaran’s watch the Northern Provincial Council couldn’t even spend the budgetary allocation) headed by political thugs. Today, in the year 2023 the provincial councils are dead. No elections. No talk of elections. No ‘aney apoi’ from democracy advocates who can’t stop talking about power-devolution. Not a single protest from any party or community or region over this.

Ranil Wickremesinghe is smart. He’s asking political parties to offer their views. He probably knows none of these parties can come up with anything coherent. Perhaps he has calculated that incoherence would pave the way for him to shrug shoulders and ‘do as India says.’

What India says and what India wants is exactly what Rajiv Gandhi said, wanted and believed he could obtain: the Bhutanization of Sri Lanka.

If political parties are serious (and they are probably not, let us not have illusions here), they can give a response in point form: 1) List all grievances, 2) Evaluate the logic of devolution as 'the only and therefore necessary mechanism to alleviate grievances,' 3) Call for a historical audit to assess the validity of 'exclusive traditional homelands, 4) Assess progress made on resolving grievances enumerated at the time the Indo-Lanka Accord was signed, 5) Revisit the 13th Amendment thereafter and decide whether it should remain, be amended or repealed altogether. 

RELATED ARTICLES

Let's go for 13 PLUS!

If 19 is to equal 13+...

Time to face the music in Geneva  

The 13th Amendment: by thugs, with thugs and for thugs

The forgotten 13th bears upon the 19th and 20th 

The LLRC and devolution: the politics of skipping the caveats

Reconciliation and hallucination 

Representations to the LLRC

LLRC Proposals: let there by no foot dragging 

13, 13+ and 13-

Pluses and minuses of the 13th Amendment 

The 13th Amendment and moral obligations

20th Amendment without repeal of the 13th a recipe for disaster 

Let the court of history summon all perception-peddlers

It is time to abrogate the 13th Amendment 

Narendra Modi spikes the good neighbor drink

India's 'love'

India reconfirms enemy status

India in Geneva: friend, foe or navel-gazer?

Modi as 'gonibilla' and maverick's plaything

First get the lines straightened out Jayampathy!

Devolution talk and devolution talkers  

Physician heal the real and not imagined malady!

Read more

The 13th Amendment: by thugs, with thugs and for thugs

There are some uncomfortable truths about the 13th Amendment, devolution of power and of course provincial councils. Let’s begin with the here-and-now.

Provincial Council elections haven’t been held in years. It is more than 10 years since the Eastern Provincial Council elections were held and more than nine since they were held for the Northern Provincial Council. Did the people in the Northern and Eastern provinces complain? Did their representatives complain? Did any who have screamed for devolution for the last forty years raise even a whimper? Did those who make a living out of talking democracy, reconciliation, good governance, devolution and conflict resolution complain? Have those who are now, in the name of democracy, agitating for local government elections, ever insisted that PC elections be held? Did anyone say ‘constitutional provisions should be implemented?’

No. Simply, no. Humbuggery, yes.

Let’s go back to 1987. Rajiv Gandhi, the then Prime Minister of India, soon to be assassinated by the very terrorist outfit he and his mother before him funded, trained and armed, in effect held a gun to the head of the then President of Sri Lanka, J R Jayewardene, forcing him to sign the Into-Lanka Accord and thereafter get the then parliament (made of parliamentarians who he forced to sign undated letters of resignation) to pass the 13th Amendment. The people were not consulted. There was no debate. Illegality was written all over the document, its enactment and implementation.  

It was an act of thuggery endorsed by a man who had excellent thug-credentials (having bashed heads of striking workers in July 1980, looked aside while thugs from his party’s trade union unleashed violence on Tamils in July 1983 and under whose watch two university students were killed in June 1984). And it was designed to further a cause of a bunch of terrorists. Simply, thuggery.

Most importantly, it wrecked rather than made easy administrative functions a case in point being agriculture, in particular agricultural extension. It has been estimated that on average no less than two-thirds of monies allocated to provincial councils have been used to pay salaries and maintain offices. Some PCs, like the Northern Provincial Council, couldn’t even spend all the money allocated to it in certain years. Simply, a white elephant. Nine of them in fact. Nine rogue white elephants.

Today there’s talk of the 13th Amendment being implemented to the letter, meaning police and land powers would be devolved. First of all, not only was the 13th Amendment imposed by a thug and illegally enacted by thug and his minions for the benefit of another bunch of thugs, it had nothing to do with ground realities. Devolution of power as a remedy to stated grievances is a monumental joke given geographic, economical, historical and demographic realities. We need not elaborate, but if you really believe in the Eelamist lie about 'traditional homelands,' you could read up on Raja Raja Chola I and how that particular marauder who had no stake in championing 'Sinhala chauvinism' described this island: 'the land of the warlike Sinhalas,' no less. 

