By Col R Hariharan
(November 14, Chennai, Sri Lanka Guardian) General Sarath Fonseka, Chief of Defence Staff, and national war hero submitted his resignation letter to President Mahinda Rajapaksa on November 12. Later the Information department of the government announced the President had accepted the resignation with immediate effect.
Although the General was to retire from service from 1 December 2009, his resignation before that was not unexpected. In fact it is the successful culmination of efforts of the opposition parties to put up the General as their candidate to oppose President Rajapaksa in the presidential election likely to be held in early 2010. They had been relentlessly trying cash in on his steadily deteriorating relationship with the President ever since the war ended. The confirmation of Fonseka's political ambitions would be when he files his nomination paper for the presidential poll. This is probably only a matter of detail now as his resignation has been accepted by the President.
The General’s anguish over the treatment meted out to him is brought out the resignation letter. It clearly lists out the reasons for his decision.
Comments
Here are my comments on his resignation in response to specific questions raised by the media:
General Fonseka has spoken about the government alerting the Government of India on its suspicion about the Sri Lank army staging a coup. What do you think of it?
Yes, this was also reported in the Colombo media. I think after the war the huge size of the army – around 200,000 –built up for the war (General Fonseka was talking of expanding it to 300,000), coupled with the President's growing differences with the General, made the government nervous. It was more a reflection on the worsening relationship of the General with the President than on the credibility of the army.
Do you think India would have positively responded to Sri Lanka’s request for troops to control a possible coup attempt?
India has always had close relations with Sri Lanka. In the past India had responded to Sri Lanka’s requests for military support to avert possible coups. When massive protest was building up in Colombo after the signing of India-Sri Lanka Agreement in 1987, President JR Jayawardane feared the possibility of an army coup to topple him. To avert this he sought Indian assistance. India promptly sent two warships to Colombo with troops stationed on board presumably to discourage such an attempt.
President Rajapaksa has built close relations with Indian leadership. Probably he made no major move that would impact India's strategic relations with his country without consulting India. However, this is not at all unusual in view of the strong bonds of friendship that exists between the two countries, Sri Lanka leaders have always made it a point to keep India on the information loop. Definitely India would not have been happy if the armed forces toppled the elected government of Rapaksa. Though I am not privy to the decisions of India’s Ministry of Defence, in all probablility India would have responded positively to any request for assistance from the Sri Lankan President.
What do you think of Indian reaction to General Fonseka’s resignation?
I am sure the news of his resignation would have come as no surprise to the Indian government. Thre are regular briefings between the two countries on key issues. Moreover, Indian leadership was probably briefed on such a possibility by Ranil Wickremesinghe, the leader of the main opposition party the United National Party (UNP), during his recent visit to New Delhi.
After his resignation, General Fonseka is likely to be pitched against President Rajapaksa in the presidential elections. What is your comment on this?
I think the development is good for the country’s democratic polity. President Rajapaksa’s is immensely popular and wields enormous political clout. He is at present in an unassailable position. Perhaps the General is the only person who can give him a run for the money when the country goes to the presidential poll. And that could make the President to critically look back at his record rather than taking people's support for granted.
Both the President and Fonseka have been responsible in their own spheres for the success in the Eelam War. So when these two powerful candidates contest for presidency vital issues (other than the military achievement) that were ignored earlier are likely to be discussed and debated. These issues include the Tamil demand for autonomy, ethnic equity, growing unemployment and high cost of living due to inflation. This is a healthy development for the growth of democracy.
There is a fear in some quarters about military commanders occupying the highest offices in the government. What is your view on this?
I think this fear is unfounded. There are generals like Eisenhower who served the country well. On the other hand we have generals in South America, who have turned their country into dictatorships after their election. So I think it depends upon the individual leader than on his military background. We should not forget a military leader brings in qualities unique to his profession like a structured way of thinking, abilities in problem solving, hard work and refusing to be browbeaten. These are great assets in any national leader.
