In the Aftermath of the APRC Debacle

February 9th, 2008

by D.B.S.Jeyaraj

Former Indian Prime minister Indira Gandhi was unseated as MP for the Lok Sabha constituency of Rae Bareilly in 1975 when courts ruled in favour of an election petition filed by her chief opponent Raj Narain.In a controversial move she declared emergency rule and jailed her political rivals in the opposition.

Censorship was imposed. But to the eternal shame of India’s fourth estate the media fell in line meekly. Only a few honourable exceptions like the Press baron Ramnath Goenga and “Cho” Ramaswamy-maverick editor of “thuglak” - displayed some resistance to the clamping down of media censorship.

The Indian media’s servility during emergency came in for severe criticism later. One comment that aptly summed up the surrender was “The Indian Media was only required to stoop but instead they chose to grovel”. This pithy comment was applicable to a pathetic event in Sri Lanka on January 23rd.

The All Party Representative Committee (APRC)chaired by Prof. Tissa Vitarana on that day prostrated itself before President Mahinda Rajapakse and surrendered its self - respect meekly Like the Indian media during emergency , “The APRC was only required to stoop but instead it chose to grovel”.

This columnist has been writing regularly on APRC proceedings from 2006. This was due to the fact that the APRC was the only glow of light in a dark, dark tunnel. Despite overwhelming odds , Prof. Tissa Vitarana aided by his advisers and supported by progressive elements within the APRC laboured valiantly.

There was a cold war between hawks and doves in the APRC search for political consensus on power sharing.Despite some bottlenecks much had been achirved by the APRC.

The APRC was expected to conclude sittings early this year and come up with a report comprising proposals for Constitutional reform. It was then that President Rajapakse diverted the APRC’s course. Rajapakse wanted the APRC river to flow backwards and resurrect the 13th amendment to the Constitution.

It was on Jan 9th that President Rajapakse “requested” the APRC to evolve recommendations to make Provincial Councils set up under the 13th amendment to the Constitution work better. He set a deadline of two weeks. The APRC was in a quandary as it was focussing on finalising its own set of Constitutional reform proposals.

Prof. Vitarana who was primarily responsible for steering the APRC decided to adopt a parallel track policy. The APRC was to work simultaneously on both projects. Consulting his Constitutional advisers Prof. Vitarana came up with a draft scheme of recommendations to work the Provincial Councils more efficiently.

This draft was given to APRC participants on Jan 17th. They were asked to study it and come up with their input on Jan 20th. When discussions commenced on the 20th there was much debate and heated exchange of words.

While the SLFP representative Prof. Wiswa Warnapala maintained “relative” silence the verbal assault was led by the JHU’s Udaya Gammanipila and MEP’s Nalin de Silva. They were given side support by the ACMC’s YLM Hameed and EPDP’s Maheswari Velayutham.

The quartet wanted some clauses pruned and demanded deletions. Others in the APRC protested.Gammanipla was extremely harsh towards Vitarana who held his ground stoutly.

It is an open secret that Gammanipla has the President’s ear. So the JHU representative apparently carried tales to the President. As a result Rajapakse telephoned Vitarana and gave him a tongue lashing.

The President accused Vitarana of filibustering tactics and “urged” his Science and technology minister to deliver the goods by the specified deadline.

Vitarana then burnt the proverbial midnight oil with his advisers and came up with a second set of recommendations. The veteran Trotskyite was now in a compromising moood and mode. The second set incorporated much of the suggestions made by the JHU - MEP - ACMC - EPDP.

The second set of proposals was presented on Jan 21st. But Vitarana’s appeasement was not enough. Bullies get more boisterous when they sense weakness. Likewise the JHU and MEP sensed that Vitarana was on the defensive when they saw the new document.

They pounced on it with unconcealed glee. Once again more changes and deletions were demanded. In contrast to the previous day the fight seemed to have gone out of Vitarana this time. According to some APRC participants , NM Perera’s nephew seemed to be a tad subservient to Gammanipla.

This was presumably due to pressure exerted by Rajapakse. It was now obvious that Gammanipla was the eyes and ears of the President within the APRC and not his own party man Warnapala. It appeared to some APRC members that Vitarana was now being deferential towards the Presidential blue - eyed boy.

There was also a perceptible change of mood among some participants. Some of those who were at the forefront in resisting the hawks and promoting progressive suggestions were now docile. The reason was not hard to discover.

This columnist has often pointed out that the inherent weakness of the APRC was that most parties involved were constituents of the government. What had happened according to a representative of an Up Country Tamil party was that his party leader had been “advised” to instruct the representative to adopt a soft approach.