That said it has acquired legitimacy, if not in the circumstances of enactment by affirmation through practice — all major political parties have contested provincial council elections at one time or another. Not because they agreed with the narratives of ‘grievance’ and ‘aspirations,’ but that they saw it as a means to advance political projects, as individual politicians and as collectives.

Two factors may have serves to dispel concerns regarding the 13th Amendment. First, the powers vested in the office of the president was the insurance policy against separatism. Secondly, land and police powers were never devolved. With regard to police powers, several amendments beginning with the 17th, in effect, made such devolution unnecessary. Land was not even talked about.  

Now, if we are to go with the intent expressed by President Ranil Wickremesinghe, we could very well see Chief Ministers of Provincial Councils having the kind of sway that even the President does not enjoy with regard to policing in their respective domains. Now there’s also the threat of each Chief Minister having the power to override all central government safeguards with regard to the protection of forests and the preservation of archaeological sites at will.

We do know that certain Chief Ministers belonging to certain ethnic groups have been averse to archaeology perhaps out of fear that wild narratives about what happened and creative historiography will be proven beyond a shadow of doubt to be absolute bunkum. We also know that parties such as the JVP have at various points in their history talked of tearing down stupas so that building materials could be put to other use. We had Sunil Handunnetti recently ridicule Buddhists for their preferred forms of worship. What such people in the role of Chief Minister could do should be reason enough to be wary, extremely wary about devolving land powers.

Forests! There are protected areas in all provinces. Even without land powers being devolved forests are being cut down, partly in the name of development and probably more extensively on the sly. Just imagine nine politicians (and we know that it is a profession favoured by crooks, thugs and the uncivilised) with police and land powers running their own fiefdoms. Pretty? Pretty grim!

A word about the JVP is necessary. The JVP gained much ground riding the general antipathy to Indian intervention and opposition to the 13th amendment. Sixty thousand (60,000) people, INCLUDING JVP LEADERS AND ACTIVISTS died in a period of two years (1988-89). The JVP now wants the 13th Amendment to be fully implemented, i.e. with land and police powers devolved. Perhaps we’ve seen the last ‘Il Maha Samaruma’ of the JVP. Anura Kumara Dissanayake and Co., will have to answer to all the party members, supporters and others who perished during the bheeshanaya.  Will Dissanayake say ‘those sahodarayas were a bunch of idiots back then!’

What should be done with a piece of legislation describable as ‘by thugs, with thugs and for thugs’?

Repeal. Simply, repeal. 

Relevant Articles

The pluses and minuses of the 13th Amendment

The 13th Amendment and moral obligations

The forgotten 13th bears upon the 19th and 20th

What of the 13th, 19th, Circular 5/2001 and the MCC Compact?

20th Amendment without repeal of the 13th: a recipe for disaster

The 19th, 20th and sanctimonious humbuggery

Raja Raja Chola and the quicksand of Tamil Chauvinism 

The 'Traditional Homelands' tells a story  

How about including 'Reparations'  in school curricula? 

 

Read more

India reconfirms enemy-status

Yes, we need peace. We need reconciliation. Such needs are the inevitable outcomes of conflict-end. Fixing these to exaggerated grievances and out-of-this-world aspirations and tying it all to a constitutional amendment obtained by a bully is unacceptable. Ridiculous, in fact. 

Indra Mani Pandey. Remember the name. He’s India’s Permanent Representative in Geneva. He’s no novice in matters diplomatic, having joined the service more than 30 years ago. He would have been old enough even before that to know what’s what in Indo-Lanka relations, if he was inclined at the time to educate himself about international relations and in particular South Asian affairs.

So, to cut to the chase, when someone like Pandey says something about Sri Lanka, we need to take note. He has explained why India abstained on the vote against (yes) Sri Lanka at the UNHRC sessions and thereby has told us how India sees Sri Lanka, Sri Lankan issues and Sri Lanka’s future. We must thank him for being forthright: ‘we are grateful, Indra, for the honesty!’ The cheers stop right there, though.

Pandey waxes, not too eloquently: ‘India has always been guided by the two fundamental principles of support to the aspirations of the Tamils for equality, justice, dignity and peace and unity, territorial integrity and sovereignty of Sri Lanka.’

