BUILDING A BETTER FUTURE THROUGH CSR

Corporate social responsibility is a new concept in India.  India is perhaps the first country in the world to have CSR in statute. In just two years since the law came into being in April 2014, it is proving to be a game changer for the weaker and marginalized sections of the society.

India’s business houses deserve a special mention for partnering with the government to improve the health and welfare of socially-excluded populations through the corporate social responsibility (CSR). A country which grapples with multiple socio-economic challenges, the CSR has the potential to create sustainable development.

An estimated 23.6 percent of Indian population, or about 276 million people, continue to live below the poverty line with purchasing power parity of just $1.25 per day. And most of them come from the marginalized sections of the society such as tribes, dalits and lower castes. Though the government has been providing subsidy to them in various forms, those are either not enough or do not reach the needy due to red tape and corruption.

It is in this context that the parliament passed the bill in 2013 making it mandatory for some companies to spend 2 percent of profits on uplifting the poor. The proposal was first mooted in 2011 when the government came out with national voluntary guidelines (NVGs) which listed out social, environmental and economic responsibilities of businesses in India. But the NVGs were largely advisory in nature than mandatory. It was only with the new Companies Act, 2013, that CSR spending was made a statutory obligation for companies incorporated under the Act.

And in just two years, the initiative has touched the lives of millions of poor people and its benefits have percolated down to the lower strata of the society. Education and skills, healthcare, environment sustainability, gender equality and rural development are among several sectors which have been aggressively targeted by hundreds of business houses.  According to a PwC/CII report, this two per cent from some 6,000 companies in India may amount to as much as Rs 20,000 crore (Rs 200 billion) every year. This has the potential to address the country’s chronic problems in near future.

There were many who thought that the CSR was another form of tax which was introduced through back door. But figures suggest that the initiative has been well received by business houses. Out of a total 250 Bombay Stock Exchange-listed companies, over 100 firms spent either more than the prescribed CSR or spent exactly as prescribed. This shows that there has been explicit compliance to the government’s legislation. There were only 19 percent of companies which either did not spend on CSR or their contributions were between 0.1 percent and 33 percent of the prescribed amount.

In fact, some of the prominent Indian businesses have been involved in philanthropy for long and have done a commendable job in non-profit causes. Those firms had their own foundations which were involved in philanthropic works. But still there were companies which did not take upon the responsibility to make contribution towards the society. There was a growing demand that the business sector needed to do more for the country’ socio economic development. It was then that the need for legislation was felt. The new law required companies with market capitalisation of more than 5 billion rupees to spend 2 percent of their annual net profits on CSR, such as social work or charity.

Poverty eradication, promotion of education and skills, rural sports, environment sustainability, protection of national heritage and contributions to prime minister’s relief fund were among the measures suggested by the government. But companies have expanded the scope and have brought under preview of CSR healthcare, gender equality, rural development, technology incubation, armed forces to name a few.

A close scrutiny of sector wise CSR spend shows that healthcare and education got the maximum boost. Nearly one third of the total actual CSR spent in the 2014-15 fiscal year was reserved for healthcare which saw the launch of 924 projects. Education and skills followed with 29 percent of total spent amount attracting 1,144 projects. Environment sustainability, rural development and gender equality were the other targeted areas of corporate business houses. The 2014-15 figures show that 55.63 billion rupees were spent under the CSR head as against the prescribed spend of 70.40 billion rupees amounting to 79 percent, which is very encouraging.

But not all the states have reaped the benefits as CSR activities have not covered the entire country in an equitable manner. Maharashtra, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Gujarat and Uttar Pradesh, which already figure in the top ten states as far as GDP growth is concerned, benefitted the most as far as the number of projects is concerned. On the contrary, the remote northeastern states of Tripura, Nagaland, Mizoram, Meghalaya and Manipur saw very little CSR spend.  Maharashtra, which is the country’s leading industrial state and number one in terms of GDP, bagged the maximum 948 projects, according to Ngobox. The country’s eight northeastern states, which contribute just 2.64 percent to the national economy, invited very less CSR spend. One reason can be attributed to the fact that most of the business offices have their presence in industrialized and software hubs where it is easier for them to implement and monitor the projects. The government and the corporate sector should chalk out a strategy to address this anomaly.

There are many who believe that the CSR scope can be widened by getting more companies under its net if the government offers 100 percent tax exemption. So far, the government has   announced 100 percent tax exemption in CSR activities for Clean Ganga Fund and Swachh Bharat Kosh. Contributions to Prime Minister's National Relief Fund are allowed as 100 percent deduction. The government can consider widening the activities under the CSR ambit for tax exemption to encourage business houses to participate in the nation-building exercise on a sustainable basis.

Sinister campaign to paint army as villain in Kashmir

Who should be held responsible for the death of five innocent civilians in Kashmir Valley last week? The submission by a minor girl before a chief judicial magistrate that she was not molested by a soldier exposes a sinister campaign to discredit security forces. Kashmir was on the boil all through last week after a rumour spread that an Indian soldier had tried to molest the minor girl. Angry mobs were out on the streets, shouting slogans, pelting stones at security forces and police. Who instigated them to create a law and order problem in the Valley? 

As it appears, there was a deliberate attempt to vitiate the atmosphere. And those who did it knew very well how the security forces would react. And the security forces fell into their trap by opening fire on a rowdy crowd which led to the death of five people who perhaps were not party to the conspiracy.  Among those who died was a young boy who wanted to represent Indian cricket team one day. It just took one rumour and five innocent lives were snuffed out leaving behind their families to mourn their loss forever.

It is a well known fact that there are some forces which do not want the presence of Indian army in Kashmir. From time to time, there have been vicious campaigns against the army over its alleged excesses on “innocents” and human rights violations in Kashmir Valley. The same forces have become active once again to discredit security forces which have been battling against all odds to maintain law and order situation in the state.

But normalcy is anathema to a few in Kashmir who are working against the interests of their own brethren. As long as their personal interests are served, they don’t mind sacrificing the lives of others. Their personal interests are well served as long as Kashmir remains tense. Kashmiris should ask themselves whether they have benefited by frequent “hartal” calls given by separatist leaders. Why is that innocent people get killed and instigators remain confined in safe environs?

Who will explain the latest killings? It is very easy to put the blame on security personnel who were forced to open fire. But who provokes them? They are often abused and ridiculed. A recent video which went viral speaks volumes about how security personnel have to put up with humiliation. The video of a soldier, who was chased, thrashed and humiliated by a bunch of young boys, showed his helplessness.  How does one expect a normal human being to react when his honour is at stake? And security personnel are humans too.

