By
C.A.Chandraprema

If the Lok Sabha debate last Thursday is anything to go by, the Indian government is acutely aware of the implications of this process that the USA has initiated in the UNHRC in relation to Sri Lanka, for India as well. The debate on ‘The plight of Tamils in Sri Lanka’ began around noon last Thursday.

In her preliminary remarks the Speaker cautioned the members of parliament that the subject matter is a neighbouring country with which India has close and friendly relations and urged members to refrain from saying anything that may adversely affect India’s relations with that country.

The Tamil Nadu representative who opened the debate was T.R.Baalu of Sriperumbudur, a DMK member. When Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated in Sriperumbudur, the DMK was a close ally of the LTTE. Today, not only has the DMK set up an organization called the Tamil Eelam Supporters Organization (TESO) this organization was to hold a meeting in New Delhi to coincide with the Lok Sabha debate on the 7th Thursday. Which way things are heading in India is visible to all but the blind.

Parliamentarian Baalu began by complaining that Indian policy towards Sri Lanka has not changed even though the Minister of External Affairs has changed three times over the past few years. He stated that when the Tamil Nadu delegation went to Geneva canvassing against Sri Lanka last year, the Deputy Secretary-General of the UN, Dr. Jan Eliasson and Navaneethem Pillay, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights had both asked them embarrassing questions about the stand of the Indian central government. Baalu stated openly in his speech that ‘we’ (meaning the DMK) had asked for Tamil Eelam. He stated: “As far as DMK is concerned and as far as TESO is concerned, we will demand a Tamil Eelam. But what is the minimum requirement as of now? The minimum requirement is to safeguard the interests of Tamils on human rights.”

This was said in the Indian parliament in a situation where advocating separatism in India is banned under the 16th Amendment to the Indian constitution. The 16th Amendment was brought mainly to contain Tamil separatism in Tamil Nadu but Indian legislators are now not only openly supporting Tamil separatism in a neighbouring country but trying to pressurise the Indian central government to be handmaiden in the process. Wild exaggerations were made in the course of parliamentarian Baalu’s speech with him claiming that 367 Hindu temples have been destroyed and 89 villages have been renamed in Sinhala.

Yashwant Sinha the senior most BJP figure to speak in this debate, as can be expected of any opposition party in similar situations, took the line of placating Tamil opinion and turning the screws on the Indian government. He started off on a conciliatory note by saying that when he was a diplomat, “Dealing with Sri Lanka was one of the easiest jobs while dealing with all our neighbours. Each one of them had some issue or the other but it was only with Sri Lanka that we could deal on the basis of sovereign equality without any hang-ups either on their side or on our side and this whole House is aware of the fact that Sri Lanka is one of our closest neighbours and that we have had a civilizational relationship and in modern times, one of the most cordial relationships.”

Having said that, he went on to placate Tamil opinion, obviously to curry favour in Tamil Nadu against the Congress government. He in fact accused the Congress government of having being complicit in helping Sri Lanka to orchestrate the war against the LTTE to an end quoting among other sources Gota’s War. Sinha reminisced that the AIADMK had called for economic sanctions at the height of the war in 2009 to stop the Sri Lankan government’s offensive but that the Indian government had disregarded that call. Later in 2011, Vaiko had told him that he had spoken to Manmohan Singh about economic sanctions against Sri Lanka but that the prime minister had told Vaiko that if India imposes economic sanctions on Sri Lanka, China will simply step into the vacuum. Yashwant Sinha said that the Indian government was approaching this problem from a position of helplessness and went on to recommend measures that India should make Sri Lanka take:

1. The Government of Sri Lanka should be made to withdraw its army from the Northern Province and assign normal law and order, duties to the police.

2. Implement the recommendations of the LLRC.

3. Implement the provisions of the 13th Amendment.

4. Hold an impartial inquiry into the charges of genocide and atrocities against the civilian Tamils by the Sri Lankan forces. This inquiry should be carried out by people outside of Sri Lanka.

5. There should be a clear commitment on the part of the Sri Lankan Government that after the inquiry, the guilty shall be punished.

6. India should not merely vote in the UNHRC but should take the lead in drafting the resolution.

7. India should convey, in no uncertain terms, to the other nations in our neighbourhood and to the world at large that any undue interference by them in the affairs of Sri Lanka or in India-Sri Lanka relationship will not be acceptable to India.

A great deal of publicity was given to Yashwant Sinha’s statement in the course of his speech that India is a country with a great deal of clout. But that they seem to have lost that clout now and that nobody even in the neighbourhood is prepared to listen to India. Even though he recommended a list of things that the Indian government should get Sri Lanka to do, he did not say what India should do if Sri Lanka refuses to do what India says. Any Sri Lankan government in power and not just this one, will be forced by public opinion, not to do any of the things listed above. In the past, experience has shown that any government that is perceived as a stooge of foreign powers will be voted out no matter what promise of economic prosperity they may hold out. Hence the possibility of implementing any of the measures recommended by Sinha is rather remote. The decision on the presence or absence of armed forces personnel in Sri Lanka is in any case a matter for Sri Lanka and not for outside direction.

