Home arrow Archives arrow Round the World arrow Round The World 2012 arrow India’s Vote On Sri Lanka:CAN RAJAPAKSHA BECOME HERO FOR TAMILS?, by Monish Tourangbam, 27 Mar, 2012
 
Home
News and Features
INFA Digest
Parliament Spotlight
Dossiers
Publications
Journalism Awards
Archives
RSS
 
 
 
 
 
 
India’s Vote On Sri Lanka:CAN RAJAPAKSHA BECOME HERO FOR TAMILS?, by Monish Tourangbam, 27 Mar, 2012 Print E-mail

Round The World

New Delhi ,27 March 2012

India’s Vote On Sri Lanka

CAN RAJAPAKSHA BECOME HERO FOR TAMILS?

By Monish Tourangbam

Research Scholar, School of International Studies (JNU)

 

Weeks after India’s controversial vote on the Syrian issue at the UN, another vote on Sri Lanka’s human rights matter has raised eyebrows. Questionably, why did India vote in favour of the US-initiated resolution at the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) in Geneva? Why didn’t it vote against the resolution as did Russia, China and other South Asian countries? Or, or least why didn’t New Delhi abstain?

Critics have blamed the Manmohan Singh Government of either bowing to the dictates of the Western countries, read US or to the pressures of coalition politics, with the DMK threatening to withdraw from the Government if it didn’t.

The moot point: Domestic politics or strategic priorities? What explains India’s vote? Was it at the cost of India’s neighbourhood policy, and its national security interest?  Has New Delhi squandered Colombo’s comradeship? Or is the vote a principle stand having no practical effect on India-Sri Lanka relations?

Undeniably, foreign policy decisions cannot be entirely detached from domestic factors, more so in the case of Sri Lanka, with the Tamil pressure playing a prominent role in India’s decision-making. Notwithstanding, the internal factors behind India’s decision, the question is: Was India’s vote justified?  The answer is: Yes.

Importantly, the vote should not be seen as anti-Sri Lanka, but a reminder to President Rajapaksa’s Administration to take steps with a clearer sense of purpose vis-à-vis the issue of political reconciliation in Sri Lanka. Like in the case of the Syrian vote, India, while voting for the Sri Lankan resolution incorporated various amendments and reportedly succeeded in pushing them in an effort to prioritise Sri Lanka’s sovereignty.

True, New Delhi did hesitate before voting in favour of the country-specific resolution, that too of a neighbouring country with which it is trying to cement ties post the long drawn civil war. But, then, the vote did not entirely come out of the blue.

Also, though Foreign Minister Krishna did not spell out any hints on New Delhi’s decision on the issue in the Lok Sabha, the Prime Minister made it clear that India was “inclined to vote in favour” of the resolution in reply to a Parliamentary question.

On its part, the Sri Lankan Foreign Minister Peiris stated that India’s vote was not determined by the merits of the issue, but by its strategic alliance and domestic political issues, apparently hinting at the reasons for New Delhi’s decision. 

But, on the contrary, India did vote on the merits of the issue at hand, i.e. the question of human rights abuses by the Sri Lankan army towards the end of the civil war along-with, the issue of meaningful devolution mindful of the political status of the ethnic Tamil minority in the island country.

Undoubtedly, political reconciliation in a post-conflict Sri Lanka has been a major and constant reminder to New Delhi, even as it continues to increase its economic ties with Colombo. Most of India’s assistance has gone towards the rehabilitation and reconstruction of the conflict-hit Tamil-dominated regions.

Remember, India was silently supportive of the war against the LTTE and has been openly supportive of the Rajapaksa Administration, but with a rider: To build a new inclusive Sri Lanka, where Tamils should not feel the need for another Prabhakaran. Despite, constant pressure from Tamil Nadu political parties, New Delhi maintained its support and confidence for the Rajapaksa Government.

Even after the recent vote, the Government went out of its way to correct the nuances of the vote, specifically highlighting the efforts it had made towards watering down the original resolution and introducing what it calls an “element of balance” in the draft, making it “non-intrusive”.

New Delhi underscored that any assistance from the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights or visits of UN Special Procedures to Sri Lanka should be in consultation with and concurrence of Colombo. While it subscribed to the broader message and objectives of the resolution at the UNHRC, India’s emphasis was on concurrence and consultation.

Indeed, New Delhi walked a diplomatic tightrope on the Sri Lankan issue. At the same time, India is not only supportive of the economic strides being made by the Sri Lankan Government but also desires to develop and enhance ties at all levels. But not at the cost of the Tamils in the island country who are accorded a secondary status.

Clearly, Sinhala chauvinism has to go, in order to build a new Sri Lanka. Economic miracles and fast-paced financial tie-ups with countries like China alone cannot help cure the sore points of a divided Sri Lanka.

Besides, the Rajapaksa Government has been found wanting in its efforts to resolve political issues in the country. The absence of effective measures to bring about political reconciliation and power devolution gives more ammunition to Western countries and human rights groups, which continue to accuse  Government of human rights abuses committed by the its army.  Also, the Government constituted Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) has been unable to satisfy external as well as internal watchers.

Repeated airings of the British Channel 4 documentary on human rights abuses during the Sri Lanka conflict have not made life easier for the President. The Human Rights Watch Report 2012 stated the long-awaited LLRC report, “largely absolved the military for its conduct in the bloody final months of the war with the LTTE which ended in May 2009.” The Tamil National Alliance (TNA), umbrella organization of Tamil political Parties in Sri Lanka, also rejected the LLRC report and talks between the Government and Tamil groups seem to be making no headway.

Needless to say, a stalemate is neither good for the county nor for the region. Stability and security in the island nation is a core issue for Indian analysts and policy-makers. Further, no long lasting result can come at the expense of the ethnic Tamils whose political status and inclusion in Sri Lanka’s development is germane to the country’s future.

In the ultimate, seen in this context, the Indian should not be read as anti-Sri Lanka, or for that matter ‘against Sri Lanka’ (a terminology excessively being used in all forms of media). Efforts should be made to project the idea that New Delhi voted (with certain conditions) in favour of a resolution that broadly talks about genuine political reconciliation in the island State.  

In fact, in his first comments on the resolution, President Rajapaksa sought to strike a balance between populist politics and foreign policy pragmatism. While asserting that Sri Lanka would not tolerate any arbitrary interference, he refrained from singling out countries that had supported the resolution.

True, President Rajapaksa has indeed emerged a war hero for the Sinhalese majority, but has he even tried to be an exemplary leader for Sri Lanka? Will he become a national statesman and a hero for the minority Tamils as well? The answer to this question will to a large extent determine the future of Sri Lanka and for that matter, New Delhi’s approach to Colombo. ---- INFA

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)

 

< Previous   Next >
 
   
     
 
 
  Mambo powered by Best-IT