Author: TELO Admin

India is to provide an additional grant for the Madhu transit housing construction project.

The High Commissioner of India, Santosh Jha and Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development and Housing W.S. Sathyananda signed and exchanged diplomatic letters on 02 July 2024 to formalize modalities related to the Low Cost Transit Housing Construction Project at Madhu Shrine, Mannar, consequent to the decision of Government of India (GOI) to provide an additional grant of around SLR 100 million for the project.

GOI’s total commitment to the project now stands at over SLR 400 million.

Responding to the challenges that arose in the economic landscape of Sri Lanka, GOI had decided to infuse additional funds into nine ongoing grant projects in order to expeditiously complete them, while also minimizing the impact of the significant rise in cost of construction materials on the original scope of the projects.

The Low Cost Transit Housing Construction Project at Madhu Shrine, Mannar, is among the said nine projects.

A total of 96 transit houses shall now be constructed with the GOI grant at Madhu Shrine that could be used by pilgrims visiting the shrine. The project is currently underway and the proposed transit houses are at various stages of construction.

Though China-India bonhomie collapsed after the border war in 1962, the bilateral partnerships, founded on five principles, saw most Asian states espousing a position of ‘neutrality’ during the conflict
Former President Mahinda Rajapaksa last week visited China on a four-day visit during which, as local media reported, he was expected to “discuss Sri Lanka’s debt restructuring with Chinese Premier Li Qiang and Foreign Minister Wang Yi.”

The discussions were also expected to “cover potential development projects beneficial to Sri Lanka and convey gratitude for China’s support.”

In which capacity Rajapaksa would negotiate on behalf of Sri Lanka has been a moot point:

He is only a Member of Parliament, and there was no mention of him being a special envoy of the President or the Government of Sri Lanka.

Considering that his party, Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP), is still the key backer of the incumbent president, though a good part of SLPP MPs who aligned with Wickremesinghe seemed to have broken ranks with the Rajapaksas, he still has some clout. However, he is also loathed by a large portion of the Sri Lankan public, who blame him for the economic crisis, though he is surely not the only one responsible.

Commemoration ceremony

Rajapaksa visited China to participate in the commemoration ceremony of the 70th anniversary of the five principles of peaceful co-existence, which was also attended by former political leaders from countries including Vietnam, Myanmar, Laos, Thailand, Indonesia, the Maldives, Egypt, Ethiopia, South Africa, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Brazil, Guyana, Japan, Republic of Korea, Italy, France, Croatia and Slovenia, representatives of international/regional organisations, and diplomatic envoys and academics, according to a communique issued at the end of the conference.

He was photographed shaking hands with Chinese President Xi Jinping and was also visited by Vice Foreign Minister Sun Weidong. (Unlike most other countries, China has five vice foreign ministers). There was no mention of him holding one-on-one discussions on debt restructuring with China’s Prime Minister Li Qiang or Foreign Minister Wang Yi. Probably that was redundant since last week, the government announced a debt restructuring deal with Paris Club, India and China, as well as China’s Exim Bank.

The Five Principles of Peaceful Co-existence is the central pillar of China’s official foreign policy, first announced by China’s first Prime Minister, Zhou Enlai, in 1954 to assuage the concerns of China’s neighbours.

During the early years of the founding of the PRC, China’s new Communist rulers distrusted the bourgeois elites of newly independent former colonies and rejected ‘non-alignment’ as ‘reactionary’. Suspicion was mutual, and the native elites in India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Myanmar, and even Sri Lanka, who shared similar grievances of colonialism as China did, were still wary of China’s professed goal of promoting the worldwide revolution and attempts to sow discord in their countries.

At the end of the Korean War, as war-weary China faced growing international isolation, Zhou announced the Five Principles, marking a shift from China’s initial highly doctrinaire worldview.

The five principles of peaceful co-existence are mutual respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity, mutual non-aggression, mutual non-interference in each other’s internal affairs, equality and mutual benefit, and peaceful co-existence.

The five principles, known as “Panchaseela” in Nehru’s India, reassured China’s peaceful intentions and were later incorporated into the Sino-India agreement on trade in Tibet and the Sino-Burma agreement. This also made communist China more palatable to other Asian countries, paving the way for diplomatic relations with countries such as Nepal in 1955 and Sri Lanka under S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike government in 1957.

Though China-India bonhomie collapsed after the border war in 1962, the bilateral partnerships, founded on five principles, saw most Asian states espousing a position of ‘neutrality’ during the conflict.

High and Lows

The height of the Sino-Sri Lankan relationship is none other than the two-term Presidency of Mahinda Rajapaksa, during which China was the key backer of the government’s military campaign against terrorism and later the key lender and diplomatic partner at the international forums.

During the same period, Sino-Sri Lanka relations were upgraded to a strategic partnership, high on the ladder in the importance China pays to a bilateral partnership, a tad below ‘an All-weather partnership that defines its relations with Pakistan.