The political leadership of the state rushes to New Delhi every time any such incident happens. Every time, the oft-repeated arguments against Armed Forces (Special Powers) Acts (AFSPA) are put forward before the federal government. No state favours special powers which give soldiers virtual immunity from prosecution. But can security forces fight insurgency with their hands tied down? In fact, Indian army has on occasions taken punitive action against its soldiers whenever they were found to have violated norms. But human rights activists and critics say the prosecution process is slow and not all cases are probed.

Here in lies an important question. If security forces can be accused of human rights violations then so are violent protesters.  If security personnel come under attacks, what are they supposed to do? Should they become sitting ducks? Does the constitution not give them right to defend themselves if their lives are threatened? This is a question which needs to be debated at length. The AFSPA, which covers large parts of northeastern India and Kashmir, gives security forces powers to search, enter houses and shoot-on-sight. Human rights activists say the soldiers misuse the law and commit abuses, whereas the army says it needs the law to tackle insurgency. Both sides have contrarian view points. Special powers come with some responsibilities as well. The army will do well to get such unsavoury incidents probed by an independent commission.

All said and done, the casualties could have been avoided had the situation been handled tactfully. Why rumour mongers were allowed to have field day in the first place? The local government is equally responsible for not acting fast and allow the situation to simmer. A video first released by the army wherein the girl denied molestation by a soldier was trashed. The protesters claimed that the girl gave the statement under duress. Among those who doubted the veracity of the army video were myriad factions of the Hurriyat Conference which brought the Valley on a standstill by giving “hartal” calls for days together.  Should the Hurriyat not be held responsible for letting the situation deteriorate? It is disheartening to see the innocent youth falling victims to separatists’ agenda and losing their precious lives.

CAN INDIA TAKE PAKISTAN AT ITS FACE VALUE?

Has India scored a self-goal by inviting Pakistani investigating team to Pathankot? It would be naive to expect from Pakistan to agree to any amount of evidence shared with it in terror-related activities in India. For, any kind of admission will expose Pakistan to be bracketed as a rogue state, inviting harsh sanctions. Therefore, Pakistan cannot be expected to make a complete turnaround from what it has been parroting for the last several decades that it does not allow its territory to be used against any country, more so against India, for terror activities.

As expectedly, Pakistan’s Joint Investigation Team (JIT), which was taken to a guided tour of Pathankot air base, has reportedly debunked India’s claims that the militants came from Pakistan. Seven Indian security personnel were killed in the attack which continued for almost three days. Pakistani newspapers quoting JIT sources have termed the entire operation “stage-managed” by New Delhi to malign Islamabad. In all probability, New Delhi will lodge a strong protest when the JIT report is made public as Indian investigators earlier claimed that their Pakistani counterparts were stumped when presented with irrefutable evidences.

What will it lead to? The governments of both the countries will start trading charges and blame each other for not serious in jointly fighting the scourge of terrorism. With such misplaced adventurism, India is to be blamed for finding itself in a corner. The idea of inviting Pakistani investigators to India was ill-conceived in the very first place.  As tit-for-tat sharp exchanges likely in the days to come, the initiative taken by Prime Minister Narendra Modi to drop in unannounced in Lahore on Christmas day to shake hands with his Pakistani counterpart Nawaz Sharif and give a kick-start to stalled talks will go waste.

Modi will be heckled by the Opposition for moving too fast to repair badly bruised ties with Pakistan. Already, knives are out even within his party for his style of diplomacy couched in secrecy. The party’s senior leader and former Foreign Minister Yashwant Sinha, though now a spent force, was most vocal about Modi’s Lahore trip. That Pathankot happened within a week of his meeting with Sharif is a telling commentary of Pakistan’s cat and mouse game as far as the fight against terrorism is concerned. The attack once again proves that Pakistani generals are certainly not on board as far as mending relations between the two countries is concerned. Indian claims, if true, that the attack was masterminded and carried out by Pakistan-based Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM) sums up the story.

Had Pakistan been honest in its intent, it would have by now arrested the head of Jaish, Maulana Masood Azhar, whom India suspects of masterminding the Pathankot air base attack as well as the most daring attack on Indian parliament in 2001.  Instead, it lobbied with China which vetoed India’s request to add Azhar in the United Nations’ al Qaeda-Islamic State blacklist. China’s move is understandable but perplexing as well. When Jaish-e-Mohammad has already been blacklisted by the 15-nation Security Council, so why can’t its leader be? It shows that Pakistan does not want any harm to be done to Azhar who it considers to be a very important asset.

In fact, Pakistan has been in denial mode since it began using militants as a proxy to launch a low-cost limited war against India. It has been assiduously following the policy of dictator Zia ul Haq who propagated bleeding India through thousand cuts. Since then, Pakistan has sought to colour terrorism in Kashmir as freedom struggle. Pakistan’s three misadventures by going to war with India led to a rethink among the political and military establishment that it could not take its neigbour militarily. Therefore, it crafted a new strategy whereby militants would do the bidding on its behalf.  It started supporting, financing and arming local insurgents besides offering open support to the All Parties Hurriyat Conference, a political platform of the separatist movement to keep the Kashmir issue alive internationally.

Since 1988, when militancy first reared its head in Kashmir, at least 6,193 security forces have died fighting militants. A Jammu and Kashmir Data Sheets report updated till April 3, 2016 shows that 22,996 militants have been neutralised since then. The figure is alarming as one Indian soldier died as against the 3.71 mortality rate of militants. During the period 14,725 innocent civilians also lost their lives.

While Kashmir was on fire, a vicious campaign was carried out against the minority Hindus or Pandits as they are called in the state. A spate of killings followed persecution and threats by militants which led to the exodus of Kashmiri Hindus. Though the exact number of Pandits leaving the valley is not clear, according to conservative estimates, at least 100,000 of them were forced to leave the state. Thousands of them continue to live in the dingy squalid camps set up by the government in the Hindu-majority Jammu.

While Pakistan succeeded in engineering exodus of Hindus from Kashmir, the separatist movement started losing ground in subsequent years as locals became tired of supporting militancy which had only exacerbated their misery. The last two state elections are testimony to people’s disenchantment with separatists as they turned out in large numbers to participate in the democratic process. Several local militants, who felt cheated, also turned themselves to Indian authorities and most of them have joined the mainstream.

