In turmoil

Sri Lankan president Mahinda Rajapakse managed to do what his predecessors couldn’t — he finally defeated the separatist organisation the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam and ended the bloody 20-year-old civil war in his country. Now he faces another possible threat, this time from the army chief who led the forces to victory, General Sarath Fonseka.

It is an ironical twist of fate. Fonseka reported to Rajapakse but as the war decisively turned in favour of the army, he emerged as much a hero as the president. They both were on the same side. Until recently, when stories of Fonseka’s political ambitions began doing the rounds. Now, with Fonseka handing in his resignation and being asked to go immediately, this speculation has assumed frenzied proportions.

Further fuel has been added to the fire by Fonseka’s resignation letter in which he has listed a series of failings on the part of the president and his government. Probably the most incendiary claim is Fonseka’s allegation that the government had requested India to keep its troops on stand by because there was a fear that Fonseka would mount a military coup. This is sensational stuff and no doubt will deeply embarrass India.

But their internal rivalry apart, Fonseka makes a valid point when he says that after winning the war Rajapakse has failed to win the peace with the Tamils of the island. The LTTE’s defeat was not followed up with sufficient efforts to reach out to the Tamils who are feeling nervous about the emergent truimphalism in the Sinhala majority. Large numbers of refugees are living in camps in poor conditions but the government has rejected allegations by international NGOs and aid organisations to that effect. Harsh realities now stare the Sri Lankans in the face. The heavy cost of the war is now being calculated and international criticism about human rights abuses has to be addressed. The suppression of media and the killings of journalists have angered civil society. Rajapakse remains popular but the emergence of another pole, one with no political baggage and a heroic image, can spell danger to the president.

India has to watch developments carefully. The very suggestion of a coup in a country that has remained a democracy — with all its flaws — in the neighbourhood is a risk India can ill afford. The next few months, till the presidential elections are held by April 2010, will be a tumultuous political period.