|
”In any
history
of
counter-terrorism,
the way
the
entire
Sri
Lankan
counter-terrorism
and
counter-insurgency
machinery
under
Rajapaksa
fought
against
the LTTE
and
prevailed
over it
would
form an
important
chapter,”
states
B.
Raman,
former
Additional
Secretary,
Cabinet
Secretariat,
Government
of
India,
and
currently
Director,
Institute
for
Topical
Studies,
Chennai,
commenting
on the
defeat
of the
LTTE and
new
political
developments
in Sri
Lanka.
In an
article
in The
Lanka
Guardian,
titled
“Gen
Fonseka
devalues
himself”,
Raman
attributes
the
success
of the
mix in
the
counter
insurgency
strategy
that
defeated
the LTTE
having a
number
of
components
of which
“The
political
component,
which
was
handled
by
President
Mahinda
Rajapaksa
himself,
focused
on
giving
the
security
forces
and the
intelligence
agencies
the
resources
and
capacities
needed
by them
to
prevail
over the
LTTE and
at the
same
time,
ensuring
that the
counter-terrorist
and
counter-insurgency
operations
of the
security
forces
did not
drive
more
Tamils
into the
arms of
the LTTE.”
"The
situation,
which
Sri
Lanka
faced,
was
similar
to that
faced by
the US
and
other
NATO
forces
and the
Afghan
National
Army in
Afghanistan.
They
have not
yet been
able to
find an
effective
answer
to the
complex
mix of
insurgent
and
terrorist
tactics
used by
the Neo
Taliban.
It goes
to the
credit
of the
counter-insurgency
and
counter-terrorism
machinery
of Sri
Lanka
that
after
having
struggled
against
the LTTE
for
nearly
23 years
till
2006,
they
were
able to
fashion
an
appropriate
mix of
tactics
to
prevail
over the
LTTE,”
Raman
adds.
On
General
(rtd)
Sarath
Fonseka,
who
worked
out the
ground
strategy
for the
military
against
the LTTE,
Raman
states:
“In his
newly-assumed
post of
the
Chief of
the
Defence
Staff,
Fonseka
would
have
been
able to
do a
retrospective
analysis
of the
entire
evolution
of the
LTTE and
the way
different
SL
Governments
had
handled
the
threat
in order
to draw
lessons
for the
future.
Such an
exercise
would
have
been of
immense
benefit
to his
own
country
as well
as to
India
and
others
who face
similar
problems.
Instead
of doing
so, he
has
allowed
his
pique
over
perceived
slights
by the
Government
to get
the
better
of him
and has
resigned
from his
post as
the CDS
after
making a
series
of
allegations
against
the
Government.
A
perusal
of his
letter
to
Rajapaksa
does not
speak
well of
his
intellectual
maturity
as an
individual.
He was a
brilliant
professional,
but
professionalism
alone
does not
make a
good
leader.”
Here is
the text
of B.
Raman’s
article:
Gen.
Fonseka
devalues
himself
(November
17,
Chennai,
Sri
Lanka
Guardian)The
Khalistani
terrorism
in India
and the
terrorism
of the
Liberation
Tigers
of Tamil
Eelam (LTTE)
in Sri
Lanka
are two
unique
instances
in the
history
of
terrorism
where
the
State
prevailed
over the
terrorists
without
conceding
their
demands.
The
threat
faced by
Sri
Lanka
was more
complex
and
difficult
to
handle
than the
threat
faced by
India.
Sri
Lanka
was
confronted
with a
ruthless
mix of a
full-blown
insurgency
seeking
territorial
control
and
terrorism
seeking
to
intimidate
the
civil
society.
The
Khalistani
terrorism
was a
purely
terrorist
movement
with no
mix of
an
insurgency.
The
situation,
which
Sri
Lanka
faced,
was
similar
to that
faced by
the US
and
other
NATO
forces
and the
Afghan
National
Army in
Afghanistan.
They
have not
yet been
able to
find an
effective
answer
to the
complex
mix of
insurgent
and
terrorist
tactics
used by
the Neo
Taliban.
It goes
to the
credit
of the
counter-insurgency
and
counter-terrorism
machinery
of Sri
Lanka
that
after
having
struggled
against
the LTTE
for
nearly
23 years
till
2006,
they
were
able to
fashion
an
appropriate
mix of
tactics
to
prevail
over the
LTTE.
This mix
had a
number
of
components.
The
political
component,
which
was
handled
by
President
Mahinda
Rajapaksa
himself,
focussed
on
giving
the
security
forces
and the
intelligence
agencies
the
resources
and
capacities
needed
by them
to
prevail
over the
LTTE and
at the
same
time,
ensuring
that the
counter-terrorist
and
counter-insurgency
operations
of the
security
forces
did not
drive
more
Tamils
into the
arms of
the LTTE.
The
diplomatic
component,
which
was
handled
by
Foreign
Minister
Rohitha
Bogollagama,
ensured
the
diplomatic
isolation
of the
LTTE. In
fact, it
was the
success
of the
Sri
Lankan
diplomacy
in
getting
the LTTE
declared
as a
terrorist
organisation
by the
European
Union
countries
and in
persuading
the US,
the EU
countries
and the
Governments
in
South-East
Asia to
act
energetically
against
the flow
of money
and
weapons
to the
LTTE,
which
laid the
foundation
for the
ultimate
success
of the
Army on
the
ground.