This was a major setback for Pakistan. As its overt and covert operations to destabilize Indian part of Kashmir failed, Pakistan began turning to various militant outfits which it had created and trained at its backyard. It started sending in militants belonging to Hizb-ul-Mujahideen, Harkat-ul-Mujahideen, Lashkar-e-Toiba, Jaish-e-Mohammed and Al-Badr to name a few to Kashmir who carried out some of the most audacious attacks on Kashmir as well as different parts of India. While offering sympathy to India soon after these attacks, Pakistan would routinely strut out its oft-repeated statement that it had not role and that it could be the handiwork of non-state actors. But who has been hosting those non-state actors? The problem is that the so-called world powers, which often call for a global action against terrorism, have been found wanting in their responses whenever India bled.

Therefore, to expect something unexpected from Pakistan is futile. All these promises of dialogues and cooperation in terrorism are nothing but an absurd pretence intended to create a pleasant or respectable appearance before the international community to escape their censure and economic sanctions. The plain truth is that Pakistan has been increasingly enmeshed in its devious stratagem from which it is hard for it to escape unscathed. 

CHECKMATE FOR THE US AS IT LOSES THE PLOT IN AFGHANISTAN

 

It has been 15 years since the US-led NATO forces landed in Afghanistan and ousted the Taliban from power, but the situation in the war-torn country is as fragile as it was then.  The western powers are now desperate to leave. But they can’t!  The US’ frustration is writ large as it seeks an early dialogue between Afghanistan government and the very Taliban forces which it ousted. But the Taliban won’t play ball.  In fact, the US-led forces are in for a rude and harsh summer.  The US had banked on Pakistan to cajole the Taliban leadership to come to the negotiating table. But that is not going to happen, at least, very soon.

Since the withdrawal of the bulk of the international troops, the Taliban have notched up considerable gains. It has widened its control to nearly one third of Afghanistan. And with just 13,000 largely non-combatant international troops, the powerful Taliban know that they can easily test and overrun Afghan security forces. The brief capture of the strategic northern city of Kunduz last year was a major embarrassment for the Afghan security forces. They could reclaim the territory only after the US carried out major air strikes. Since then, the Taliban have opened several fronts from Helmand in the south to Jowzjan province in the north, inflicting heavy casualties on Afghan security forces.

Afghanistan is proving to be a political liability for the US. If it stays longer, it faces strong backlash back home and if it withdraws, the country will fall to the Taliban.  It’s a classical case of entering a blind alley but not knowing how to come out of it. Whatever may be its political designs, the US has been sucked badly into a country where exit routes are not easy and not too many.

The US has only two options -- either to go in for a full-scale war to annihilate the Taliban or to find a solution through political means. The US has already exercised its first option and the result is for everybody to see. Already the US has lost 2,300 of its men. And it has cost the US more than 110 billion dollars since its forces first landed in Afghanistan in October 2001. Other than dislodging the Taliban government, the US has not achieved anything other than propping up a weak government as a prized trophy. In fact, the situation is becoming more alarming now.

The UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan has claimed that there has been a four percent rise in civilian casualties in 2015 compared to the previous year after the withdrawal of most international troops. At least 3,545 noncombatants died and another 7,457 were injured in fighting last year. Thirty-seven percent of the civilian casualties were caused due to ground engagements whereas another 21 percent people were either killed or injured during roadside bombings. Suicide attacks led to 17 percent civilian casualties. There was a sharp spike of 28 percent casualties to pro-government security forces in last year. And most of the casualties happened in Kunduz and Helmand provinces where the Taliban engaged Afghan security forces. According to the UN, there have been 59,000 civilian deaths and injuries since 2009.

Desperate to leave the killing fields of Afghanistan, which is increasingly becoming a graveyard for its forces, the US has fallen back on Pakistan to influence the Taliban to rejoin the peace talks. By doing so, the US has not only realized its folly but has admitted its defeat. Interestingly, Pakistan, which claims to have “considerable influence” over the Taliban after its admission of playing host to them, has been snubbed by the militant group. Early this month, Pakistan's adviser for foreign affairs Sartaj Aziz made a 180-degree turn by admitting that it can influence the Taliban because its leaders live in the country. This is what the Afghanistan leadership has been crying for the last so many years that the Afghan Taliban enjoys safe sanctuaries in Pakistan, a charge the latter had been denying and the US supposedly believing it. Aziz also claimed credit for pressuring Afghan Taliban leaders to participate in the first direct face-to-face talks with Kabul last year.

But Pakistan has been left embarrassed by the Taliban who have refused to take part in the peace talks. It has set some pre-conditions, hard to be accepted by the western forces, before joining the dialogue. It wants occupation of Afghanistan to end and release of innocent prisoners.  The Taliban has intentionally put tough conditions, knowing well that they will not be met, because the militia is itself in disarray after the announcement of the death of its founder Mullah Mohammed Omar.  Mullah Akhtar Mansour, who has taken over the reign since Omar’s death, is himself battling infighting as several groups are not only opposed to his leadership, but to talks, as well.  Another major hurdle is that there is no Taliban as such. There are several splinter groups which operate separately. Even if some groups may be interested in joining the negotiating table at some stage, there would certainly be some others who would not, and they would continue to wage an armed struggle. The other rival group, headed by Mullah Mohammad Rasoul, and opposed to the leadership of Mansour, has rejected the peace offer. In fact, the two groups have been fighting between themselves for supremacy.

There are no easy solutions to the crisis muddled by several powers. Afghanistan views Pakistan with suspicion as it is convinced of its role in fomenting trouble and creating instability there. Pakistan’s recent admission of hosting the Taliban leadership confirms Afghanistan’s fears that its neighbour has been planning and launching attacks from its soil. Pakistan pleases the US leadership by launching on-and-off operations against Taliban forces in its territory, which are inimical to the western interests in Afghanistan.

Why Afghanistan will continue to bleed is that nobody is interested in finding a reasonable solution. Half of the problem can be solved if Pakistan either launches a major offensive against the Taliban sheltered in its territory or drives them away to Afghanistan. But can Pakistan afford to do it? Pakistan risks inviting trouble for itself if it turns against the Taliban! Therefore, it has no option but to play cat and mouse game in Afghanistan.

The US has a limited role as far as pushing Pakistan is concerned. Pakistan was a major conduit between the US and the Mujahedeen in driving away Soviet forces from Afghanistan. Today, the Taliban has become Frankenstein's own monster. Its checkmate for the US in Afghanistan!