Always? Really? Why then did India arm, train and fund separatist terrorists? Was that to strengthen unity, territorial integrity and sovereignty? India was clearly intent on destabilising Sri Lanka. Indeed India was a major part of the problem. And, thereafter, we had the problem-creator (or problem-enhancer, if you want to be generous) stepping in to resolve the problem. Indra is a funny guy, folks. India is a funny country, one might say, except that there is nothing funny about doing everything possible to prolong an unnecessary conflict, directly or indirectly paving the way to death, destruction, dismemberment and displacement of a magnitude beyond calculation. Three years before Indra entered the service, India stepped in to effectively bail out the terrorists.

Yes, the Indo-Lanka Accord. Indra knows or has learned about it at some point, for he talks of the 13th Amendment. More waxing sans eloquence:  ‘While we have taken note of the commitments by the government of Sri Lanka on issues of implementation of the commitments in the spirit of the 13th Constitutional Amendment, meaningful devolution and the early conduct of provincial elections, we believe that the progress towards the same remains inadequate.’

Right. Here goes. The 13th Amendment was imposed on Sri Lanka at gun point by India. Rajiv Gandhi bragged at the time that it was the beginning of the Bhutanization of Sri Lanka. That’s a weird understanding of unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity, right? Let’s talk about commitment though.

India reneged on her commitment to disarm the terrorists. Sri Lanka had to do India’s job and it took a further 22 years. India should shut up about ‘commitments’ especially since India has enjoyed the advantages scripted into the Accord all these years, even after getting a BIG ‘F’ on the one thing India was supposed to do.

How about devolution? Well, on paper it’s not a bad thing, except of course that the relevant territorial demarcations rebel against demography (almost 50% of Tamils live outside the Northern and Eastern provinces), history (lines were drawn by European invaders arbitrarily) and economy (the Western Province’s contribution to the economy is a massive slice and if one pushed the logic of ‘devolution’ to any reasonable conclusion, other provinces will remain relatively impoverished). As for provincial council elections, none of the diehard devolutionists (well, they are really federalists or separatists) have agitated for them to be held over the last several years. Let’s not forget that the Northern Provincial Council couldn’t even spend monies allocated. All it did was to give legitimacy to an Eelam Map that symbolised just one thing: attempted land-theft by one particular ethnic group.

Aspirations. Indra talks about them. He has to, since it’s one of the two ‘fundamental principles of support.’ Tamil aspirations, someone should tell Indra, was essentially a desire to annex two-thirds of the coast and half the land mass for a little more than 5% of the population (considering almost half the so-called ‘Eelam Tamils’ live outside ‘Eelam’. Do the math, Indra/India. Maybe an Indian analogy would help; it would be like Muslims in India aspiring to have control over a territory equivalent to the sum of Rajastha, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh and Gujarat. That's an equivalency the likes of Indra would dare not consider.  

Yes, we need peace. We need reconciliation. Such needs are the inevitable outcomes of conflict-end. Fixing these to exaggerated grievances and out-of-this-world aspirations and tying it all to a constitutional amendment obtained by a bully is unacceptable. Ridiculous, in fact.

Indra sweetens the apology by talkie of India’s provision to relief, rehabilitation, resettlement and reconstruction efforts in Sri Lanka and assistance provided this year to mitigate the economic crises. Well, thank you. Very much. Still falls way short of compensation India ought to pay for all the miseries unleashed on Sri Lanka by hegemonic, arrogant and moronic Indian leaders though. Indra should know, because lately India has been belligerent in demanding reparations from Britain. The histories are different of course, but costs are costs, aggressors are known and if justice is about redress then India owes much and talks not at all about all this.  

So, in sum, Indra played a typical Indian card in Geneva. A lot of poppycock and hardly disguised enmity. Not surprising.

malindadocs@gmail.com

Read more

The forgotten 13th bears upon the 19th and 20th

Draconian. A plan for self-aggrandizement. The death of democracy. In violation of established parliamentary procedure. These are some of the terms and lines being used by those opposed to the 20th Amendment.

What’s funny is that most of the objectors played deaf-dumb when the 19th Amendment was brought in and were cosy with the executive presidency for decades or else supported the party that had absolutely no objection to it. For decades.

Ideally there should be balance between the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the state. The 1978 Constitution wrecked that balance. Ideally, then, any regime that has secured a two-thirds majority or is confident of getting the arithmetic right at voting time should go for a new constitution rather than fixing anomalies through amendments. This government is confident of the numbers obviously; otherwise it wouldn’t go for an amendment. Why then an amendment and not a new constitution is a question that the government needs to answer.