To most minority community party members of the Government , the reason for toeing the Govt line is not merely due to the perks of ministerial office. It is more due to fear of consequences if they refuse to comply. Files of corruption would be unearthed, security refused and killer squads unleashed. It is fear of the stick rather than lure of the carrot that works here.

Against this backdrop the honourable tussle that went on within the APRC lost its zing. The progressives were deflated.The second set of recommendations was also criticised severely. A crestfallen Vitarana then withdrew almost a beaten man.

Still the tenacious Trotskyite laboured with his advisers and came up with a third set of recommendations. This time the new document was presented to the President at a special meeting held on Jan 22nd. APRC participants and party leaders were present. Also present were the TULF’s Anandasangaree, PLOTE”s Siddharthan and EPRLF’s Sritharan.

The Tamil trio was a non - participant at the APRC but in recent times was being viewed by President Rajapakse as representative of “moderate” Tamil opinion. The trio had been given copies of the recommendations earlier.

In a bid to know more about the proposals , Anandasangaree had reportedly asked Indian High Commissioner Alok Prasad whether some Constitutional expertise could be provided to study the proposals. The Indian envoy had suggested that the Tamil trio contact his deputy High Commissioner Manickam.

Subsequently the EPRLF’s Sritharan alias Sugu had got in touch with the Indian deputy high commissioner. When requested for expert assistance , Manickam had recommended - tongue in cheek perhaps - the name of former North - East provincial council secretary and member of experts panel Dr. K. Vikneswaran.

The Sangaree - Siddharthan - Sritharan trio was reluctant to approach Vikneswaran because of an earlier problem. At one point all of them were involved with a new Tamil party the All - Ceylon Tamil United Front. There had been disagreement and the trio had brken off with Vigneswaran who remains as Secretary of the new Tamil party.

Subsequent events showed that the Tamil trio need not have tried so hard to get constitutional expertise for studying the recommendations.What happened on Jan 22nd was a farce.

President Rajapakse was in no mood for constructive analysis and discussion.The laird of Medamulana came up with a unique formula to achieve consensus.

This was to adopt the principle of deleting all disputed issues.Like the editors of old, slashing copy extensively with their blue pencils the President of Sri Lanka commenced drastic downsizing of the recommendations.

With the JHU, MEP, ACMC ad EPDP working to a set plan clause after clause was objected to. Rajapakse then applied his consensus formula and cut it down. As a result of this exercise, the ten page document came down to about two pages.It was mutilated and moth - eaten.

At one point the TULF’s Anandasangaree ventured to dissent. He said that the APRC would lose all credibility by this and tried to read out a portion of LTTE leader Velupillai Prabakharan’s great heroes day address. Prabakharan has called the APRC a sham drama.

Sangaree’s aim was to show that the LTTE leader was now going to be proven right about the APRC. A furious President snapped rudely at Anandasangaree and told him to stop. He ordered harshly to stop reading the LTTE leader’s speech.

Rajapakse’s treatment of the septugenarian Tamil political veteran shocked and awed the gathering. Thereafter all attempts to propose alternatives or express dissent ceased. Like petrified schoolchildren in the presence of a tyrannical pedagogue the party leaders and representatives became tongue - tied.

President Rajapakse also issued his diktat on three points. Firstly he ruled out an interim administration for the East and wanted elections to be held for the Provincial council. Secondly he wanted the 13th amendment related recommendations to be presented as proposals of the APRC. Thirdly he wanted the APRC to take its own time with its originally mandated task of evolving a Constitutional reform package.

Rajapakse had in one move foisted his will and imprimatur on the APRC. After protracted discussions the APRC was stymied from pursuing its original mandate. Instead a “johnny come lately” was being substituted as the “real MCcoy”. In short the APRC’s credibility was destroyed and the chairman’s self - respect shattered.

It was a pathetic and deplorable sight to see those political stalwarts troop out , tails tucked between legs. Prof. Vitarana whom this columnist has often described as “indefatigable” went about his “duty” as a matter of routine.

It was Karl Marx who said that history repeated itself first as a tragedy and then a farce. In the case of the APRC, history was repeating itself rapidly as tragedy, farce, tragi - comedy and fiasco. Tissa Vitarana did some patch work with the “bits and pieces” of his original document and tried to make it a whole.

So on Jan 23rd Prof. Vitarana had a 4 page document with him. His task now was to obtain signatures of the 14 parties involved in the APRC. Once again there were hiccups as some more changes were demanded. Otherwise we will not sign they thundered.They were made and finally the amended document was signed by all except the Western Peoples Front.