F-16 SWEETENER! SUSPICIOUS US FLIRTS WITH PAKISTAN AGAIN

The United States’ policy towards Pakistan is quite enigmatic. Over the years, the US has been found vacillating in its approach towards Pakistan. The US’ public posturing does not match with its actions. Its decision to sell $700 million F-16 fighter jets to Pakistan has not only riled India but divided members of the US’ Congress as well.  The lame duck President Barack Obama administration’s decision to go ahead with the proposed sale despite lawmakers’ concerns about Pakistan’s nuclear proliferation programme and its not-so-convincing commitment against the war on terrorism defies all logic. President Obama alone can’t be faulted as his predecessors also followed the same ambivalent and ambiguous policies towards Pakistan. Slam Pakistan to please India and then pamper it with billions of dollars in cash and military equipment is how one can sum up the policy of Washington.

On December 22, 2008, the then Pakistani National Security Adviser Mahmud Ali Durrani was summoned to Washington and was told tersely that its “shifty and shifting position on the Mumbai attacks” was unacceptable. And just a week before Durrani got the dressing down, the then US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, in a speech at the Council on Foreign Relations said “you (Pakistan) need to deal with the terrorism problem. And it’s not enough to say these are non-state actors. If they’re operating from Pakistan, then they have to be dealt with,” referring to Pakistan’s failure to arrest those responsible for the Mumbai attacks.

Has Pakistan dealt with the problem of terrorism? Has it withdrawn its support to the non-state actors? On the contrary, the so-called non-state actors have carried out several daring attacks on India and Afghanistan with active support from Pakistan’s military and its intelligence agency.  Pakistan itself has brazenly admitted its support to militant groups fighting its proxy war in Kashmir.

In October 2010, former Pakistani military ruler Pervez Musharraf told the German magazine, “Der Spiegel,” that his forces trained militant groups to fight in Indian- administered Kashmir. This was the first time such a senior figure in Pakistan admitted to something which India had been crowing for the last several decades. But Indian concerns were not taken note of as Pakistan was being considered an important ally of the US for its’ supposedly fight against terror groups in Afghanistan. But senior US officials had altogether different take on Pakistan’s dubious role in Afghanistan.

On September 22, 2011, the outgoing joint chiefs chairman Mike Mullen accused Pakistan's intelligence agency of supporting a Taliban-linked insurgent group which had carried out an audacious attack on the American embassy in Kabul which happened a week ago. He had then commented that “Pakistani duplicity puts in jeopardy not only the frayed US-Pakistani partnership against terrorism, but also the outcome to the decade-old war in Afghanistan.” In the words of the then defense secretary Leon Panetta, “Pakistani intelligence is using the Haqqanis and other extremist groups as its proxies inside Afghanistan.”

Next year, Obama administration decided to withhold more than one-third of all military assistance to Pakistan worth some $800 million. It included funding for military equipment and $300 million for counter-insurgency programmes.

The relations between the two countries nosedived after the US raided Osama bin Laden's secret compound inside Pakistan in May 2011 without even bothering to inform Pakistani authorities. It could not have been more humiliating than this for any sovereign country. But the US suspected that some elements in Pakistan could thwart its attempts to get Laden either alive or dead.  In fact, in his first interview to “60 Minutes” days after the killing of Laden, President Obama said his administration thought that there had to be some sort of support network for bin Laden. "But we don't know who or what that support network was," Obama added.  The comments reflected the US’ frustration with Pakistan.

Surprisingly, the US aid resumed two years later in 2013 when it quietly decided to release more than $1.6 billion in military and economic assistance to Pakistan. One fails to understand what happened in those two years that the US again turned to its so-called ally! Was it because Pakistan had started moving closer to China? Interestingly, officials and congressional aides said ties have improved enough to allow the money to flow again. Even if one were to believe that ties had improved, then what made the US to slam Pakistan again within a year for using militant proxies against India?

In its November 2014 report on “Progress Towards Security and Stability in Afghanistan,” tabled in the U.S. Congress, the Pentagon said, “Afghan and India - focused militants continue to operate from Pakistan territory to the detriment of Afghan and regional stability. Pakistan uses these proxy forces to hedge against the loss of influence in Afghanistan and to counter India's superior military.”

The Pentagon report certainly was at variance with the Obama administration’s new-found love for Pakistan. The Pentagon’s critical report came in a year when Narendra Modi swept to power and the Obama administration began viewing Indo-US relationship as “one of the defining partnerships of the century”.

As the bonhomie between Modi and Obama grew, the US President once again bracketed Pakistan with Afghanistan and the Middle East and warned that these countries could become safe havens for new terrorist networks. In his final State of the Union address on January 13 this year, Obama said : “For even without IS, instability will continue for decades in many parts of the world -- in the Middle East, in Afghanistan and Pakistan, in parts of Central America, Africa and Asia. Some of these places may become safe havens for new terrorist networks.”

And President Obama followed it again after the terror attack on Pathankot air base early this January. Describing the terror attack on the IAF base in Pathankot as "another example of the inexcusable terrorism that India has endured for too long", President Obama told Pakistan that it "can and must" take more effective action against terrorist groups operating from its soil by "delegitimising, disrupting and dismantling" terror networks there. A very hard-hitting statement, indeed!

Are President Obama and his administration now convinced that Pakistan has delegitimized, disrupted and dismantled terror networks operating there? Has Pakistan, according to President Obama, taken effective action against terrorist groups to qualify for the renewed military assistance?

What is hard to digest is the US’ defence over sale of F16 fighter jets to Pakistan. The US State Department spokesperson Helaena W. White said:  “We support the proposed sale of eight F-16s to Pakistan to assist Pakistan’s counter-terrorism and counter-insurgency operations. Pakistan’s current F-16s have proven critical to the success of these operations to date.”

Who the US is trying to fool with such inane justification? It has been providing F-16 fighters to Pakistan since the 80s. Had Pakistan been using these fighter planes against militant groups, terrorism would have been on its last legs. In fact, these planes are being used against separatist insurgents in the restive province of Baluchistan, in Pakistan's North Waziristan regions. At a time when both India and the US are intensely engaged in fighting the scourge of terrorism, this decision will not go down well with New Delhi, which has rightly registered its strongest protest with Washington.

DO-OR-DIE BATTLE FOR BJP AND CONGRESS IN ASSAM

 

Election bugle has been sounded for four states and a union territory and Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s

Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) faces a daunting task after its two back-to-back humiliating defeats in Delhi and Bihar.  The party can fancy its chances in Assam only where Chief Minister Tarun Gogoi is battling anti-incumbency after staying in power for 15 years.  In the remaining states of Kerala, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal and union territory of Puducherry, it has very negligible presence.