That said, if the discussion is about the merits and demerits of the 20th Amendment in terms of the fears/whines expressed by the politically compromised and/or regime-loyalists who throw in issues such as executive powers when in fact their objection is limited to the dual-citizenship issue, then we need to consider the 13th, 19th and 20th amendments together.

Why the 13th, one might ask. Well, of the 13th Amendment the following must be mentioned: illegally instituted, an example of abject cowardice on the part of the then regime and a necessary building block for the Eelam case. The one thing that stood in the way of the separatists was, ironically, the executive presidency. A weak obstacle, but nevertheless a spanner in the works.

The 19th, whether or not the architects and approvers appreciated the above, was in effect a blow that targeted this obstacle. We are referring to the pruning of executive powers here. Sure, it was an exercise to transfer power to the office of the prime minister. Personal/party agenda obviously blinded people to the dangers. That is, if indeed such issues were important to them. My hunch is they were clueless and didn’t care either.

However, the 19th, by diminishing the executive presidency, effectively laid the foundation for another push for separatism, perhaps in ‘happier’ overall conditions. Now a strong government where there’s no confusion regarding who is in charge, where there’s ‘the executive’ is not split between two political groups, there’s nothing to worry about, one can argue. One can also interject ‘what if we have a president who is in line with the separatist agenda and chooses not to exercise executive options?’ Yes, that’s a problem, but then again, it stands to reason that such an individual can only become president if the voters themselves are generally agreeable to a division of the country, a weakening of the state etc., etc., in their wisdom or ignorance, as the case may be.

As things stand, however, the focus should be on the role of the executive, the power vested in the office etc., in relation to the real dangers embedded in the 13th Amendment. This, in addition to correcting the hideous and obvious confusion caused by the 19th regarding the various residences of executive power, which, among other things, facilitated the Easter Sunday tragedy.

Of course, if one is for separatism this is not a problem, and indeed many of the objectives are fixated on devolution-beyond-the-13th (at least the NGO personalities making noises these days). It's not a position that the allegedly horror-stricken objectors in the Opposition articulate, however.

Is the President going to be vested with dictatorial power upon the possible passing of the 20th Amendment? That’s a question that must be addressed. The Supreme Court determination on the matter is clear. The Supreme Court has recommended an amendment to Clause 5 (which is about immunity for the president) that would allow for the people to invoke jurisdiction of the SC under Article 126, where there’s alleged violation or alleged imminent violation of a Fundamental Right due to an act of the President. The Government is now forced to incorporate this suggestion or else go for a referendum on the matter.

[That is if this government doesn’t do a yahapalana number with the Supreme Court determination; the yahapalanists, contravening all established procedure, made sweeping changes to the draft 19th Amendment. It was virtually a different document. Here’s an aside within the aside: those who talk of procedural impropriety today were dead silent back then.]

So, in other words, if the correction is made, in conjunction with the retaining of term limits, the executive presidency would revert to the pre-2010 status or less. Note, that back then, i.e. before the 18th Amendment was mulled, few if any had drastic issues with the executive presidency. There was some noise, but certainly no shouting.  Sarath Fonseka, for example, didn't talk of abolishing or pruning the executive presidency and neither did his backers at the time.

Back to the 13th. The 13th Amendment is about provincial councils, at least in the operationalization of it. Provincial council elections haven’t been held in years. No one seems to mind, not even the diehard devolutionists, not even the democracy-or-death types who wake up whenever their political darlings are in trouble. So, one can ask, ‘what’s the issue then; if we don’t have the PCs, then this business of weak powers or no powers for the president is a non-issue, surely?’

Well, the problem is in the fact that illegally enacted though it is, the 13th is a part of the constitution. If it goes, we could even do away with the executive presidency and perhaps return to a pre-1978 Westminster system of government. It hasn’t gone away. It is there. Sleeping, for now, but can be roused; if roused in a context where there is an impotent or crippled executive presidency, it would be a beast.  

the drafting of a new constitution could sort out the matter, of course, but those in the opposition who are opposed to the 20th Amendment haven’t uttered a word about such an exercise. Ideally, as mentioned, the government would just move to shelve the 20th and go for a new constitution. There’s talk of a new constitution six month from now, but that’s just whisper as opposed to the shout that is the 20th Amendment. In the here and now, it’s about the 20th and if ‘executive’ is the bone of contention, then those who want a chew of it should take a few licks at the 13th. Unless of course they are doing nothing more than petty politicking (at which they have considerable experience, let us note). 

[This article was first published on October 22, 2020]

 malindasenevi@gmail.com

Read more

Narendra Modi spikes the good neighbor drink

 

Which country would not be happy if another country said ‘we have a you-first security policy?’ The cynical have the option of retorting ‘most countries would be terrified if, for example, the USA said something like that.’