This resulted in only 13 parties endorsing it. The relevant amendment itself was the 13th amendment. For those with a superstitious streak this unlucky number 13 could prove ominous.

And then the puerile act of deception was played out to the end. A ceremony was held and it was announced that the APRC had recommended proposals as a “prelude”. To those unaware or unfamiliar with the twists and turns of the APRC it was as if the mountains had laboured and brought forth a mouse.

The APRC had surrendered abjectly to the President. Jan 23rd was a day of shame where the APRC had grovelled before the executive president.

Like the Tamil saying about the “donkey decaying into an ant” (kazhuthai theinthu katterumbu) the original document had gradually been downsized.Vitarana after stonewalling at the crease had thrown up his wicket with a lifeless stroke.

The next big disappointment was the International community including India. It had been India that had evinced great interest in the APRC and had provided much asistance.

One reason for Rajapakse to set an early deadline for the APRC was the hope that Indian premier Manmohan Singh would grace the 60th independence day celebrations.

It had been only a short while ago that New Delhi had called for “credible devolution” in Sri Lanka. Yet India was the first Country to hail the APRC package positively as a first step. Later Japan followed with a conditional welcome.

Indian diplomats were to explain their stance privately as being pragmatic. According to them the recommendations for rejuvenating the PC’s and the on going search for Constitutional reform were parallel processes. The 13th amendment renewal was not to be a substitute for the other.

Western diplomats were silent. People like the American Ambassador and British High Commissioner had often emphasised the importance of the APRC and indicated that an adequate devolution package was being anticipated. Yet these nations were now maintaining a deafening silence.

In private Western diplomats sought to rationalise their conduct. India was blamed for welcoming the APRC report.”Because of this the silence”. , they said. “Otherwise we would have come out with statements expressing disappointment. But with India adopting this stance we did not want to comment” said a Colombo based diplomat of a western nation.

It appeared that the International community was perceiving the APRC report on rejuvenating the Provincial councils as a “prelude” to another more comprehensive report on Constitutional reform.

As written in these columns re- activating the PC scheme for the North and East was seen as the attainable in the short - term while the APRC’s original mandate was perceived as the desirable in the long - term.

Despite all the big talk of maximum devolution under the 13th amendment the reality seems to be quite different. The JHU saffron brigade and JVP crimson comrades have been used cleverly by Mahinda Rajapakse to promote his designs without blame being attached to him.

As far as the APRC was concerned the ethno - fascists worked within it to downgrade its positive progress. The national socialists worked outside the APRC to undermine it.If the JHU had been used to whittle down the APRC recommendations the JVP was now used to stymie it further.

In a clearly orchestrated action the JVP went to war against the 13th amendment. It spoke of dangerous consequences if the 13th amendment was to be fully implemented in the North when a war was on. Therefore the JVP demanded a full jettisoning of the 13th amendment.

The stage was being set. Hey presto! the anticipated announcement came. The 13th amendment was not going to be implemented in full immmediately it was said. Police powers etc will not be given till the LTTE was vanquished. Some skeletal form of powers would be given it was said

Thus even the “little” that was prescribed was now being circumscribed. The rationale for rejuvenating the 13th amendment was that the people of the North and east could not wait for the fruits of devolution till new proposals of constitutional reform were passed with a two - thirds majority. Now the very same people had to wait until the LTTE was defeated to savour the fruits of devolution in full.

Furthermore it had also been touted earlier that devolution was to be upgraded to a 13th amendment plus level. Again the bitter reality was starkly different. What was on display was not plus “minus - minus” devolution when compared to what prevailed in 1987.

When the 13th amendment came into effect the unit of devolution was a merged North - East. The provinces have now been de - merged. So its a minus as far as unit of devolution is concerned.

As for substance , powers like Policing etc have not ben given and are not likely to be given. The central government in Colombo has not shared powers coming under the concurrent list with the Provinces.

Also using “national policy” as a pretext many of the things allocated to the Province like schools and hospitals etc have been taken over by the centre.Thus substance of devolution too has been eroded greatly.

The decision to disallow an interim administration for the East and stage elections to the Provincial council is also a double edged sword. On the one hand it seeks to expedite the democratization of the Eastern province. On the other hand the holding of PC elections to the East will make the de - merger permanent.

It is against this backdrop that the APRC is scheduled to meet on the 12th. Only the naive and incurably optimistic person would think that the APRC will complete its unfinished task of evolving a Constitutional reform package.