If Sri
Lankan
diplomacy
had not
acted as
energetically
as it
did in
getting
the
sources
of
weapons
supply
to the
LTTE
choked
off, the
LTTE
might
not have
collapsed
as
completely
as it
did.
It also
goes to
the
credit
of
Rajapaksa
and his
Foreign
Office
that
they
realised
the
importance
of India
in any
effective
strategy
to
defeat
the LTTE.
China
and
Pakistan
might
have
supplied
arms and
ammunition
to the
SL
security
forces,
but what
really
helped
the
security
forces
was the
assistance
rendered
by the
Indian
Navy,
Coast
Guard
and
intelligence
to their
SL
counterparts
in
ensuring
that the
LTTE was
not able
to
smuggle
in fresh
stocks
of
weapons
from
abroad.
Another
contribution
made by
the
Government
of India
was in
the
handling
of any
political
fall-out
in Tamil
Nadu to
prevent
any
backlash
against
the Sri
Lankan
operations
in
Indian
territory.
It is
the
political
and
diplomatic
handling
of the
counter-terrorism
and
counter-insurgency
campaign
by
Rajapaksa
and his
political
aides
such as
his
Foreign
Minister
and
professional
aides
such as
his
brother
Gotabaya
Rajapaksa,
who as
the
Defence
Secretary
was the
Chief
Co-ordinator,
that
paved
the way
for the
ultimate
success
of the
armed
forces.
The
Armed
Forces
fought
bravely.
The
credit
for
working
out a
ground
strategy,
which
will
prevail
against
the LTTE,
should
go to
Gen.Sarath
Fonseka,
the
chief of
the
Army,
who
subsequently
became
the
Chief of
the
Defence
Staff
after
the
victory
over the
LTTE.
The
victory
of the
Sri
Lankan
Armed
Forces
over the
LTTE was
even
more
remarkable
than
that of
the
Indian
security
forces
over the
Khalistani
terrorists,
who were
as
ruthless
as the
LTTE.
We were
not able
to
neutralise
the
command
and
control
and
leadership
of the
Khalistani
terrorists
as
completely
as the
Sri
Lankan
Armed
Forces
under
the
leadership
of
Fonseka
were
able to
do in
respect
of the
LTTE. In
any
history
of
counter-terrorism,
the way
the
entire
Sri
Lankan
counter-terrorism
and
counter-insurgency
machinery
under
Rajapaksa
fought
against
the LTTE
and
prevailed
over it
would
form an
important
chapter.
In his
newly-assumed
post of
the
Chief of
the
Defence
Staff,
Fonseka
would
have
been
able to
do a
retrospective
analysis
of the
entire
evolution
of the
LTTE and
the way
different
SL
Governments
had
handled
the
threat
in order
to draw
lessons
for the
future.
Such an
exercise
would
have
been of
immense
benefit
to his
own
country
as well
as to
India
and
others
who face
similar
problems.
Instead
of doing
so, he
has
allowed
his
pique
over
perceived
slights
by the
Government
to get
the
better
of him
and has
resigned
from his
post as
the CDS
after
making a
series
of
allegations
against
the
Government.
A
perusal
of his
letter
to
Rajapaksa
does not
speak
well of
his
intellectual
maturity
as an
individual.
He was a
brilliant
professional,
but
professionalism
alone
does not
make a
good
leader.
Media
reports
say that
he has
developed
political
ambitions
of
contesting
the next
Presidential
elections
against
Rajapaksa.
He has
every
right to
do so as
a Sri
Lankan
citizen.
Unfortunately,
his
letter
to
Rajapaksa
does not
bring
out any
latent
political
acumen
in him.
They
only
bring
out his
huge ego
and his
pique.
The
message
which
comes
out of
the
letter
is: “I
am the
super
hero of
the
success
against
the LTTE.
My role
in the
triumph
has not
been
sufficiently
recognised."
As one
reads
his
letter,
one's
mind
goes
back to
our
triumph
against
Khalistani
terrorism.
The
success
was
achieved
when
K.P.S.Gill
was the
Director-General
of
Police
of
Punjab.
He has
never
projected
himself
as the
super
hero of
the
success.
He is
always
the
first to
admit
that the
success
of the
Punjab
Police
under
his
leadership
would
not have
been
possible
without
the
political
leadership
and
guidance
of
Narasimha
Rao as
the
Prime
Minister
and
Beant
Singh as
the
Chief
Minister
of
Punjab,
without
the team
work put
in by
the
police,
the
armed
forces,
the
intelligence
agencies
and the
Foreign
Office
and
without
the
co-operation
of
foreign
intelligence
agencies
which
gave a
lot of
valuable
intelligence.
Punjab
is the
most
important
of our
successes
against
terrorism
and
insurgency,
but not
the only
one. We
have had
other
successes
in
Nagaland,
Tripura,
Mizoram
and
Kashmir.The
professionals---
whether
from the
Armed
Forces,
the
police
or the
intelligence
agencies---
who were
instrumental
in
making
those
successes
possible,
did not
go
around
projecting
themselves
as super
heroes.
They
recognised
the role
of
others
and
maintained
their
sense of
balance.
By
failing
to
maintain
his
sense of
balance
and by
allowing
his
pique to
get the
better
of him,
Fonseka
has only
devalued
himself.
The
political
forces
in Sri
Lanka
which
are
exploiting
his
pique as
a stick
to beat
Rajapaksa
with are
playing
an
unwise
game.
They may
end up
by
diluting
the
professionalism
of the
SL Army.
|