The world is not flat. Not all countries are equal in terms of financial might and fire power. So when Sri Lanka says that she has an India-first security policy, it’s almost like saying ‘don’t worry, we will align ourselves with your interests and we will not shift loyalty.’ India-first is essentially ‘China is not first.’

India’s Deputy High Commissioner in Colombo Vinod K Jacob has found this ‘encouraging.’ Would India feel encouraged to be still more in-your-face, is that what he means? He could be thinking ‘encouraged by the prospects for better relations,’ but we know that countries love themselves, not others. Others, they use, if they can, and subdue if they can’t.

The generous reading is as follows: Sri Lanka understanding that India, having cottoned on to the Belt and Road Initiative rather late in the day, is jittery about China (so is the USA and this is what the ‘Quad’ which includes Japan and Australian is all about), offers an assurance, a good neighborly gesture.’

Prime Minister Narendra Modi has responded (and how!) in a virtual bilateral summit with the Sri Lankan Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa. Pleasantries were exchanged first. They did the we-are-old-friends number. Rajapaksa listed recent Indian gifts, said ‘thanks.’ Modi eventually got down to business. He called on the new government 'to work towards realizing the expectations of Tamils for equality, justice, peace and dignity within a united Sri Lanka by achieving reconciliation nurtured by implementation of the Constitutional provisions (as in the 13th Amendment).’ This, he believes, is non-negotiable if there’s to be peace and reconciliation.

When ‘should’ is used instead of ‘could,’ it is presumptuous. It’s like Modi saying ‘Thanks for having an us-first policy, but we are not saying “you-first” and neither are we budging from positions we have taken — just do as we say!’

First, the background. India imposed the 13th Amendment on Sri Lanka. India intervened at a point when the Sri Lankan security forces had cornered the LTTE and the military defeat of terrorism was imminent. All this after India had (perhaps worried about the then Sri Lankan government’s pro-US stand) worked tirelessly to harass Sri Lanka; India funded terrorist outfits, armed and trained them. When Sri Lanka took the hits, didn’t collapse and in fact was about to overcome the threat, India moved in. The terrorist threat, which was hours away from being eliminated, flourished for 22 years more. Tens of thousands perished. India hit national dignity. India cost us dearly.

The fact of the matter is that we’ve functioned without the principal product of the amendment, the provincial councils, for several years. No one is complaining.

And yet, Modi pins Tamil aspirations to the 13th Amendment and insists that this is how we get peace and reconciliation! As though India was ever interested in ‘Tamil aspirations’! The then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi wanted to Bhutanize Sri Lanka. High ups in the Indian Peace Keeping Force said it was a victory to stump Tamil parties and get Trinco and not Jaffna as the capital of the North-East.  It was about Indian foreign policy prerogatives. 

India inserted clauses to subvert Sri Lanka’s right to commerce with other nations on matters of security. The accord sought to concretize random boundary lines in terms of a homeland claim that has no basis in terms of history, archaeological record or demography, effectively helping turn myth into fact. It was illegal to boot.

The bill was presented in part to Parliament.  A 9-member bench of the Supreme Court could not conclude on constitutionality. They were divided 4-4. It took a Chief Justice (who happened to be a Tamil) to interpret the opinion of the 9th member in favor of ‘constitutional’.  The Provincial Council bill was passed immediately after the Indo-Lanka Accord was signed, as though father and son were birthed together!

Most importantly India failed to deliver on its side of the bargain. India failed to get the LTTE to join the democratic process by laying down arms. The disarming was eventually done by Sri Lanka. So, in effect, Sri Lanka did India’s work for her AND Sri Lanka continues to affirm her side of the bargain as scripted in the Indo-Lanka Accord. A win-win situation for India, a coup some would say.

Modi has told Rajapaksa about a ‘united’ Sri Lanka. He believes the 13th would do it. Well, the LTTE rejected it. They wanted more. Modi forgets that constitutional enactment does not necessarily yield unity and more crucially, ‘united’ is not a constitutional term. It’s descriptive of levels of solidarity within a well-defined sphere. Modi, knowingly or unknowingly has adopted the Eelamist vocabulary. Eelamists use the word ‘united’ to mitigate antipathy regarding the term ‘federal.’ It sounds like ‘unitary’ but has nothing to do with such an arrangement.  

So where do we stand now? Sri Lanka has gone the extra mile (the you-first gesture). India has said ‘thank you very much.’ India has not been moved by the gesture. Had India said ‘thanks bro, you do your thing, we won’t interfere — just leave China out of it,’ it would have been enough.

