Tuesday, August 4, 2020

Yemen's Multilayered War: The Houthi Rebellion

This article is by

Share this article

Article Contributor(s)

Anant Jani

Article Title

Yemen's Multilayered War: The Houthi Rebellion

Publisher

Global Views 360

Publication Date

August 4, 2020

URL

Houthi rebels protesting the airstrike in Sana

Houthi rebels protesting the airstrike in Sana | Source: Henry Ridgwell (VOA) via Wikimedia

This is the 3rd part of a short explainer article series on the current crisis in Yemen.

To read the 1st part of the series click on the link.

To read the 2nd part of the series click on the link.

After the overthrow of the monarchy in 1968,  Yemen existed as two countries — North Yemen and South Yemen.  These two countries united in 1990, after several years of conflict with one another.

This unity could not remain for long and the North-South divide resurfaced which led to the first civil war of unified Yemen. This civil war was short-lived and ended in 1994 after the decisive victory of the pro-unification governing faction over the Southern saperatist faction.

On the other hand a major dissatisfaction with the central government was simmering in the region dominated by a local branch of Shia Muslims known as Zaidi. They are the decendent of Prophet Muhamma and believe that Muslims should be ruled only by a descendant of Prophet Muhammad whom they call an Imam. They have ruled Yemen for more than 1,000 years which ended in 1962.

Zaidis are a minority sect in Yemen but have much ideological affinity with the Sunni Shafi'i majority. They lived together harmoniously and prayed in the same mosques for hundreds of years.

A new element was also getting added to the dangerous mix of sub-nationalism, intra religious division, and tribal loyalty in Yemen. The Yemeni veterans of Soviet-Afghan war who fought with the mujahideen were battle hardened and well versed in guerilla warfare. They started a low level insurgency and also tried to impose a hardline interpretation of Islamic religious and social practices in Yemen.

In order to counter the socio-economic and political marginalization by the central government as well as the growing influence of Salafism in their northern heartland, the Houthis formed a movement named Ansar Allah. President Saleh however accused them of attempting to overthrow the government and of seeking to revive the rule of the imamate in Yemen.

The Houthi Rebellion (also known as the Shia Insurgency):

The Houthi Movement in its current militant form began in 2004 by Hussein Badreddin al-Houthi, religious, political and military leader, as well as former member of the Yemeni parliament between 1993 and 1997. Though he was killed in the action of very early in his fight with the government forces, his brother who took over the movement leadership made it politically and militarily a formidable force in Yemen.

Zaidis have had historical grievances against the Wahhabi, the dominant Sunni sect in Saudi Arabia, who assisted North Yemen in the First Yemen Civil War. The Zaidi fear they still have too much say in Yemeni politics. They have also fought against the Salafis, whom they accuse of implementing the hardline interpretation of Islamic religious and social practices in Yemen. In order to counter these forces, Houthis destroyed the schools run by them in Saada, Dar al Hadith in Dammaj and its sister school in Kitaf, claiming them to be “feeder schools”, for al-Qaeda.

It was the 2011 Yemeni Uprising (or Intifada), which catapulted Hauthis to the centre of Yemen politics. They sided with the common citizens of the country in demanding the resignation of President Saleh whom they charged with corruption and for being a lackey of Saudi Arabia and the USA. A Nesweek photo-essay reported that Houthis are fighting "for things that all Yemenis crave: government accountability, the end to corruption, regular utilities, fair fuel prices, job opportunities for ordinary Yemenis and the end of Western influence."

Later in 2011, President Saleh resigned, as per the Houthi terms, letting Abd Rabbuh Mansur al-Hadi step in as the President in exchange for immunity from prosecution. However the Houthis pressed on with their power grab which started resentment among other players.

In an ironic act, ex-President Saleh who was overthrown in an Houthi led public uprising, threw his weight behind Houthis in the power struggle. In 2015 he publicly announced his formal alliance with the Houthis, and hoped for ceasefires with the Arab Coalition.

In 2015, Hadi, the President of Yemen was placed under house arrest by the Houthis and forced to resign. He managed to flee to Aden, and rescinded his resignation. He fled to Saudi Arabia, and returned in September with the Arab Coalition at his support. Ever since, he has used Aden as his governing base.

