Recent Developments in Sri Lanka

Dr N Manoharan
Senior Research Fellow, IPCS

The situation in Sri Lanka is complex and violence has escalated to a new high and is characterised by attacks ranging from claymore mines to shootouts. This has seriously strained the ongoing ceasefire and put a question mark over the peace process in the long-term. In addition, the crisis has been responsible for a large influx of refugees into India.

The violence is mostly concentrated in the north and east of Sri Lanka, with some fallouts in Colombo. In the north, the majority of violent incidents are taking place around high security zones. In the east, due to ethnic mix of the region, (Sinhalese, Tamils and Muslims are equal in number) hostilities are intense and complex in the districts of Trincomalee, Batticaloa, and Amparai.

Various kinds of actors are involved; they fall under two broad categories:

1. State and the allied armed groups: Security forces comprising the army, navy, air force, paramilitary and the police are ably aided by Tamil armed groups opposed to the LTTE. Most notable amongst them are the Karuna group headed by "Col" V. Muralidharan; EPDP, led by Douglas Devananda; PLOTE under D. Siddharthan, and EPRLF faction, headed by Varatharaja Perumal. This apart, there are some Muslim groups that operate along with security forces.

2. The LTTE and its armed cadres: Consists of its army, the sea wing, the emerging air wing, and the notorious suicide wing (Black Tigers). In addition, the LTTE also trains civilians.

The escalation of violence has been significant since Karuna broke away from the LTTE in March 2004 and started resorting to 'hit and run' tactics against the LTTE in the east. The LTTE is able to hold ground in the east, but has not been able to control it effectively due to the Karuna factor. Since Mahinda Rajapakse became President in November 2005, there has been an upsurge in violence, which continues till date. The mode of attacks has been mainly through claymore mines, hand grenades, pistols and assault rifles.

The Sri Lanka Monitoring Mission could not do much to minimise the ceasefire violations because of the inherent weakness of its mandate. While both parties have been talking of their commitment to peace, on the contrary they are not working towards it and the peace process is sinking. The Geneva talks in February 2006, focused exclusively on how to improve the ceasefire and proved to be a futile exercise. Since both sides failed to implement their part of the agreed commitments, the second round scheduled in April 2006 at Geneva did no takeoff. Despite various efforts by the international community, both sides remain obdurate.

Question, Answer & Discussion

Comment: First, to get a correct perspective it is important to assess where the parties stand. It is important to see whether the Sri Lankan forces are better equipped. Secondly, how has Karuna affected the position of LTTE? In addition, the resolution plans should have elements that are acceptable to the Tamils.

Comment: India should demonstrate a greater commitment towards resolving the Sri Lanka conundrum. The general rhetoric is that India's role should be greater politically and diplomatically. On the military front, India is providing limited support through. As for the refugees, the numbers are not yet a big problem.

Comment: The morale of the Sri Lankan armed forces remains very low. Therefore, even with superior numbers, it will never be able to win a ground victory over the LTTE as experience of recent years has shown. Despite various curbs, supply lines of the Tigers are intact. The funding has not been affected despite international curbs. Though government forces are far superior in numbers, the morale is not high. Furthermore, there is a problem of desertions between 10-20 per cent.

Comment: The situation in Sri Lanka is disturbing. There is only one end to this - separation. When Sri Lanka breaks apart, India will have to deal with two utterly miserable countries. These entities can survive only as a location for outsourcing and as a provider of services. These are the only two ways small nations can fit into the world economic framework.

Comment: India stands for the territorial integrity of Sri Lanka, but at the same time wants grievances of the Tamils to be addressed. India has to look into how the situation in Sri Lanka would affect its own position since neither side is willing to make political compromises. If one projects into the future assuming that two new entities would emerge out of the Sri Lankan conflict, India can do business with both in this era of globalization. Sri Lankans have proved their entrepreneurial capacity. There is no reason why two small nations cannot flourish economically. Singapore is the best example to prove this.

Comment: There is no need for India's involvement. If it does then it would be a failure. India should deal with the situation in an unconventional manner. India needs to feel the pulse of the people i.e. what do the people think. In this regard, both Tamils and Sinhalese are desperate for peace and favour any kind of peaceful settlement.

Question: How important is the JVP for the survival of the government? Is the JVP's support crucial for the government?
Answer: The JVP has 39 seats of a total of 225 seats in the Parliament. Its support is crucial for the survival of the government. At the same time, due to executive presidential system the President, who is all powerful, could function independent of Parliament and still run the government. At the same time, the JVP, despite making contradictory noises on the ethnic issue, would not unsettle the government at this point of time for its own interests.

Question: What are the sources for LTTE's weapons?
Answer: One cannot exactly pinpoint the exact source of the weapons. The weapons and finance comes from all over the world. The main source, however, has been southeast Asia and Africa.