It’s like taking a hand extended in friendship, gripping it firm, emptying the vocabulary of a diplomat’s guidebook and then using the other hand to deliver a slap.

 

It’s all disingenuous. India’s ‘Kashmir Policy’ is a cuss word. One doesn’t have to take sides on the conflict here, but Modi’s moves regarding Kashmir clearly haven’t taken into consideration ‘expectations of Kashmiris for equality, justice, peace and dignity within a united India by achieving reconciliation nurtured by implementation of the Constitutional provisions so necessary for peace and reconciliation.’

Good neighbors often chat during unplanned encounters at property-boundaries. A bad neighbor jumps over the fence, stomps over the flowers and condescendingly tells his/her neighbors that their happiness depends on following his/her blueprint for success, taking care to engineer a situation where the neighbors are hesitant to form/strengthen relations with other neighbors.

Narendra Modi played 'bad neighbor.' It’s not a good thing to play one neighbor against another. There’s a commonly used Sinhala phrase that illuminates: apita apey paaduwe inna denna. ‘Paaduwa’ refers to loss. So, it means, ‘alright, we’ll take the hit, but don’t worry about it….just don’t interfere.’

 

malindasenevi@gmail.com  

Read more

The ‘Ikka Affair’ and the troubled UNP-SLFP marriage

The proposed Economic and Technology Cooperation Agreement between Sri Lanka and India has earned an amusing but appropriate tag in Sinhala, based on the acronym ETCA and how it is pronounced (‘Ikka Givisuma’ or the ‘Hiccup Agreement’). 

Ikka has generated some interesting debates.  Those who oppose do so on a variety of ground, 'national interest' among them.  Some of those who support it object to the objectors on account of their nationalism or else for 'standing with nationalists'.  'Free trade is oblivious to national boundaries!' the advocates scream.  Maybe in a parallel universe, perhaps in a different century, but right now, as has been the case, capital has always cohabited (happily too!) with identity, whether in the form of a nation, a city, a skin-color or family.  But right now, the issue is overlaid with the political to the extent that the economic element gets hardly any play and that has little to do with the identity and purpose of the objectors.

An Indo-Lanka agreement on things economic has been in the pipeline for a long time.  In fact it can be argued that the Indo-Lanka Accord of 1987 was as much about Indian’s economic interest as about her political prerogatives (yes, it had nothing about Sri Lanka’s interest). 

The previous government backed off and Mahinda Rajapaksa, following representations by the business community especially the ‘local’ big boys, said he wouldn’t sign any agreement until and unless all relevant sectors approved the document.  But then again, he was a shrewd politician who knew that Indians don’t have votes in Sri Lanka and secondly, was a man for whom elections and power meant more than vague ‘promised lands’ described in economic plans. 

The present Government, in contrast, appears to be in an insane and even indecent hurry to get ‘Ikka’ inked.  There are reasons to be suspicious and we shall briefly flag them.

First, it is India.  Now that’s a red flag anyway.  Secondly it is an agreement with India.  The history of the Indo-Lanka Accord of 1987, India not fulfilling her part of the deal and insisting that Sri Lanka does, the shove-down-the-throat that accompanied the secrecy of the whole affair, the pernicious and arrogant interfering, the Big-Brother’s Burden type of condescension, the economic benefits (to India) scripted into what was marketed as an altruistic helping-hand from a lovely neighbor, and the legitimation of Tamil chauvinistic land-theft designs, left more than a bad taste in the mouth. 

Third, it is being pushed by the same people who applauded and facilitated the expansionist putsch by India in 1987 (remember, Rajiv Gandhi said ‘what we are seeing is the beginning of the Bhutanization of Sri Lanka’), namely the United National Party and Ranil Wickremesinghe.    It was Wickremesinghe who presented the bill in Parliament but more damningly he presented it in part!  His endorsement of secrecy in dubious deals had graduated into a penchant for secrecy by 2002, when he signed the insidious Ceasefire Agreement with the LTTE.  These histories count, politically. 

The word ‘cooperation’ has been over-used to sugarcoat all kinds of skewed bilateral agreements that its employment here also raises suspicion.  There is no ‘cooperation’ between ‘big’ and ‘small’.  There’s diktat.    The author of the Sunday Island’s ‘Political Watch’ put it this way [with regard to India]: “The Indians always had plans for Sri Lanka most of which were not in consonance with the plans that the Sri Lankan government of the day had.”