It is certainly true that the APRC has so far managed to reach consensus on a number of issues.Earlier there was doubt in my mind whether the APRC would ever reach agreement on certain issues.

After what transpired recently I am not sure of whether the APRC can consolidate and sustain whatever agreement that has been reached. The shameful spectacle that one witnessed on Jan 22nd and 23rd leaves little room for hope.

One can almost predict how the drama is likely to unfold. The APRC will be reduced to a lame duck session of Parliament. Initially there would be listless, half - hearted meetings where matters will drag on.

At one point the signal would be given and then the saffronistas and crimsonians will begin their onslaught.

The JVP will renew its attacks on the APRC and slander it as anti - national. The JHU - MEP duo aided and abetted by Devananda’s EPDP and Rishard Bidiudheen’s ACMC will commence an insidious campaign within.

Areas where agreement has been reached currently will become the target. The consensus reached would be torn to shreds.

In such a situation the APRC would become fragmented. Earlier I would have thought the progressive forces within the APRC would hang in together and come up with one positive report in defiance of the regressives.

With the wisdom of what prevailed on Jan 23rd I have lost that hope. I cannot see these minority and left parties doing that. Even if they did so they would simply totter at the knees before Rajapakse and surrender all what they stood for.

There are however two interesting developments that may radically transform the situation.

President Rajapakse appointed a ministerial sub - committee under Prime Minister Ratnasiri Wickramanayake to make recommendations about how to implement the APRC proposals and how to rejuvenate the 13th amendment in accordance with APRC recommendations.

This exercise itself was another time - consuming ploy but now it is faced with a difficult dilemma.

The original set of recommendations formulated by Prof . Vitarana was a comprehensive one. This was whittled down. Finally President Rajapakse chopped clause after clause simply because some of his stooges objected.

The final “consensus” document is woefully inadequate as a result. Thus it would be practically impossible to devise ways to implement because the mutilated set of recommendations does not provide for concrete proposals. This is the result of Rajapakse’s destructive handiwork in terms of his “chinthana” on achieving consensus.

This problem was discussed at length when the party leaders met on Feb 6th. The party leaders found to their embarassment that there was very little to bulid upon.

Therefore a decision was reached reluctantly to re- include those clauses that were struck down by President Rajapakse in his misguided zeal for consensus. What a reversal!

The other development is something that may affect Rajapakse’s plans to appoint an interim administration for the North.

Former Defence secretary Austin Fernando wrote an article headed “Checkmating devolution or genuine devolution” in the Special section of last week’s “Nation”.

It was essentially legalistic yet illuminating article with an interesting perspective. Mr. Austin Fernando himself says he is a layman and wants Constitutional lawyers to analyse the points raised in his article and enlighten us.

Therefore this writer does not want to delve deep into it .One hopes that Constitutional experts like HL de Silva or Rohan Edirisinha would clarify these issues.

But the salient point raised by Austin Fernando is that in the aftermath of the Supreme Court judgement that paved the way for the de - merger , there is no Northern Provincial Council to “act” .

What Mr. Fernando says is that the 13th amendment planned for a merged North - East . A Provincial council was constituted as such.

But after the de- merger there is no Northern Provincial Council argues Fernando. A PC can be constituted only after an election in terms of the Constitution.

After the de - merger a Northern Provincial Council area was established and a governor (acting) appointed but a Northern Province Council has not been constituted. Austin Fernando draws a distinction between a Northern PC area and the Northern PC.

If the crux of Austin Fernando’s argument is correct , then an interim advisory council or interim administration cannot be created for the North as it would be anti - constitutional in terms of certain clauses in section 154.

In that situation both provinces must be re- merged with retrospective effect to appoint an interim body. This is politically unpalatable to President Rajapakse.

The other choice is to hold elections. The third alternative is to appoint an interim advisory body that would have no power or authority and will be totally subservient to the Governor.

If this happens Kathiravelu Devananda alias Douglas will not get the”powerful” interim administration he wants for the North. Instead he will have to be content with a worthless interim body or face provincial hustings like his eastern counterpart Pillaiyan of the TMVP.

Provincial polls under the present environment will pose no problems for Devananda or Pillaiyan. The polls will be rigged and ballot boxes stuffed.If and when that happens both the North and East will be under two Tamil war lords.

The irony is that President Rajapakse wants to liberate Tamils from their self - styled sole representative and hand them over to self - imposed sole alternatives. It is not a case of someone being acceptable to the Tamil people but of being acceptable to President Mahinda Rajapakse.

Entry Filed under: transCurrents NewsFeatures