Question: Does the Sri Lankan government have plans for a settlement of the issue?
Answer: Unlike the previous President Chandrika Kumaratunga, Rajapakse does not have any concrete plans for the settlement of the issue. What he has spelled out clearly has been a firm commitment to the unitary status of the country.

Question: What are the implications of the recently concluded Tamil Nadu elections on the Sri Lankan ethnic issue?
Answer: Given the combination of forces in the present government in Tamil Nadu, a status quo on Sri Lanka might continue. The DMK, which is know for its pan-Tamil ideology, does not have a majority of its own, but requires the support of Congress (I), and the Congress is not comfortable with the LTTE. Overall, the ethnic issue is no more an emotional issue in Tamil Nadu for the political parties to convert them into ballots.

Recent Developments In Nepal

PG Rajamohan
Research Fellow, IPCS

The month of May saw important developments in Nepal. In terms of political developments, the most important event was the formation and expansion of the Cabinet, and the proclamation of the House of Representatives to make major changes such as the name of the country to the Kingdom of Nepal, removing all mention of the royalty from all state institutions, separating the army from the monarchy, abolishing the advisory council for the king, etc. Furthermore, measures were also taken against previous government and royalists where, for example, an important white paper was passed that outlined problems of inflation, expenditure on security forces, etc. Also, the municipal councils were dissolved and the government suspended the heads of security forces.

In terms of initiatives for the peace talks, significant improvements were made this month from the Maoists, who announced a three month ceasefire and the government too announced an indefinite ceasefire. Furthermore, the government also removed the red corner notice, as well as the terrorist tag associated with the Maoists and withdrew all criminal charges against a number of Maoist leaders. In addition, a number of leaders were released, and the Maoists have demanded the further release of all leaders. Peace talk teams were formed by the Maoists to propagate their ideas for a settlement and carry these ideas forth to the people. The government also decided to form a three member committee for the talks.

The Maoists have also emerged in a new political environment and have begun to share the stage with government officials in matters related to the peace talks, and the establishment of a new order in Nepal. They are now conducting meetings with the government, whilst warning the government and pushing the government to be more active. The government, however, in certain instances has been pointing a finger at the Maoists, accusing them of extortion, though the Maoists maintain that they are only collecting donations as any other political party would, to sustain their needs.

Furthermore, the proposed Maoists' road map includes the release of all Maoist detainees, and most importantly, the dissolution of the government and the present constitution. Next, they are lobbying for the creation of an interim government as well as an early date for elections to a Constituent Assembly. They have also agreed to external mediation, possibly through the UN, for arms management and are looking to a reorganisation of the army - that would also include the inclusion of the PLA into the armed forces.

In terms of the international response to developments in Nepal, India has not made any statements against any of the actors in Nepal and is committed to supporting political dialogue. The US and the UK, have expressed satisfaction over the recent developments, though they still remain fundamentally opposed to the Maoists. The UN has volunteered to assist with the issue of arms management and agreed to monitor the ceasefire where, having consulted with Indian authorities, hopes that India will take the lead in international negotiations for peace in Nepal. Likewise, the EU and other donor agencies have provided assurance that they will provide Nepal with developmental aid and assist in the maintenance of a peaceful political dialogue. Overall, however, there has been no major violence this month and both sides maintain their commitment to peace, and the necessary conditions required for such peace.

Siddharth Varadrajan

Developments in Nepal over the past months are especially important in the South Asian context as no other country in South Asia has been through such a popular upheaval as Nepal. There was mass mobilisation even in the Indian freedom struggle, though that essentially involved a transfer of power. The struggle in Nepal does not involve a transfer of power and the main trouble stems from this distinction as we have no other model in South Asia that may help us understand the situation in Nepal. Therefore, the question of the possible legality of the House of Representative's declaration does not help explain the situation. The only possible analogy we can make to the developments in Nepal is the situation in England in the 17 century, where the king was stripped of his powers, though the difference is that the civilian outcry followed this event, rather than preceded it, after which England became an established monarchy. In Nepal, however, civil unrest came first and this offered the best chance of establishing a new order.

Another aspect unique to Nepal is that the Maoists have been very much a part and parcel of the transition that have taken place and has entered peace negotiations. A number of mistakes that might arise in the reading of the situation may be from an under appreciation of the role that the Maoists have played, as it is necessary to take into account their involvement in the transition that Nepal is now witnessing. For example, the 12-point agreement that came in November last year, raised questions about how durable that agreement would be. It was the people who decided that the support by the Maoists was a decisive element in their decision to support the movement. The slogans put forth by the Maoists captured the people's imagination. More importantly, they were animated by the desire for peace and saw the Maoists as the best chance to achieving this peace, as Nepal might have returned to civil war had the king continued to stay in power. Essentially, it is the desire for peace amongst the Nepalese people that is guiding this transitional period in the right direction and keeping the momentum going.