Overall, as of now, objection to Ikka is on the rise and not just by an Opposition operating according to the minimalist and pernicious understanding of role as ‘Opposition must oppose!’  Many individuals and organization including political parties and civil society outfits that helped bring this Government to power have taken strong anti-Ikka positions.  Respected individuals from the full range of professions and professional organizations have said ‘No’ to Ikka. 

The objectors are currently being vilified as playing into the hands of the Rajapaksas or else dismissed as rabble-rousing trade unionists or, as mentioned above,  dubbed ‘nationalists’ (as though that’s a cuss word!), but the political relevance of their opposition is that it weakens a Government that is already plagued by the natural insecurities of coalition-arrangements.  Worse, these objections are in fact adding to rising displeasure among sections that previously supported the anti-Rajapaksa thrust on grounds of a) being no different with respect to corruption, mismanagement and nepotism, and b) being utterly incompetent. 

Finally there is the damning issue of the economy being in crisis.  Wickremesinghe himself, while outlining mismanagement and corruption by the previous regimes and the impact of these factors on the economy, acknowledged to Cabinet that ‘the Sri Lankan economy could have coped with (such) adverse revelations if not for the global economy taking a nose dive during the last few moths, adversely affecting our economy’. 

The bottom line is that this Government (like its green predecessors) has shown utter servility to India and the West, led by the USA.  Anything that any one of these ‘big brothers’ say is taken as ‘good’, with the belief that they are actually Sri Lanka’s ‘friends’.  Reality kicks in though, a good example being the Government being forced to go on bended knees to China, after vilifying the Rajapaksa regime for its choice of friends. 

All of the above considered, the Government’s Ikka-Fascination seems suicidal.  The ‘Political Watch’ referred to above offered what might be the best explanation of the prevalent insanity. Well, if not ‘best’, let’s say ‘the kindest’:

“It could also be the PM’s way of scuttling ECTA himself. Trying to tell the Indians at a governmental level that this ETCA thing will never work is too much hard work…So perhaps the PM has hit upon a way of getting the Indians off his back for good – by frightening the whole of Sri Lanka into uniting against ETCA so that he is saved the trouble of explaining matters to the Indians. As of now, he who has done the most to drum up opposition to ETCA is not the GMOA or the JVP and certainly not the Joint Opposition but the PM.” 

If that’s not the case, the Government is clearly on the path to self-destruction either in the form of a coup whereby the President and his predecessor bury hatchets and come up with a working arrangement that unseats Wickremesinghe and sell it off as an arranged marriage necessitated by the national interest.  Simply put, if Wickremesinghe backs off he would do so with egg on his face, but if Sirisena says ‘No’ he  

There a the limits of free trade.  The ideological premises have deep flaws.  Even the grandmasters of capitalism in the 20^th Century, namely the USA, appear to have realized this.  Sooner or later, the glass-bubble doctrine runs into a solid wall called ‘Identity’ (yes, ‘nationalism’ is part of the story and it is China, a nation and not a corporation, that’s defining the do’s and don’ts of capitalism these days). 

On February 3, 2016, the seed giant Sygenta (based in Switzerland and generating about one-quarter of its sales in North America, where it is a top pesticide seller and supplies an estimated 10% of U.S. soybean seeds and 6% for corn) agreed to a US$ 43 billion take over by ChemChina, which is Chinese government controlled entity.  This has alarmed US legislators.  Senator Charles Grassley last week called for a ‘national security review of the proposed ChemChina-Syngenta deal’ claiming that ‘the government must ensure that too much of the food industry is not being sold off’.  The worry is that the buyer is a government-controlled entity. 

“We need to consider the long-term implications of letting foreign entities control significant market share in U.S. agriculture, especially in consolidated markets, like the seed market has become,” Grassley said. 

Sri Lanka is not the USA and India is not China, but the principle of ‘security’ is the same.   And why should ‘security’ be an issue if it is all about free markets and multilateral drives to make national boundaries meaningless?  The answer is ‘identity’ and in the case of the USA (as evident in the Sygenta matter – which is not yet a done deal by the way) and Sri Lanka (the Ikka-Affair) it is about ‘nation’.  It would seem, to put it crudely, that the extrapolations of Samuel Huntington (‘Clash of Civilisations’) are proving to be more accurate than those of Francis Fukuyama (‘The End of History’). 

Sri Lanka is not as big as China or India, true, but the size of ‘national interest’ in terms of emotional appeal and even theoretical construct is certainly not diminished on account of being geographically ‘small’ or an economy that is weak.  It produces a discontent this Government can ill-afford.  This Government has been hiccupping on a lot of counts of late.  It can think ‘what’s one more ikka?’ but this might be the ‘ikka’ that brings it down. 

