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)
|