Lastly, in our own country we have the example of General Khanduri whose excellent performance in improving national road infrastructure as a minister in Vajapayee’s government is yet to be equaled. Later he successfully headed the Himachal government as chief minister.
What would be India’s preference between Rajapaksa and Fonseka as president of Sri Lanka?
I think Rajapaksa has a better equation with Indian leadership. He is a seasoned politician who has cultivated the Indian leaders over the years. On Tamil autonomy issue he has no great differences with India, although he has pushed it down in his list of priorities for political reasons.
General Fonseka has his networking more with Indian military leadership than with political leaders. His strong views smacking of Sinhala nationalism rather than Sri Lanka nationalism makes Government of India uncomfortable. On the other hand, the UNP - his main supporter in the presidential election - has good rapport with New Delhi. In particular, the UNP leader Ranil Wickremesinghe has the ear of New Delhi and that could be an advantage for the General in putting India at ease.
But there are also political compulsions of New Delhi that condition its Sri Lanka policy. The ruling coalition’s partners from Tamil Nadu, particularly the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Karunanidhi, always have a say in shaping it. Tamil Nadu political leaders will not be happy to see Fonseka as the president. That would be an advantage for Rajapaksa by default. So overall, India would probably prefer Rajapaksa to continue as president.
(Col. R Hariharan, a retired Military Intelligence specialist on South Asia, served as the head of intelligence of the Indian Peace Keeping Force in Sri Lanka 1987-90.He is associated with the South Asia Analysis Group and the Chennai Centre for China Studies. Blog: www.colhariharan.org E-mail: colhari@yahoo.com )
Link to General's resignation letter -Sri Lanka Guardian
Home Unlabelled Comments on Gen Fonseka’s resignation
Subscribe to:
Post Comments
(
Atom
)
Col. Hariharan’s views are well presented. However, no General has opposed his own Commander of Chief except hypocrite Fonseka. Otherwise obscure Army officer who was elevated to be the Army Commander, and vast amount of state resources were put at it disposal how can he would have done otherwise. Even a fool could have led the army with such a backing by the government. Fonseka in the interviews after the war never gave credit to Air Force, Navy and the Police for their share in War effort. He never even publicly saluted the President for having provided all that resources to the war machinery and public support. The current difficulty the country is going through is the affects of war. Even the IDP was so separated by the very General who suggested that the war will be lost if these people were released back to their land without proper scrutiny. Anyway after all the indifference and ridicule directed to the Army during the war, Fonseka to join hands with the opposition parties is disgusting.
I think General Sarath Fonseka is the ideal person to contest for presidency at the present moment.He is a brave military leader who had instilled discipline in the army. Sri Lanka need as its leader a statesman and not a politician.People in the country know how much corruption and squandering of public money took place in the recent past. The elections were help not because the country needed them but to show the power of strength of those in government.Plane loads of party supporters and henchmen were carried in the Sri Lankan airlines planes to various capitols in the world as if those planes belonged to the leaders.At a time when the national carrier is loosing billions of rupees it is a crime to misuse planes belonging to srilankan airlines and Mihin air.The official residences of those in power have become what people call Danselas as free food and drinks are served to hundreds and thousnads of party supporters utilizing public money when the millions of poor are suffering.A jumbo cabinet inlcuding those people who were made Ministers after crossing over from the UNP and other opposition parties is a great burden on the country's economy. People who are opposed to the Government are being harassed and how General Fonseka was obstructed hooted and jeered on his visit to Kelaniya Temple where he is a Vice President of the Dhayaka Sabha is deplorable and we as Buddhists cannot condone such act.President Rajapakse however good he may be cannot stop these hooligans from attacking the innocent people because he is a politician.So we need a honest military leader who can bring about descipline in the country.
Brian has forgotten that JRJs first cabinet had 78. Premadasa inflated it to 96. Kurmarathunge to 98. But MR to bring stability to the government had to depend on other politicians to support the government policy. More than blaming the President Brian should ask the politicians who has accepted ministerial positions why they have done so.
Post a Comment