The BJP is desperate to expand its footprint in the remote northeastern part of the country after its astonishing performance in Assam in the last general elections where it bagged seven out of the 14 seats. This time, the BJP has stitched together a formidable alliance by netting its off-an-on ally Asom Gana Parishad (AGP), a former ally of the Congress – Bodoland People’s Front – and dissident Congress leaders. The BJP’s state chief Sarbananda Sonowal, who has been declared as a chief ministerial candidate, was a long time associate of AGP before he joined hands with the saffron party.  It also embraced 10 Congress MLAs led by Himanta Biswa Sarma, an influential minister in the Gogoi cabinet, after their defections. The BJP will be banking heavily on the experience of Sarma, who oversaw the last assembly elections and engineered the Congress’ astounding victory when political pundits were writing the obituary of the grand old party in the state. The Congress triumphed in 79 of the 126 seats.

On the paper, the BJP looks set to upset the applecart of the Congress, which failed to strike a pre-poll alliance with Badruddin Ajmal-led All India United Democratic Front (AIUDF). Their common vote bank – the Muslim vote – is likely to be split as both the parties derive maximum political strength from Muslim-dominated areas. The AIUDF doubled its strength from 9 to 18 in the last assembly elections contesting on 77 seats.

The BJP has improved its vote share between the 2011 assembly election and 2014 general elections incredibly. From 11.5 percent, the BJP’s vote share jumped more than three-fold to 36.5 percent in the last parliamentary elections. In contrast, the Congress’ vote share fell down from 39.9 percent in 2011 to 29.9 percent in the general elections, a massive erosion of 10 percent in its vote share. It remains to be seen whether the BJP will succeed in repeating or improving its 2014 performance because the saffron party was helped largely by a massive wave in favour of Modi then. Much water has flown down the Brahmaputra since then. There has been dip in the popularity of Modi as he has struggled to implement any of his much flaunted promises. To make matters worse, the economy is not doing as well as one expected.

The BJP in Assam represents a rainbow party with members largely drawn from other parties. It has recruited Congress dissidents, members of the All Assam Students’ Union (AASU), the student wing of the AGP, and surrendered cadres of the United Liberation Front of Asom (ULFA) which waged an armed struggle against the state. Even its face in the state, Sonowal, was president of AASU. It will be interesting to watch how this rag-tag bunch of politicians stays together as everybody will be demanding its pound of flesh.

As of now, it is advantage BJP as it has tied up with AGP and Bodoland People’s Front (BPF). All the three parties have a common cause as far as their opposition to the illegal immigrants from Bangladesh is concerned. But its decision to take the Congress dissidents in its fold, with complete different political ideology, will be tested in the polls. This is a major irritant in otherwise a perfect combo to take on the veteran Gogoi who will find the going tough this time. The AGP’s decision to flirt again with the Hindu party after burning bridges with it in the past underlines its desperation as its fortunes have been constantly on the downslide and is losing political space in the state. In fact, the BJP’s growth story in Assam has been largely at the expense of the AGP. Interestingly, both the parties have fared badly whenever they entered into an alliance in the past. Their first attempt to come together ended in a catastrophe in 2001 as the then ruling AGP was unseated by the Congress. In that election, the AGP managed just 20 seats whereas the BJP bagged eight seats. The two parties against decided to kiss and make up in the 2009 Lok Sabha elections. The decision boomeranged on the AGP which won just one seat whereas the BJP triumphed in four seats. In the last assembly elections, both the BJP and AGP went separately.  The AGP bettered BJP as it netted 10 seats out of 104 seats on which it contested whereas the BJP managed just five out of 120 seats on which it went to polls.

If one tallies the 2011 vote share of all the three parties which contested the elections separately – the BJP, AGP and BPF -- it was 33 percent, which was about six percent short of the Congress. The permutation this time favours the BJP-led alliance as Gogoi has been incapacitated due to defection by Sarma, considered to be the master strategist and architect of Congress victory in the last elections.  But predicting elections is not an easy task in India as several pollsters have burned their hands in the past with their prognosis going wayward.

Assam election is a do-or-die battle for both the Congress and BJP. Both the parties need to win this high stake election. The Congress has not won a single state election after its disastrous performance in the 2014 general elections, though it took some solace in last year’s victory in Bihar being part of the Grand Alliance.  Riding on the wave of Modi’s popularity in general elections, the BJP snatched some big wins in Haryana, Jharkhand, Maharashtra, and formed the government in Kashmir as a junior partner.  But it began with a disastrous note in the next year as it was annihilated completely first in Delhi by the rookie Aam Aadmi Party and then by the RJD-JDU-Congress alliance in Bihar.

The results in Delhi and Bihar are a big question mark on the popularity of the BJP whose career graph is on the downhill as the Modi magic has started fading. Therefore, both the parties will go for the kill in Assam to recover the lost ground. But will they be able to pull off an outright victory? I have my doubts. My bets are on a hung legislative assembly with no political party or group in a position to form the government.

AN INTOLERANT DEMOCRACY!

Where are we hurtling to? Our constitutional forefathers must be turning in their graves as we are introduced to a new culture where difference of opinion is being seen as an act of anti-nationalism. Dissent, we are made to understand, is a three-letter word SIN. The concept of new one India means everybody will have to toe a particular ideology. That is NATIONALISM.  And if one does not kowtow to that ideology which defines rabid form of nationalism, he or she may even be branded a TRAITOR. Till now, India was seen as the epitome of the world because of its fundamental diversity. Right to freedom of speech as enshrined in our constitution, thus far, had been the essence of free society that India represented. But not, any more! Welcome to the new India!

What happened in the country’s prestigious Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) can’t be condoned. Every right-thinking person will condemn the behavior of a few misguided youths who allegedly shouted anti-India slogans and gave inflammatory speeches. But the government crackdown on JNU is equally reprehensible. The university should have been left to handle the issue, rather than the State taking the matter into its hand.

But as it appears now, a deliberate and diabolic attempt was made to create a controversy out of an issue, which is questionable. A sinister campaign was unleashed to brand the students of JNU as anti-nationalists on the basis of a controversial video, which was alleged to be doctored. And if it is proved that the video was indeed tampered with, will the political establishment and the so-called intelligentsia, which went on an overdrive in running down students and all those who stood up to lend their voice for them, stand up and apologize? Should they not be tried for attempting to polarize the society through their unabashed venomous campaigns?  The so-called self-proclaimed nationalists should hang their heads in shame because they are equal partners in the crime.