Furthermore, the sequencing of the roadmap for the coming months is important. First, cementing the code of conduct is essential, which will govern the transition period. Once these are established it should be converted into a full fledged agreement and it is only then that there can be some durability. This should be established with the task of monitoring the ceasefire. An agreement over the disposition of arms is a hugely important element, though there is no question of the Maoists laying down arms before the issue is settled due to both a historical precedent and the possible bloodshed that could ensue while the King is still around. So, can a via-media be found? The PLA's arms must be placed under international supervision, like the UN, where the Maoists faith in the UN eases the situation greatly. However, we can not have any international party interfering that has vested interests and therefore, involvement from some Latin American country or African country is probably preferable. However, the Maoists insist that the PLA must also be under supervision and this is also something that the parties should support as it is na?ve to believe that the close link between the army and the alliance is completely broken. It is in the interest of everybody that the RNA and PLA abide by the monitoring process, so that there can be a level playing field.

Next on the roadmap is the process of election to the Constituent Assembly. This is a difficult area as one cannot have a simple conversion of the existing electoral process. Rather, for the Constituent Assembly to be effective, it should be elected on the basis of a franchise that will produce a better representation of Nepal's diverse population. It is only then that the formation of an interim government is possible and the dissolution of the House of Representatives, as any dissolution before is a foolish demand. If there was a simple dissolution today, it would create a power vacuum that would only help the Palace.

The next step would be the process of deliberation to set up a new constitution. There is no reason to believe that this will be a quick process. It might take two-three years and they should be given ample time as they are faced with a unique opportunity. As long as the Maoists are part of this interim government there is no problem even if it takes time. This should be followed by elections and the formation of a new government, after which the two armies are to be merged.

The question that then arises is - what could possibly go wrong? First, the King could disrupt the peace. Secondly, the army could disturb the process and it is important that the concerns of the army are taken into account by the new government. Thirdly, the SPA/government could pose a problem as there is a tendency to artificially prolong the life of a government. The existing government only has the mandate to move forward the process of establishing a new government and any tendencies to lapse into a governmental role should be curbed. Fourthly, could the Maoists pose a danger? The Nepalese Maoists are quite different from the Indian Maoists and they are relatively disciplined, as can be seen by the fact that since the declaration of a ceasefire, they have not resorted to violence. Lastly, India could pose a problem if it continues to have an aversion to UN involvement. Also, this is an opportunity for India to develop healthy relations with Nepal, and India should now treat Nepal as an equal.

Moreover, the international community should resist the urge to go to Kathmandu before the Constituent Assembly finishes its work with large amounts of aid and developmental packages. It should not try and subvert a project that the Nepalese people can resolve effectively if left alone. Excessive influence, or interest, should be held off until the transitional period is over.

Ambassador Jha: The immediate objective in Nepal has been achieved, but the India has to decide whether it should let the process drift as it is or take some steps to be involved. The Maoists have the impression that the revolution has been a result of their efforts and that they are entitled to call the shots. What would happen if the Maoists form a majority of the interim government? They are already pressurising the parties to give them the defence and home portfolio and this is the first bone of contention as the parties are unwilling to give them this portfolio.

Secondly, the Army should also lay down its weapons. To equate insurgency with the state government forces and that both should drop their weapons is unacceptable to the government.

Thirdly, in regard to elections, is it possible? Will the Maoists be disarmed before these elections? And then, how does one ensure that there isn't a Maoist majority in the new Parliament? The possible implications of this are profound. The Maoists in India will receive tremendous encouragement and other Maoists who have helped the Nepalese will expect some sort of reward. There might also be a large influx of refugees from Nepal to India. Furthermore, unless the unequal treaty between India and Nepal is resolved, it will not be possible for Nepal to develop. Therefore, now there are two aspects - what is good for Nepal and how does it affect India?

Ambassador Grover: Unlike Sri Lanka, the bottom-line is that Indian security can not be completely oblivious to the situation in Nepal. Hence, it must look at the basic cause for the rise of the Maoists. The main cause is economic deprivation or a lack of development. The Maoists are home-grown. Unless this problem is tackled, political stability is not possible and Indian security interests demand such economic and political stability. However, they have kept India away and not accepted investment from India. Somebody, other than India, has to suggest to them that they should encourage investment and identify areas where India can pump in money. Nepal must take advantage of the strong Indian economy, as unless the economic problem is solved there can be no political stability and this will remain a threat to Indian security.