Read more

The pluses and minuses of the 13th Amendment

Here's the speech

Thirteen. Thirteen Plus. Thirteen Minus. That’s the talk in the politico-ideological streets. It is almost like a rudimentary arithmetic problem.  In July 1987 Sri Lanka may have been plus or minus or average compared to other members in the community of nations.  Wherever the country may have stood, it was dragged in the negative direction by the Indo-Lanka Accord.

Did the Indo-Lanka Accord deliver on ‘peace’? No.  Did India, as it pledged, subdue all military groups including the LTTE? No.  Indeed, India in effect reneged on the deal more than twenty years ago. 

A bloody conflict that was about to be ended, was given a lease of life.  It lived on for 22 years more.  Took 100,000 lives or more. The Accord precipitated a bloody insurrection that took 60,000 lives.  If even 1% of the dead were ‘smart’, we are talking about a monumental loss of invaluable human resources.  That’s the genesis of the HR crisis Sri Lanka faces right now. All in the minus column. 

Sovereignty.  India inserted clauses to subvert Sri Lanka’s right to commerce with other nations on matters of security. The accord sought to concretize random boundary lines in terms of a homeland claim that has no basis in terms of history, archaeological record or demography, effectively helping turn myth into fact. Drop that in the minus column. 

Legality.  The bill was presented in part to Parliament.  A 9-member bench of the Supreme Court could not conclude on constitutionality. They were divided 4-4. It took a Chief Justice (who happened to be a Tamil) to interpret the opinion of the 9^th member in favor of ‘constitutional’.  The Provincial Council bill was passed immediately after the Indo-Lanka Accord was passed, as though father and son were birthed together.  Minus that!

Truth and lie. It was not about Tamil grievances/aspirations. Rajiv Gandhi bragged about Bhutanization.  IPKF high-ups said it was a victory to stump Tamil parties and get Trinco and not Jaffna as the capital of the North-East.  It was about Indian foreign policy prerogatives. 

The ‘ground reality’ was said to warrant the sating of a militant group.  The majority objected.  The militants were not sated. In fact the LTTE rejected the 13^th Amendment, of course for reasons that were different to the objections put forward by certain Sinhala groups.   In any event, it rebelled against popular sentiment. The only beneficiaries were fledgling politicians who saw in it stepping stones to further careers.  Positive for them, negative for the voter. 

We can also minus national dignity.  We can minus other things verbally agreed upon, but that’s conjecture.  The bottom line is that the Indo-Lanka Accord took Sri Lanka in the wrong direction with the multiple factors at play determining the speed and length of that journey.  The logical thing, in terms of recovering the recoverable, is to scrap the 13^th forthwith.

How?  Well, there’s a thing called a ‘geo-political reality’, thrown at us by the likes of Dayan Jayatilleka to say that India’s endorsement is a must and therefore it is the Indian ‘frame’ within which we seek ‘progress’.  That’s a lie that was exposed in May 2009.  There is a geo-political reality of course, but what is thrown around is an inflated version of the beast.  In other words an ad and a pernicious one at that; full of exaggerated claims. 

The ‘how not’ is easier to answer.  The wrong way is to do what some bikkhus in Ampara at a meeting held to champion the 13^th Amendment.  What has to be understood is that ideological battle was won by those who oppose the 13^th.  The logic is with them.  Those who were defeated opted to go with ‘the boys’, directly or indirectly.  That can happen again, but each time it will end in the Nandikadaal Lagoon, metaphorically or literally.  

The ‘how’ of it is not very clear, but if lessons have to be learned, we can pick from Prabhakaran and his God Father Chelvanayagam.  Prabhakaran was defeated only after the military apparatus learned Prabhakaran’s language.  Chelvanayakam said ‘little now, more later’. The lesson is, ‘less now’ and ‘even lesser later’, no, not in terms of righting wrong (devolution is but one proposal and an erroneous one, but full and equal citizenship rights cannot be compromised), but in getting us some ways in the ‘plus’ direction after the big-minus of July 1987. In other words, a gradual erasing of the 13^th. 

There are other ways of employing logic.  The logical ‘end’ of the devolution argument is the Grama Rajya, or devolving to the smallest possible unit. Propose it and no one can object, and objection means obstinacy and non-interest in resolution.  Another would be to say, ‘since sovereignty, especially in circumstances far afield from July 1987, is non-negotiable, the coastal belt (including of course a 10 mile wide strip of land all around the island) and Trincomalee have to be taken off the equation of “power sharing”’.  Will India agree?  If not, why not? Stumped, one would think. 

Read more