The issue has singed several universities across India after Delhi police arrested JNU students’ union president Kanhaiya Kumar and slapped sedition charges against him. Police have yet to find any credible and irrefutable evidence against Kumar, who has claimed that he was not part of an event commemorating the death anniversary of parliament attack convict Afzal Guru. The outcry against police action is growing since then and the students have been joined by politicians cutting across party lines inviting tag of “traitors” by the practitioners of nationalism. What essentially was a fight between two ideologies has been escalated to “US AND THEM” represented by jingoist nationalists and “anti-nationalists”.

 Wear your heart on your sleeve and become a champion of nationalism and you will get away with anything, even if you attack journalists, including women, bully students, that too, in the precincts of temple of justice! And the police will not do anything! The Men in Black pounced on students and journalists, but our Police Commissioner Mr. Bhim Sain Bassi, eyeing a lucrative government job post retirement, did not see any merit in arresting that bunch of hooligans! Even before a court could pronounce judgment, those lawyers purportedly linked to Hindu groups declared Kumar and his supporters guilty and took law into their hands. Was that not a crime that necessitated police action, Mr. Bassi? Encouraged by the police inaction or collusion, whatever it may be, the same bunch of lawyers repeated the offence and later took out a rally. But no action, again! Oh! They were NATIONALISTS. Holding high the national flag, they were chanting “BHARAT MATA KI JAI”. So, how could they be held responsible? Right, Mr. Bassi?

A six-member committee of senior lawyers appointed by the Supreme Court following the Patiala courts violence commented that that the attackers were shielded by the police. Not taking action against lawyers owing allegiance to the ruling establishment is your definition of maintaining law and order situation, Mr. Bassi? Sir, you have failed the nation by abdicating your responsibility as police commissioner. And rightly, you have been denied the post of information commissioner that you were eyeing to please your political masters.

Is JNU incident an aberration? Certainly not! Attacks on minorities by spreading rumours have increased in the past 20 months since the new government assumed office. Last September, a poor Mohammad Akhlaq in Dadri district was mercilessly beaten to death by a rampaging mob infuriated by rumours that he and his family consumed beef.  An inquiry revealed that the meat over which Akhlaq was lynched was, in fact, mutton.

What happened to rationalists Dabholkar, Pansare and Kalburgi? They were violently silenced forever for believing and practicing in freedom of speech.

The writers and scholars have been hounded and punished for believing that they could practice free speech in the independent India. How foolish were they? In 2013, Narendra Dabhokar had to pay a heavy price for campaigning against religious superstitions. He was murdered. In February last year, communist leader Govind Pansare was killed. And months later, the 77-year-old M. M. Kalburgi, who was against Hindu idol worship, was gunned down in broad day-light. Where are we headed to? Why can’t there be room for different viewpoints in a pluralistic society? Sadly, the State has failed in its responsibility to protect the society from these fundamentalist forces who want to implement their own agenda. The increasing Talibanisation of Indian culture is very worrisome.  

A systematic effort is being made to infiltrate educational and cultural institutions with people having roots with a particular ideology. Foisting a not-so-qualified Gajendra Chauhan on the students of the premier Film and Television Institute of India is one among a few examples. His appointment was opposed by all and sundry, but the government of the day was unmoved forcing students to abandon their classes and take to streets.

At stake is the very democratic quintessence in our institutions and education system. Any attempt to impose a particular ideology and values in educational institutions and universities will not only weaken but lead to the complete collapse of the system. It is a dangerous trend which should best be avoided.

The people are anguished over the complete silence by Narendra Modi, who recently told parliamentarians during an all-party meeting that he is not the prime minister of BJP, but the prime minister of the country. Why does not his soul stir as some of his cabinet ministers and his party members continue to make stinking comments? It is high time the “Pradhan Sevak” of the country reins in such fringe elements which are bent to destroy the social fabric of the country.

MEHBOOBA IS NOT MUFTI

It has been a month since Mufti Mohammed Sayeed passed away and Jammu and Kashmir has remained headless since then. There seems to be serious reservations between the alliance partners – People’s Democratic Party (PDP) and Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) – to take a shot at government formation again. While the BJP would like to continue with the alliance, it is the PDP which is weighing its options to enter into an unholy alliance again.  Mehbooba Mufti, the political heiress of Mr. Sayeed, is in a quandary. She was dead against her father’s decision to join hands with the rival BJP. Both the parties had spoken ill against each other when the state went to polls in 2014. In fact, Mehbooba was the most vitriolic against the BJP. But the fractured verdict saw the birth of an alliance whose survival was in doubt from the very first day.

There has been nothing in common between the two parties. The two share extreme opposite views on important issues, on which the PDP fought the elections and emerged as the single largest party. The PDP favours immediate resumption of a dialogue with Kashmiri separatists. The BJP is opposed to it. In fact, the days-old alliance had run into rough weather after the release of Masarat Alam and his subsequent arrest under pressure from the BJP.  Expressing his anger in parliament, Prime Minister Narendra Modi accused the Mufti of not consulting his government before releasing Alam, unaware of the fact that the state home department had taken a decision much before the formation of the government.

The PDP wants the controversial AFSPA (Armed Forces Special Powers Act) to be withdrawn, at least from some areas, one of its major election promises. But the country’s ruling party feels that the withdrawal of AFSPA entails security risks at a time when incidents of militancy have increased since both the parties came to power.  Such has been opposition to the alliance that several angry youth from Mehbooba’s stronghold South Kashmir have picked up gun again and have hoisted Islamic State flags, causing alarm bells. 

For the BJP, the abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution, which grants special status to the state of Jammu and Kashmir, is part of its core ideology. For the PDP, it is an article of faith. The two parties don’t see eye to eye on hoisting the state flag alongside the national tricolor. The controversy over beef consumption has also created a divide between the two parties. In fact, it was a BJP member who filed a PIL against the sale and slaughter of beef in the state where Muslims are in majority in the Kashmir Valley. The fault lines are too many to be ceased soon.

There is palpable anger among the PDP cadres over the government’s failure to rehabilitate the 2014 flood victims. The PDP has lost its face considerably in the Kashmir Valley as the relief has barely trickled in. The rehabilitation of flood victims was one of the main issues on which the Mufti had decided to join hands with the BJP in the hope that its government at the centre would be more sympathetic and release a healthy package. But the state government was left sulking when Modi announced the package last year.

Unlike Mufti Sayeed, who was mature in dealing with such irritants, Mehbooba is very vocal. Having seen collapse of governance in the first 10 months of the coalition rule, she wants written assurances from Modi, who is loathe to such an idea. With both the parties playing hard ball, it is unlikely that any of the two will blink first not before extracting its pound of flesh. In the death of Mufti Sayeed, the BJP sniffed an opportunity to increase its stake in the state cabinet and rotation of the post of chief minister by putting pressure on young Mehbooba. But that gamble not only went horribly wrong, it also backfired. Such pressure tactics further led to widening the chasm between the two parties. The trust deficit between the two parties has since widened.