At the same time, Saudi Arabia imposed severe restrictions on import, including air and sea blockades in Yemen, resulting in the shortages of food and medicine. Given the fact that Yemen is dependent on imports for food supply and medicine, it is no surprise that the blockades have led to a famine situation, compounded by an outbreak of cholera since 2016 caused by and worsened due to the air-strike bombed healthcare infrastructure.

After aligning with Houthis for many years, Saleh once again took an about turn in 2017 by publicly ending this alliance and stated his openness to talk with the Saudi-led coalition. Al Jazeera reported this was because the Saudi Prince had decided that Saleh, rather than Hadi, would help to win the war. However, the same year, Saleh was assassinated.

In September 2019, the Houthis claimed responsibility for drone attacks on Saudi Arabia's eastern oil fields of Abqaiq and Khurais, disrupting nearly half the kingdom's oil production.

In January 2020, the Houthi Special Criminal Court found Hadi guilty and sentenced him to death, for “high treason...and looting the country’s treasury”, over other things,

It is important to note that Saudi Arabia and the USA have also seen this war as a Sunni Saudi pitted against a Shi’ite Iran. This has been shown to be inaccurate - both nations likely intending it as an excuse for using extreme military might and sanctions that Saudi has engaged in with the backing of both, the Obama and Trump administration, to use Yemen for strategic purposes.

It is this war, between Saudi-backed Hadi at Aden and the Iran-led Houthis at Sana’a, that has prolonged for 5 years and displaced millions, prompting the UN to call it the worst man-made humanitarian disaster.


To read the 4th part of the series click on the link.

Subscribe to the Global Views 360 mailing list for the weekly updates.

Support us to bring the world closer

To keep our content accessible we don't charge anything from our readers and rely on donations to continue working. Your support is critical in keeping Global Views 360 independent and helps us to present a well-rounded world view on different international issues for you. Every contribution, however big or small, is valuable for us to keep on delivering in future as well.

Support Us

Share this article

Read More

March 4, 2021 4:43 PM

Does giving the Lieutenant Governor more authoritative power have an impact on India's Federal structure?

On 3rd of February 2021, the NCT bill cleared by cabinet along with 20 other bills proposed to be introduced in the parliamentary session. The amendment was passed on 9th of February in the Rajya Sabha.

“The Bill proposed to amend the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi Act, 1991, in the context of judgment dated 14.02.2019 of Hon’ble Supreme Court (Division bench) in Civil Appeal No 2357 of 2017 and other connected matters.”

The article explains the timeline and the practical implications of the NCT Amendment Act 2021 on the federal structure.

The Centre's amendments to the NCT of Delhi Act, gives more powers to the Lieutenant Governor and Delhi’s Kejriwal government were totally against the amendment as due to their bitter experience with the previous and current LG.

The Arvind Kejriwal government described the NCT Bill, as a murder of constitutional democracy and accused BJP of secretively drafting the amendments so as to govern Delhi in an unconstitutional manner using the LG's office.

The new amendment is expected to now clearly define the powers and functions of the Lieutenant Governor and the Delhi Government based on the 2019 judgement. The amendments add a category of bills, which fall outside the ambit of Delhi legislative assembly and which the Lieutenant Governor must reserve for consideration of the President. This category is supposedly added for the sake of “better governance” and to reduce potential conflicts. The amendments also specify that the elected government needs to send legislative proposals to Lieutenant-Governor (LG) at least 14 days in advance to seek his opinion and avoid any delays.

The tussle between the Delhi government and the Centre reached the Supreme Court 2017. The honourable Supreme court defined the role of the LG in Delhi and ruled that the LG cannot interfere in every decision of the Delhi Government. The tussle between the Union and Delhi government has that Article 239 AA of the Constitution at its core. The Article 239 AA gives Delhi the special recognition of a Union Territory with a Legislative Assembly that has a lieutenant governor as its administrative head.

In July 2018, a five-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court led by Chief Justice Dipak Misra stated that the lieutenant governor’s powers in the National Capital were only limited to land, police and public order.