Ambassador Mansingh: India has never had pleasant relations with Nepal, not with the parties, nor with the Palace and there are thus no easy options. However, India's security concerns are perhaps exaggerated and it has been thinking in terms of the worst case scenario. Rather, in an era of globalisation, the security threat is manageable. Moreover, in terms of the economic package, Nepal must decide if it wants aid from India and the form of aid it would like to receive. Bhutan is a good example of the successful use of Indian aid. Therefore, the question is: does Nepal want India to get involved? Also, what types of security arrangements can India foresee when the threat is from Maoists in India and not from those in Nepal? Also, what about the 1950 treaty; India has never received a clear message from Nepal about this treaty.

PR Chari: India must look at the Maoist problem domestically if it wants to handle the Maoist in Nepal. Also, what would happen if India gives up the treaty of 1950 and what would be the political complexion of the Nepalese government if we close our now open border?

Prem Shankar Jha: For solutions, thinking must not be compartmentalised. The solution must not only a political solution, but also an economic solution. Some suggestions are as follows:

1. India can give Nepal the same status for tax purposes as that given to Indian industry in backward hill states, whereby we would induce Indian Industries to set up operations in Nepal.

2. The second suggestion relates to the problem of infrastructure development. India should not get involved as a state, but rather, South Asia should have an Infrastructure Development Body, which is run on commercial lines. India should depoliticise such decisions and leave it to experts. However, Nepal may not want to go past a certain threshold where this threshold has been defined by both history and India - where relations with India, through the treaty, have prevented any industrialisation of Nepal as we kept our borders open to the Nepalese for employment in India.

Furthermore, India should not associate Indian Maoists with the Nepalese Maoists. The Indian Maoists are a fringe group that have only emerged in the last 10 years as a result of the rapid development in the rest of India. Unfortunately, we have not been able to include the poor people in India in utilising the benefits of this development. A way must be found to include them in the development and if India manages to do that it will be able to separate the Indian Maoists from the Nepalese Maoists.

Siddharth Varadrajan

A durable SPA and Maoist alliance is possible and good and this is popularly being called SPAM. The Indian government must play a constructive role in fostering this alliance and help resolve any teething troubles. Furthermore, squabbles over the portfolios are bound to happen, though once the new government gets going and the Maoists form a part of it, momentum will be generated and these issues will also be ironed out.

Also, in relation to the elections and the Maoists laying down their arms, they have promised that the fighters will all be at fixed points, and that all the entry and exit positions will be manned by UN agencies. The other option that they have suggested is that they will undertake efforts to maintain a stockpile of weapons themselves, though there is a risk to this option and the first option is preferable. Essentially, it is possible to have formulas because no one disagrees on the end point that no elections are possible with the Maoists manning police posts.

Furthermore, it is not clear what should replace the 1950 treaty, but it is in the interest of India to have a new treaty whereby Nepal gets to keep its existing rights and a few more are thrown in , but the whole idea of India being a big brother is removed. Relations need to be reorganized so that they are in the form of an alliance, and India must act upon this opportunity.

However, while Indian determination will be instrumental, it is important that neither India nor the international community act as eager beavers and do not jump into Nepal just as yet, or at least until the constituent assembly arrives at some decision regarding the future of Nepal and the Nepalese people resolve their situation themselves. Also, in terms of a security threat, the Nepalese Maoists do not pose a threat to Indian security, and rather they be a good example for the Indian Maoists by chartering out a roadmap for them as well.

Dipankar Banerjee

There are a couple of important points to be noted. First, it is essential for the elections to be credible and outside agencies must assist in this, and ascertain the validity of the election process. Arms sequestration is integral to this. Secondly, the 1950 treaty must be dissolved and we must negotiate a fresh treaty. Thirdly, in terms of a security threat, there is really no major external threat from Nepal. Chinese presence in Nepal is growing and will likely grow incrementally in the future, but this need not present any threat to Indian interests if we can manage the relationship with maturity and intelligence.

Question: Is India willing to wait and see if things shape out in our favour, or must India get directly involved in Nepal?
Answer: Rajamohan: We can not rely on the Maoist and political parties to come up with a solution. The international community must get involved, and make peace a durable proposition.

Siddharth Varadrajan

I disagree with PG Rajamohan, in that we should not forget that negotiators from the Maoists and the parties arrived at the 12 point agreement by themselves, which is proof that they are capable of reorganising themselves, and that they have the capacity and inclination to do so. Essentially, the common danger that they both face is pushing them together, and pressure tactics are not indications that the relationship between the two is breaking down. Without pressure from the international community, they can arrive at a solution without much of a problem. The Indian effort should be to encourage this co-operation between the Maoists and the parties.

Concluding Remarks

Gen. Dipanker Banerjee: The last month has seen revolutionary developments, and the current situation should be left to the Nepalese themselves, India and the international community must play a role, but essentially a passive role where they should oversee a free and fair election and a peaceful transition. India must allow the international community and particularly the UN to play a role.