Mehbooba does not have many political choices. Either she continues with the alliance, risking her party’s popularity, or calls for fresh elections. In going for elections, both the PDP and the BJP will suffer the most as their stocks have gone down considerably in the state and the likely beneficiary will be the National Conference. Mehbooba can still run the government after snapping ties with the BJP with the help from the Congress and independents. The Congress with 12 seats and five independents can bail out the PDP which has 28 seats in the 87-member assembly. This is a possible scenario. But will Mehbooba be prepared to suffer the humiliation as her party had snubbed the Congress when the latter had offered its unconditional support to it to form the government after no party got enough seats to form the government on its own? Politics is a strange theatre where unthinkable can also happen. Divorce and remarriage is not a taboo anymore in Indian society and certainly not in politics. Will Mehbooba opt for divorce? Only time will tell.

DAWN OF DEMOCRACY IN MYANMAR

Myanmar finally succeeded in realizing the dream for democracy after decades of struggle as the first popularly elected parliament in more than a half century held its first sitting early this week. It will go down as a landmark in history of Myanmar because of the smooth drawn-out transfer of power from the deeply entrenched junta to the first democratically elected government since 1962. And it could not have been made possible without the efforts of Aung San Suu Kyi, who did not waver in her struggle for democracy, despite being put under house arrest for more than 15 years.

Suu Kyi’s National League of Democracy-dominated parliament will officially begin its term in April after the election of a new president. Amidst an air of new-found optimism, the next few months will be full of anxiety. Suu Kyi can’t become the president under the controversial 2008 constitution. According to the military-drafted constitution, those with children who have foreign nationality are barred from the office of the country’s top post. Suu Kyi has two sons from her late husband, who are British. Her comments that she will be “above the president” and in complete control of the government have not gone down well with the military which will be sharing power in the new government. Has she envisioned a role for herself like India’s Congress party president Sonia Gandhi, who wielded considerable power despite being out of government when she made Manmohan Singh the prime minister in May 2014? Suu Kyi has remained tight-lipped so far as to who will replace the outgoing President Thein Sein.

Election of a new president is a long drawn out exercise in Myanmar. Unlike the most prevalent democratic practices, the President will not be chosen directly by the party or the voters. The parliament’s two chambers will choose a presidential candidate each and the military, which controls a quarter of seats, will also name its nominee. The two houses will then vote for the three candidates. The candidate winning the most of the votes will become president where as the other two will be his deputies. Here again one of the vice-presidents of the country will be from the military which has ensured a role for itself in managing the legislature.

Suu Kyi knows it very well that pressing her stake for the country’s top post right now will only vitiate the atmosphere and the fragile bonhomie that exists between her and the military generals may soon be a thing of the past. There is a likely possibility that Suu Kyi may appoint a figure-head president but will pull the strings of the government indirectly. The military has dropped enough indications that it is averse to changing the statute to make Suu Kyi the President of the country. In fact, Suu Kyi held a series of meetings with the ruling junta leaders soon after her landslide victory in the November elections. But the generals were unmoved.

As things stand today, Suu Kyi will have to work in tandem with the military as she attempts to deepen the roots of democracy in the country. Her victory was celebrated across the world. The international community hoped that Suu Kyi would usher in the truest form of democracy in Myanmar after her resounding victory. In the months to come, the army, which has ruled the country with an iron fist for almost half a century, will feel the heat from the global community as Myanmar will have to open its doors to the outside world for investments.  Myanmar will also be under pressure to unleash more political and economic reforms to create a favourable environment for foreign investors.

 “The Lady”, as Suu Kyi is known in Myanmar, is a revered figure. The people of the country voted for her party only to see her becoming the president of the country. In fact, she received a shot in the arm recently when a former defence minister and commander in chief, Tin Oo, also threw his weight behind her and supported her bid for the presidentship. The old lady knows that sooner or later the army will have to change its attitude and will have to listen to the voice of the people. Patience and perseverance will finally reward her with the coveted post.

But most importantly, it remains to be seen how the NLD will be able to implement its agenda of governance. The top three security ministries, namely defence, border and home affairs, will remain in the hands of the military under the constitution which was carefully drafted by the junta to establish its influence on politics. The military even tried to bring immigration matters under its control, but the proposal was voted down by outgoing lawmakers last week.

Suu Kyi will thus have to tread very cautiously as she begins her new inning. She can’t afford to take on the military, which has in the past prevented her from becoming the president and putting her under house arrest despite winning the 1990 elections overwhelmingly. She does not have much choice but to engage with the military. With both the NLD and the military having very little in common as far as their positions on important issues are concerned, it will not be an easy journey ahead. The NLD will be forced into constant negotiations with the military.

Aware of the challenges, Suu Kyi has tried to buy peace with the military establishment by making it clear that she is in no hurry for an immediate overhaul of the constitution and her focus is on the future. In fact, she took a step towards national reconciliation by offering the posts of deputy parliamentary speakers to the defeated Union Solidarity and Development Party and an ethnic minority Arakan National Party despite stiff opposition from her party.

Expectations are high for the Nobel peace laureate to cure the ills of the country from transforming an economy hit by decades of isolation to bringing peace with several of the country’s major ethnic armed groups, particularly in Kachin and Shan states.  Myanmar needs a new political and economic change that will uplift the impoverished nation of more than 51 million people. One of Southeast Asia’s poorest countries, Myanmar’s economy is in a shambles. The previous quasi-civilian government under ex-general Thein Sein undertook some reforms, both political and economic, which led to the lifting of sanctions. But challenges are too many for Suu Kyi. The new government has to outline vision on important policies which should not be seen a marked departure from the previous regime. She has a daunting task ahead in getting the country back on track.

GARBAGE POLITICS IN DELHI AT WHOSE COST?

As the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) indulge in blame game over non-payment of salaries of municipal workers, it is Delhi which is paying a heavy price. Nobody knows who is speaking the truth or who is lying. But the fact is that people of Delhi have been made to suffer. In this tussle of one upmanship between BJP and AAP, politicians have been playing with the lives of the people. Politicians should hang their heads in shame for stooping so low just only to belittle their rivals. Whosoever is behind this crass kind of politics is the worst enemy of humankind!