If nothing is done in Sri Lanka, what can India do? In the course of his speech, Sinha did give an indication of the limitations that all Indian governments have had to operate under because of Tamil Nadu. He said that “2,900 of our brave jawans and officers lost their lives on Sri Lankan soil. There is no memorial to them in our country, not yet. These are the greatest losses that the Indian Army has ever suffered.”

However, Sinha did not explain why even the BJP governments since 1991 have never dared to erect a memorial for the Indian Jawans who died in Sri Lanka. The question that naturally arises is, if successive Indian governments led by both the Congress party and the BJP have not been able to erect a memorial for India’s own soldiers on Indian soil, how are they to tell Sri Lanka what they should do, and see to it that those measures are implemented? If they are so under thrall to Tamil Nadu, that they fear to commemorate their own soldiers, why would SL want to implement any suggestion that they can plainly see being foisted upon the Indian central government by Tamil Nadu?

There was a hotch potch of opinions expressed during this debate. M.Tambidurai, a member of the AIADMK stated that despite Baalu’s call for an independent state of Eelam, they do not want an independent Tamil state in Sri Lanka. Tambidurai even expressed his doubts about the American resolution saying: “America is not a Godfather for human rights. It did so many trespassings in Vietnam, Iraq and so many countries. When the war was going on in Sri Lanka very severely, at that time, America was very much silent but now it is bringing a Resolution in the UNHRC. Anyhow, we should utilise the opportunity to support the Resolution. But my doubt is this. America is not for the Sri Lankan Tamils. America is afraid of China because China’s place is very much strong on Sri Lanka. So, America wants to pressurise Sri Lanka to come down and to take a neutral position. I think the American opinion is such. Anyhow, we should utilise the American Resolution and support the Resolution.” Speaking further parliamentarian Tambidurai said:

“Sri Lanka is under the shadow of China. Hon. Yashwant Sinha has expressed here that our external policy should be framed by courage. Yes, that is correct. At the same time, our external family should also be framed by reality also. If we miss the reality, then, the result will be very bad. Now, the Chinese and Pakistan Governments are very close to Sri Lanka. If India brings in any proposal or resolution in the UN, China would use its veto power. … But anyhow we should know that the Sri Lankan problem would be solved across the table where India and Sri Lanka only should be there. The other super powers or any other neighbouring countries are not 100 per cent committed to this cause. The way we can solve our problem with Pakistan across the table, the same way we should bring peace to our brothers in Sri Lanka where Sri Lankan President and Indian Prime Minister should sit across the table to solve the problem.”

A Bengali parliamentarian Saugata Roy who tried to point out that Velupillai Prabhakaran was as responsible as the Sri Lankan forces for the deaths that may have occurred was continuously interrupted and shouted down. Baalu responded by saying that Prabhakaran carried out the armed struggle. Roy reminded him that the LTTE killed members of the EPRLF and TELO and that the LTTE was a ‘thoroughly terrorist organization’. As he was continuously heckled by the Tamil Nadu MPs, Roy said at one point, “Just because I am a Bengali, they will not let me speak on Tamil issue.” He tried to point out that the LTTE used civilians human shields but was shouted down.

Salman Kurshid, the External Affairs minister who had to face this storm the same way he did in the Rajya Sabjha the previous week, explained that it was not easy to vote against a country and continue a dialogue with them and maintain a relationship after voting against them. Kurshid stated that they will take into account what all the members of parliament and the leader of the opposition has said and that the government will study this in terms of the developments on the ground in Sri Lanka and we will look at what Sri Lanka has to say and at what other countries have to say and then come to a decision. Kurshid’s statement did not satisfy the Tamil Nadu members. T.R.Baalu of the DMK wated a categorical answer from Kurshid whether the Indian government was going to ask for a war crimes inquiry against Sri Lanka or not. M Tambidurai of the AIADMK accused Kurshid of beating about the bush and not coming to the point. Both the Tamil Nadu parties walked out of the house in unison. Kurshid continued with his speech and was continuously interrupted by members of the BJP. A little while later, Yashwant Sinha and the BJP members also walked out of the house.

From the events in the Indian parliament in the past two weeks, we see that the American resolution against Sri Lanka has destabilised India to a much greater extent than it has Sri Lanka. In Sri Lanka, the impression of having an external enemy contributes to solidifying a critical mass of people behind the government which provides for regime stability. What is most damaging to Indian interests is that she is being forced by the USA from above and Tamil Nadu from below to subscribe to the resolution against Sri Lanka in the UNHRC in a situation where the very same measures can be taken by the UNHRC against India. Our giant neighbour cannot possibly be unaware that the same charges being brought against Sri Lanka can also be brought against them in relation to Kashmir. This is one reason why India has thus far assiduously avoided voting for country specific resolutions. The Tamil diaspora has been asking for a referendum on Eelam in Sri Lanka. The same can be demanded in relation to Indian controlled Kashmir and even Tamil Nadu where separatism is clearly now on the rise. In the case of Kashmir, once it goes before the UNHRC, it will become another regular agenda item like the Palestinian question with resolutions being passed with the help of the Muslim countries. The implications of what the USA is trying to do with regard to Sri Lanka is not lost on India. They know that if this is allowed to proceed, the storm will come to India as well sooner rather than later.COURTESY:SUNDAY ISLAND