It had been fashionable, some time back, to blame Chinese loans erroneously for Sri Lanka’s sovereign debt crisis, though the reckless commercial borrowing in the form of International Sovereign Bonds was the culprit. There is no gainsaying that Chinese loans were the primary catalyst in transforming Sri Lanka’s infrastructure landscape. Only a partisan fool would overlook the long-held infrastructure backlog in this country at the turn of the 2000s and the persistent official apathy and dramatic transformation that followed, bankrolled by China during the next 15 years, which by most standards did the catch-up with the past 30 years of under-investment in infrastructure. It is a shame that Mahinda Rajapaksa, who ushered in that revolution, singularly failed to introduce necessary structural reforms to make full use of these new roads, ports and infrastructure to turbo-charge the economy. Perhaps he listened too much to his caveman economists, trusted wheeler dealers and insular nationalists and paid the price.
The fall of the Rajapaksas also strained Sri Lanka’s relations with China. Though Beijing claims that it conducts foreign relations with countries and not personalities, it, in fact, invests heavily, just like any other country would do, in personal relationships. Mahinda Rajapaksa was not just China’s man in Sri Lanka, but given his monopolisation of power of the state around him and his family, Sri Lanka’s relations with China were seen as an extension of the Rajapaksa regime. This personalisation and politicisation of the bilateral relationship and China’s economic diplomacy later resulted in the suspension of some key Chinese projects, such as Colombo Port City, at the advent of the Yahapalanaya.

Similarly, the downfall of the Rajapaksas has now dampened the bilateral relationship. That is sad, considering China is one of the two key bilateral relations of Sri Lanka, the other being India.

These two relationships would gain added strategic importance when the global power transition further deepens in the coming decades. No matter what the naysayers bet on, the US$ 17.5 trillion Chinese economy growing at a modest 4-5 per cent would contribute to the bulk of global growth for the coming decades. Sri Lanka should strive to cash on this windfall and the proliferation of China-centric supply chains out of the Mainland.

False binaries

In order to do that, Sri Lanka should get over the false binaries that have always hamstrung its foreign relations. False binaries make the leaders think the relations with one country come at the expense of the other, making countries pick either of great powers at the cost of the other.

This has been a salient flaw in the Rajapaksa foreign policy, whose relations with China came at the expense of the West. But also, to some degree, the same fallacies persist in Ranil Wickremesinghe’s foreign policy, whose relationship with the West and India seems to come at the expense of long-cultivated ties with China. (No one knows what Sajith Premadasa or JVP thinks!)

The often-exaggerated dilemma of navigating between two great powers is actually complicated by these domestic follies of self-seeking leaders and much less by systemic concerns.

Sri Lanka should rebuild its relationship with China and do it urgently. It should recognise the Sino-Sri Lanka relations as a priority in the country’s foreign relations.

On China’s part, it should move past the Rajapaksas. Being seen with the Rajapaksas is now a liability and would make many millions of Sri Lankans think of it as an extension of the discarded old regime.

Follow @RangaJayasuriya on X

“Politicians promise to build bridges even when there are no rivers.”– Khrushchev :Premier of Russia-1958/1964
Have you heard of the proverb “Hingannage Thuwale” (Beggar’s Wound)? It describes a beggar’s ever-festering wound, which he never wants to heal because it sustains his livelihood.

During a visit to the Northern Province, Sajith Premadasa, while opening the 225th computerised classroom in the North under his ‘Sakwala’ programme, made a significant declaration to fully implement the 13th Amendment. His initiative to open ‘Smart Classrooms’ in backward schools is unprecedented for an Opposition leader and is indeed commendable, regardless of the funding source, whether it be casino tycoons or otherwise.

Sajith speaking to the Tamil community announced his intention to address the grievances and aspirations of the Tamils. “Unlike some Sinhala politicians who say one thing in the North and something else in the South,” he said, “I would repeat this announcement in the rest of the provinces as well.” However, he was cautious not to confirm this pledge in the South.

Not only Sajith and Anura, every leader in the past, made this promise in Jaffna. Back home they give into sections of Sangha and other racist elements. The 13th Amendment, an outcome of the Indo-Lanka Accord signed in July 1987 by Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi and President J.R. Jayewardene; could easily be compared to the “Beggar’s Wound.” This accord aimed to resolve Sri Lanka’s ethnic conflict by establishing Provincial Councils, which needs to be implemented in full, and only Ranil can do it!

The 13th Amendment passed in 1987, which mandates a measure of power devolution to the provincial councils established to govern the island’s nine provinces. Following Sajith’s groundbreaking declaration, JVP leader Anura Kumara arrived in Jaffna within 24 hours to present his version of the 13th Amendment. Having ruled out fielding their own candidate, the TNA, in line with their decision last week to hold talks with all three candidates before deciding whom to support, duly auditioned Anura Kumara Dissanayake, leader of JVP/NPP for the prospective role.