Keeping the city clean is the job of the municipal corporation. When it can’t do its job properly then questions will be raised about the need of such a money guzzler body. Will Delhi not be better off if the job of cleanliness is outsourced to a private party which will be answerable? There is no doubt that the municipal corporation is plagued with corruption, and presided over by inept officials. There are a large number of ghost employees who are in cahoots with corrupt higher officials and drawing monthly salaries.  Then there are many registered employees who have outsourced their work to poor rag pickers and are doing side business. One gets to see the so-called MCD employee during important festivals like Diwali and Holi when they drop in to demand “bakshish”. A close scrutiny of the corporation books will unmask the ugly and corrupt accounting practices.

Never before Delhi witnessed such a culture of MCD employees dumping garbage at important intersections of the city? And this time it became dirtier when the protesting employees deposited heaps of garbage at the residences of government ministers to express their anger. Their anguish is understandable. Running the house without getting salaries for months is not a joke. And that too when prices of essential commodities are hitting the roofs! “Achche Din” is nothing but a “jumla” for them. What do you say, Mr. Amit Shah?

Going to strike is the fundamental right of municipal employees when the State fails them. But, it would have been better had they opted for some other novel method. Delhi generates roughly 9,000 metric tonnes of garbage every day. If this is not collected for days together, one can understand the amount of garbage littered across the city. It is unhygienic for the city. Uncollected garbage poses serious health hazards which can cause outbreaks of various diseases. And these diseases can strike anybody, including sanitation workers and their families. Therefore, this practice of protest should best be avoided.

One must complement the Public Works Department, Delhi Jal Board and the volunteers of AAP who came forward to clean the city. Had the garbage not been cleared and rains had come, the situation could have been very grave. Here again, the politics came to the fore with the BJP terming it a photo-op act by AAP functionaries. The BJP forgets that Prime Minister Narendra Modi also wielded broom in Delhi’s Valmiki colony and a spade in Varanasi at the ghats of the Ganges as part of his “Swatch Bharat Abhiyan”. Was that also a political stunt then? Unlike the Prime Minister, who did “shram daan” only for a few minutes before a battery of cameramen and photographers, the AAP volunteers were seen collecting stinking garbage.

The BJP could have escaped the censure had it taken the initiative. All the three municipal corporations are ruled by the BJP. And if the sanitation workers stopped work, the BJP, which claims to be the world’s largest political party among the democratic countries, could have asked its volunteers to do the job and contribute to the Prime Minister’s “Swatch Bharat Abhiyan”. Sadly, the BJP’s refrain is -- will not do anything and not let others to do.

Delhi has been suffering since the BJP was decimated by the rookie party in last year’s elections. The people of Delhi are being punished for voting overwhelmingly for the AAP.  The BJP will do well not to resort to the “revenge” politics. Not only did it face ignominious defeat in Delhi, it had to bite the dust in Bihar as well. The forthcoming elections in four states and a union territory also don’t seem to bring any good news for the country’s ruling party.  The country needs development and not garbage. And stinking politics will only sink the party which practices it. 

SRI LANKA MULLS POLITICAL REFORMS AS IT WRITES A NEW CONSTITUTION

Sri Lanka’s reformist President Maithripala Sirisena has lived up to his election promise as he has proposed a new constitution aimed at devolving power, a long-pending demand of the country’s minorities, including the Tamils. One hopes the constitution, once adopted, will genuinely usher in national unity in the country, which was torn apart by the 26-year-long armed conflict between security forces and the Tamil Tiger rebels. Even after the end of the fierce conflict in 2009, the island nation has been struggling to establish bonafide democracy and restore fundamental rights to all its citizens.  President Sirisena should be lauded as he is making an honest attempt to put an end to ethnic tensions that led to a long and bitter civil war in which more than 100,000 people were killed.

The new constitution seeks to guarantee fundamental rights and freedoms that assure human dignity and promote responsible and accountable government. It is a bold statement which attempts to take reconciliatory steps to reach out to all communities. 

President Sirisena’s comments that the constitution must “suit the needs of the 21^st century and make sure all communities live in harmony” are aimed at addressing the concerns of Tamil minority, which felt alienated in the previous set-ups.

The proposed constitution also seeks to overhaul the present electoral system which many considered flawed and non-representative. There is a proposal to increase the seats in the country’s parliament from 225 seats to 237. Besides 145 elected representatives, it seeks to select 55 representatives on a proportional representation basis keeping in mind the interests of all the communities. Another 37 representatives will come from a national list of candidates. The proposed changes make the political system more transparent and inclusive. The thrust is to unify different ethnic communities by giving them proportionate representation, something which was missing in the constitution since the country gained independence from Britain in 1948. The successive governments always bowed to the pressures from the powerful majority ethnic Sinhala community which was against any power-sharing deal with the minority ethnic Tamils.

Another major contentious issue has been the denial of higher government positions to the ethnic Tamils by the successive governments after the independence. During the British regime, the local Tamils were favoured for key government positions over the Sinhalese. Tamils’ alienation grew into frustration as the governments started ignoring their interests and pandering to the majority Sinhalese population.  This led to the creation of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam or LTTE which waged an armed struggle against the government for the creation of an independent state for the country’s minority Tamils.

The seriousness of the new government in carrying out political reforms is beyond doubt as it agreed to investigate alleged war crime allegations against government troops and LTTE rebels only a few months ago. The government has pledged a truth and reconciliation commission to investigate the charges, which, however, falls short of the demands for an internationally-backed judicial   inquiry. A United Nations report estimates that at least 40,000 Tamil civilians may have been killed in the final months of the civil war when the then government of President Mahinda Rajapaksa launched a massive military operation to crush the separatist LTTE and reclaim the areas controlled by it.

Sadly, the proposed reforms, which have far reaching consequences, are being fiercely opposed by some disgruntled elements led by the former President Rajapaksa who have accused the government of kowtowing to the western nations. Attempts are also being made to fan communal tensions by opponents who say the new government is diluting the main religion, Buddhism. Rajapaksa and his family, which had completely monopolized the power, are opposing the proposal to abolish the Executive Presidency for political motives only. The draconian powers of the Executive Presidency were first introduced by the then President J. R. Jayewardene in 1978 weakening the authority and supremacy of parliament.  No government had misused the Executive Presidency as much as President Rajapaksa did.

The challenges are too many for President Sirisena who is seeking to restore the credibility of parliament and address the genuine concerns of the Tamils within the framework of the constitution. There is no doubt that Sri Lanka desperately needs a new constitution which seeks to democratize the existing institutions and establish the rule of law. Sirisena was voted to power on these twin promises. Now that the people have given him a mandate, no attempt should be made to weaken that mandate.