“The lieutenant governor must work harmoniously with the elected government. The LG is the administrative head but can’t act as an obstructionist”, the bench stated. The supreme court also stressed upon the fact that the power and status of the LG was different from the state governors. They mentioned that the Lieutenant Governor must not be an obstructionist and must work harmoniously with the Delhi government. “There is no room for absolutism and no room for anarchy,” the bench stated. The verdict is not complete yet as the issue of services divided the bench that delivered the order and the matter is now addressed by a three-judge bench on the Supreme Court which has not concluded the hearing yet.

So far, the AAP has argued that former LG Najeeb Jung and the current LG Anil Baijal are undermining the federal structure of the Republic of India by objecting the decisions made by the Delhi government and overruling their authority in bureaucratic matters.

Former LG of Delhi with Prime Minister Modi | Source: Wikimedia

In July 2013, Najeeb Jung took charge as the LG of Delhi and Arvind Kejriwal swore in as the Chief Minister (CM) of Delhi in December 2013. After 49 days of governance, Arvind Kejriwal stepped down as his minority government was unable to pass the anti-corruption legislation due to lack of support provided by other political parties. In February 2015, the Aam Aadmi Party came back to power by a staggering majority of 67 out of 70 seats. However, the party faced a higher veto obstruction while making several decisions. In May 2015, LG Jung annulled all the bureaucratic postings by Delhi government and stated that power to appoint and transfer rests with him.

In June 2015, five officers of Bihar Police joined Delhi Government’s Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB). Jung rejected their employment at the ACB claiming that he was the person in charge even before the new amendment. In the same month, the Delhi government replaced the Home Secretary Dharam Pal and Jung obstructed the decision by vetoing the order. When the AAP government decided to hike circle rates in Delhi for agricultural land, the former LG Jung objected to the decision although the State government has the complete authority to take such decisions. In another instance in 2016, Jung set up a panel to probe over 400 files related to decisions taken by Delhi government. The CM of Delhi deemed it to be illegal.

Kejriwal and the AAP government blamed the former LG and Prime Minister Narendra Modi for the CBI raids of his office, FIRs filed by ACB against Arvind Kejriwal and former Delhi CM Late Sheila Dikshit in water tanker scam, restriction of control on appointing state bureaucrats and general obstruction of decisions.

Anil Baijal, the now LG of Delhi with Defence Minister Rajnath Singh | Source: Wikimedia

On 31st December 2016, Anil Baijal swore in as the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi. While the tussle between AAP and the LG continued, the alleged assault of Chief Secretary Anshu Prakash by AAP leaders at CM Arvind Kejriwal’s residence in February 2018 gave a new momentum to the tug of war.

Following the incident, the IAS association reportedly skipped routine meetings with ministers as a mark of protest but claimed that they have not suspended work. Before that, on December 2017, the turf war between Kejriwal and Baijal reached Parliament, with a Rajya Sabha member claiming that the CM was being treated like a “peon”.

In 2018, the AAP government demanded LG’s approval for the proposal for doorstep delivery of rations and also demanded grant of complete statehood for Delhi and installation of CCTVs. Baijal did not approve both the demands directly and further complicated the process. Kejriwal stated that the LG rejected the demands over “petty-politics”.

In June 2018, Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal sat in a nine-day long hunger strike at the Lieutenant Governor’s office against the “strike” by IAS officers and Kejriwal wrote to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, requesting him, “with folded hands”, to intervene and end the agitation of the IAS officers.

The Aam Aadmi Party argues that the BJP is hell bent on ruining efficient governance of Delhi through the LG. Critics believe that the tussle has failed the federal system of our Democracy.

Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice Sikri and Justice Khanwilkar, in their written opinion devoted a significant portion to explain the understanding of federalism, and its fusion with democracy to achieve an “egalitarian social order”. According to our Constitutional scheme neither the States isolated islands, with their distinct vision, nor the Union government can make decisions that are meant to affect the interests of the States. The Chief Justice highlighted that there should be a sincere effort to avoid conflict and not encroach on each other spheres in a collaborative framework of federalism. To exercise authority, “there should be perception of mature statesmanship so that the constitutionally bestowed responsibilities are shared by them.” To attain the ideal balance in a federal structure, the Chief Justice suggested the Union and the States to have “mutual respect and deference to actualise the workability of a constitutional provision.”

Collaborative federalism involves healthy negotiation and coordination between the Union and State governments to ensure that the governance works within the circumference of the Constitution and in harmony.

Read More