It's a strange blow of fate that Sri Lanka, which has just got over from its decades-long war in the north eastern region, finds itself once again wedged in a battle of supremacy between its two very ‘heroes' who had led the country to victory against the separatist Tamil Tigers rebels. Soon after the war, President Mahinda Rajapakse, taking sole credit for the victory, began consolidating his power to a level of dictatorship. While the former army chief, Sarath Fonseka, buoyed by all-round praise for his heroics during the war, began looking towards Colombo for political power. Sarath Fonseka soon fell out of Rajapkse's favor after having challenged Rajapakse unsuccessfully in the presidential elections held in January this year. President Rajapakse subsequently got this once victorious general arrested under sedition charges and put him in the process of court-martial. On Wednesday, the second court martial assembled to consider the charges against Fonseka was postponed sine die with no appointed day for resumption. Given the 40 percent vote percentage that Fonseka had won during the elections, it is unlikely that the country is going to have any stretch of peace in near future and this must be uppermost in the mind of Rajapakse. The supporters of Fonseka are already out on the Colombo streets to protest his illegal detention, which the ex-army commander dubbed as politically motivated. Retired chief justice Sarath Silva has slammed the arrest saying there is “no democracy” in the country. Rights groups too have charged that the president was cracking down on the opposition and dissent since he defeated Fonseka, who fell out with Rajapakse over who should claim credit for the victory over the Tigers. “There is no room for dissent. There is no freedom of expression. The arrest and detention of Sarath Fonseka is against the constitution,” the chief justice said, while talking to reporters. Fonseka and the president were allies in the crushing of Tamil Tiger rebels last May, which ended their 37-year separatist struggle that left up to 100,000 people dead, according to a UN estimate. Earlier this week, the outgoing parliament extended the state of emergency until after next month's legislative elections giving Rajapakse the full power to deal with anti-government elements. Fresh parliamentary elections are due on April 8. The opposition has accused the president of crushing dissent through such acts. All this has caught the country in a catch-22 situation. The prolonged political crisis, street protests and strikes are already showing its rippling impact on Sri Lanka's economy. According to reports, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has delayed disbursement of a $2.6 billion loan after Sri Lanka missed its 2009 budget deficit target, adding to the investors' concerns. The government is planning to seek a waiver from the IMF, the central bank said this week. This has forced the president into giving a hint of widening the tax net of the country and ensuring investment reforms in its next budget following the parliamentary elections in April. The budget deficit last year hit an eight-year high of 9.7 percent, well over the IMF target of 7 percent. Sri Lanka fears to miss the 2010 IMF deficit target as well. The political crisis has pushed the simmering ethnic problem to the backseat. The problem that engaged the country in ethnic tension for well over three decades is far from over, and which has all the potential to hit back. Political analysts feel that the military gains against the Tigers might belie a lasting solution to Sri Lanka's ethnic conflict. According to Prof. Jayadeva Uyangoda, a Colombo-based political analyst, the government is triumphant but they have to politically address the issue of political rights of the Tamils. “That is the real challenge, and not the military gains,” he said. The long-term challenge indeed is to find a political solution. But unfortunately “this government has looked at it as a military triumph. The political management of the ethnic conflict is very important, and we have to remember that the ethnic conflict is a conflict for equality.”