Every government over the 37 years conveniently ignored the clauses in the Amendment on the devolution of Police and land powers to the provinces.

Political campaign manifestos frequently create unease, as politicians make temporary promises aimed at winning voter support during each election cycle. In doing so, they raise public expectations and foster false perceptions that communities will receive the promised services after the election. Some promises are ideological and difficult to quantify, while others are more straight and accountable.

Sir John Kotelawala in Jaffna in 1956 Prime Minister Sir John Kotelawala [1953-1956] visited Jaffna before the April 1956 election. As Isaac T Kulendran put it [DM-5/09/19] “Sir John Kotelawala came to Jaffna in 1955, where he made his famous speech opening his lines with “I’ll give you parity of status”. However, at the Kurunegala sessions of the United National Party, held a month later, the party changed its policy to Sinhala Only.’

This switch over to Sinhala only was to match Bandaranaike’s language policy; which enticed the latter to go a step further and change his slogan to, ‘Sinhala only in 24 hours’. Had the UNP stuck by Sir John’s stance, the history of Sri Lanka would have been different. The rest, as they say, is history.

‘Banda-Chelva Pact’

The agreement “Banda-Chelva Pact” signed by Prime Minister Bandaranaike and S.J.V. Chelvanayagam in 1957 was a positive factor that diluted the harmful effects of the ‘Sinhala Only’ concept, adopted by SWRD Bandaranaike, the leader of the MEP-SLFP Government, who won by arousing racial sentiments in 1956. Sinhala /Buddhist extremists in the Government and the Buddhist clergy vehemently opposed the BC Pact; JRJ being entrusted with the task to reviving the UNP, called the agreement as an end to the Sinhala nation, he addressed several meetings in Colombo and the suburbs and wrote newspaper articles too. On October 3, 1957, the United National Party’s De facto leader organised a protest march from Colombo to Kandy. The march contributed adversely to ethnic harmony in the Island. Ranasinghe Premadasa, then a junior in the party joined the march from Grandpass amidst stone pelting by supporters of the SLFP MP, MS Themis and port workers.

“…at Imbulgoda junction the procession was greeted with a shower of stones from both sides of the road on the hill…there were about one hundred people led by S D Bandaranaike squatting on the road. J R Jayewardene and S D Bandaranaike were advised to be peaceful and not to show any violence. The UNP procession also sat down on the road…” [Extract -ASP, D.S. Thambiah’s Police Report on the incident—5/10/57: Courtesy Pres. Arch. MSS File 301]

Campaign assurances are often idealised visions constructed to win votes. Once the votes are counted, the campaign ends, power gained and promises are abandoned. Machiavelli famously said, “The promise given was a necessity of the past: the word broken is a necessity of the present.” Therefore the politically illiterate voters, [over 90% who voted for Sirisena and Gota] when a candidate promises to turn our land into a paradise,be extremely skeptical!

Paragraph 1.4 of the Accord stated: “The Northern and the Eastern provinces have been areas of historical habitation of Sri Lankan Tamil-speaking peoples, who have at all times hitherto lived together in this territory with other ethnic groups.” President Jayewardene’s regulations in September 1988 waived the two conditions imposed by the Provincial Council Act. Successive presidents extended these regulations annually. The provisions relating to police and land have never been implemented. Initially, on September 18, 1988, JRJ merged the northern and eastern provinces, creating the North-Eastern Provincial Council.

On October 16, 2006, the Supreme Court heard a fundamental rights petition filed by the JVP seeking to de-merge the Northern and Eastern Provinces. The court ruled that the proclamations issued by President Jayewardene were null and void, having no legal effect. Consequently, the North-Eastern Province was formally demerged into the Northern and Eastern provinces on the same day. The 23-page judgment reasoned that the merger was carried out by President JR Jayewardene under Emergency Regulations, despite neither of the conditions specified in Section 31(1) (b) of the Provincial Councils Act No. 42 of 1987 being met. The court observed that the merger exceeded the powers vested in the President and that only Parliament had the authority to decide on such a matter.

Promise tracking is not a major task in this digital era. In some countries, civil society groups have worked out an app to monitor the progress in the implementation of the promises. Or civil society can pressurise the next government to pass legislation to set up a commission, before which every party contesting a presidential, parliamentary or provincial election must appear to present its promises and explain how it will find the money to implement the promises without widening the budget deficit beyond a set limit defined by a parliamentary Act.
Candidates and parties should be allowed to include their promises in their manifestos only after approval is obtained from the legally constituted commission consisting of top economists.

The Supreme Court has determined that several clauses of the Economic Transformation Bill are inconsistent with the country’s Constitution.

Consequently, these clauses require a special majority in parliament and, in some cases, approval by a referendum to be passed.

However, if the contentious clauses are amended, they can be passed with a simple majority, the Speaker of Parliament announced today while delivering Supreme Court determination on the bill.