The credit for Mahinda Rajapaksa's political demise goes to his brother, Gotabaya, whose writ ran across the country and who abused power in the name of the President
The plot to unseat former Sri lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa was hatched 18 months ago in secret meetings in london, New Delhi and Colombo between an odd group of left and Right wing politicians, intellectuals, a constitutional expert and a Buddhist monk. What motivated this group was its antipathy to Mr Rajapaksa and a cry for change. The two other triggers were the impeachment of then Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake and the results of the Uwa Provincial Council election last year, that showed a significant decline in vote share for Mr Rajapaksa.
The momentum for Operation Topple came through defections from the Sri lanka Freedom Party (which was then in power), the Sri lanka Muslim Congress and the Jathika Hela Urumaya as well as from the unconditional support to the 49-party conglomerate by the Tamil National Alliance and other Tamil parties. The verdict was more of an anti-Rajapaksa vote with Mr Maithripala Sirisena making an impressive dent into the Sinhalese votebank. Mr Rajapaksa attributed his defeat to Muslims, once his staunchest allies.
But before the Rajapaksa chapter is closed, credit for his political demise must go to two other persons: His astrologer Sumanadasa Abeygunawardena who led him up the garden path of early elections and his younger brother, the most powerful and feared Defence Secretary, lieutenant Colonel Gotabaya Rajapaksa. The latter’s writ ran across the country with control of the Armed Forces, police, intelligence agencies and urban and housing Ministries. He was the virtual czar of Colombo.
The abuse of power in the name of the President did no good to Mr Gotabaya Rajapaksa. He was responsible for the beautification of Colombo, preparing it for the Commonwealth Summit 2014. He was to stand for elections to Parliament and then run for President after his brother’s third term. It was a toss up between Mr Rajapaksa’s son, Namal Rajapaksa or his uncle, Gotabaya Rajapaksa. This would have entrenched the dynastic rule with 75 per cent of the Government funds being controlled by the Rajapaksa clan.
It was this authoritarian style and single-mindedness of purpose, useful in battle, that enabled the Rajapaksas to defeat the liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam root and branch. Indeed, it was the most comprehensive military victory against insurgency and terrorism in recent history but with questionable use of military force that led, according to UN estimates to around 40,000 civilians dead in the closing stages of the war.
Mr Mahinda Rajapaksa, Mr Gotabaya Rajapaksa and then Army chief General Sarath Fonseka, were the three architects of the victory. But Gen Fonseka fell foul of the President and was deleted from star billing. With the Right to Information Bill likely to be passed shortly and the independent and transparent commission of enquiry promised on accountability, it is possible that more light may be shed over the ‘White Flag Incident’ — relating to the alleged killing of lTTE members who wanted to surrender — still in court.
The end of the war triggered off the economy which rose to eight per cent growth and has since tapered to around 6.5 per cent with the north recording an astounding 25 per cent rate of growth. ‘Mahinda Chintana’ (vision) led to rapid growth of infrastructure: Expressways, airports, sea ports, hotels and power projects. The idea was to create five strategic hubs — Of knowledge, naval power, aviation, power and energy, and commercial. A third term for Mr Mahinda Rajapaksa was vital for the family as so much was at stake. His reign surpassed the rule of ancient kings like Dutugemunu whom he was frequently compared with.
Besides, retaning the historical legacy,the war crimes charges against him are likely to make him (and the family) vulnerable to indictment, given the loss of presidential immunity. Cases of corruption and nepotism and the most recent allegation of attempting military intervention to deflect the electoral defeat are to be investigated.
President Sirisena had said before the election that he would protect the Rajapakasa family against any international probe. But domestic probes could likely debar them from contesting parliamentary elections.
President Sirisena has embarked on a 100-day reform and transition programme piloted by Prime Minister Ranil Wickramasinghe that envisages returning the country to a parliamentary system, by anulling the notorious 18th Amendment, reviving the 17th Amendment and restoring the institutions of governance and trust in the establishment. We are being promised a new Sri lanka but only time will tell whether many of the schemes planned will be promulgated.
One thing is clear: Relations with India are being reset. The foreign policy of the previous regime which was described as ‘paranoid’ by Foreign Minister Mangala Samaraweera during his visit to New Delhi this week is destined to look West again. India has sought closure on the Tamil national question centered around devolution and accountability.
Several times, Mr Rajapaksa had promised to not only implement the 13th Amendment but make it 13A plus. His favourite lullaby on 13A for the Indian media was famously called 4Ds: Demobilisation; Demilitarisation; Democracy and Devolution. Then one day, the last D was replaced with Development and out went Devolution. Mr Rajapaksa used China to deflect pressure on devolution. Some members of the BJP who claimed access to the Indian Prime Minister encouraged Mr Rajapaksa to believe he could go slow on devolution. The emotive fishermen issue somehow took priority over 13A. In short, New Delhi itself became responsible for tying knots around 13A.
India’s strategic self-marginalisation in Sri lanka followed the defeat of the lTTE in which New Delhi played a generous role but without any quid pro quo. That honour went to China for its military assistance that New Delhi refused. As happens often in these hedging games, Colombo overplayed its cards by allowing a Chinese conventional submarine to dock in Colombo Port twice in September and October last year. A few months earlier, it tried awarding a contract for the construction of an ammunition dump in Trincomalee Harbour which had to be rescinded later.
The Rajapaksas were testing India’s tolerence threshold which was crossed by the submarine episode. While it is true India cannot wish away China as it is deeply embedded in the South, Colombo is seriously indebted to Beijing and New Delhi unable to match its economic largesse, both India and Sri lanka can slow down and ease out the commercial and strategic penetration of the island.
Colombo has to stay the course after the first 100 days to avert the anticipated political and economic volatility. It has the potential to develop into a Singapore. New Delhi must seize the moment but leave Colombo alone to settle the Tamil and accountability issues. Already some useful steps have been taken towards winning over the North. That is belated success for New Delhi.