By

C.A.Chandraprema

Speaking in parliament on Friday Foreign Minister Mangala Samaraweera said that contrary to reports published in the media, Sri Lanka had not pulled out of the SAARC summit which was scheduled to be held in Islamabad on 9 and 10 November and that the Sri Lanka foreign ministry had put out a statement saying that the environment in the region was not conducive to holding the SAARC summit only after four other nations had pulled out of the Summit and that according to the SAARC charter, the summit could not be held even if one country pulls out and by the time SL issued its statement the SAARC summit could not be held anyway. Despite this explanation offered by the foreign minister, the statement that the foreign ministry issued did indicate a pullout without mentioning the word.

What our foreign ministry statement said was that “Sri Lanka regrets that the prevailing environment in the region is not conducive for holding the 19th SAARC Summit in Islamabad on 9th and 10th November 2016. The General Provisions of the SAARC Charter require that decisions at all levels shall be taken on the basis of unanimity, and this applies to the convening of meetings of Heads of State or Government of SAARC Member States as well. As a founding member of SAARC, committed to regional cooperation, Sri Lanka hopes that the steps required to ensuring our region’s peace and security will be taken to create an environment that is conducive for the pursuit of regional cooperation. Sri Lanka condemns terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, and stresses in this regard, the need to deal with the issue of terrorism in the region in a decisive manner.”

The entire Indian press seemd to have interpreted the statement by the Sri Lankan foreign ministry as a pullout and indeed the wording of that statement could not be interpreted as anything else. The latter sentences of that statement seemed to follow in the lines of Indian interpretations of what was going on in the border. It was a testimony to the effectiveness of the Indian espionage agency RAW that none of the Muslim political parties in Sri Lanka like the SLMC or the ACMC expressed solidarity with Pakistan. In this regard, India has come a long way since a decade ago when they were complaining that Pakistan was infiltrating South India using Tamil speaking Muslims from Sri Lanka.

The only Muslim organisation that put out a statement in favour Pakistan was the Progressive Muslim Front which said that the government boycott of the SAARC conference to be held in Islamabad, Pakistan ‘is a sad reflection on the foreign policy of the government’. The Muslim Progressive Front said “The fact also must be emphasized that Pakistan is a very friendly country of ours. It had in the past steadfastly stood by us in all our trials and travails. The role played by Pakistan to combat and completely eradicate terrorism from our country is a fact that would be ever remembered by a grateful nation,..” the statement had said further that in every International forum and particularly in Geneva, Pakistan stood by us and also lobbied other Islamic nations to support us.

Perhaps what really left a bad taste was not so much the statement issued by the foreign ministry but the PM’s visit to India last week which looked for all the world like an expression of solidarity with India at this moment. The Prime Minister’s announcement that ETCA would be signed before the end of this year was another indication that Sri Lanka was now firmly in the Indian orbit. The Joint Opposition also reacted with outrage at what they saw as a case of selling a firm friend of Sri Lanka down the river. Speaking to The Sunday Island, Prof G.L.Peiris said “There was no need whatsoever for us to issue that statement. Four other nations had announced that they were not attending. Which meant that the SAARC summit which was to be held on 9 and 10 November could not be held. The foreign ministry issued this statement at 3.30 in the afternoon. The Pakistan government announced at 6.00 pm that the summit was postponed.” What Peiris implied was that Sri Lanka could have kept quiet without making any announcement at all.

Prof Peiris, a former External Affairs Minister added that this statement was “a deliberate slap in the face for Pakistan and a complete failure of diplomacy. It is an act of gross ingratitude. We won’t have friends if there is no reciprocity. Apart from the fact that Pakistan supported us with logistical support during the war, when we were being relentlessly pursued in Geneva, with resolutions in three consecutive years, 2012, 2013 and 2014, Pakistan worked round the clock to help us together with the other Muslim countries. They worked with Saudi Arabia, UAE both of which were members of the Human Rights Council. Pakistan also helped us through the Organisation of Islamic States. Now for us to have issued that statement was like a kick in the teeth for Pakistan. This is also not going to go down well with the Muslim countries.”

Prof. Peris added that “When Pakistan was suspended from the Commonwealth, President Mahinda Rajapaksa stood against that saying that countries should not be suspended from membership but that one must engage with those countries if there are issues.” Prof. Peris also said that The PM’s visit to India at this particular moment with all this going on over the line of control in Kashmir was not appropriate and that even in the event where the meeting had been scheduled much earlier, the circumstances are compelling enough for a change to be made politely. Peiris made the point that Mrs Sirima Bandaranaike was accepted as an impartial mediator when conflicts broke out in the region. Mrs B did not slavishly bow down to India. “But now we are just a lackey of India. Then the statement to Nitin Gadkari that come what may the ETCA would be signed by the end of the year shows that we have simply become an acolyte of India. The basic problem in our foreign policy is that we don’t understand the difference between friendship and servility. We are simply becoming an instrument for the Washington Delhi axis”.

The difference between servility and friendship

There was a point in what Prof Peris said. In 1971, when the war between West and East Pakistan broke out, Mrs Bandaranaike’s government allowed Pakistani planes to refuel in flying between the two countries. The Indians were very upset and a question was asked in the Indian Lok Sabha on 25 November 1971 whether Pakistani warplanes and naval vessels were re-fuelling in Colombo. When the Indians asked the Sirima Bandaranaiake government about Pakistani planes being allowed to refuel in Colombo the answer given by the SL government was that no planes or naval craft carrying arms, ammunition or military personnel were being allowed to refuel in Colombo. And the Indian government informed the Lok Sabha that they were satisfied with that answer. It should be noted that Colombo had not denied that Pakistani war planes and naval craft were re-fuelling in Colombo – all that was said was that these planes or naval craft did not carry weapons, ammunition or armed forces personnel.

Later on 30 November 1971, Mrs Sirima Bandaranaike stated in the Sri Lankan parliament that the policy of her government was not to get involved in the war between the South Asian neighbours or to take sides. Parliamentarian V Dharmalingam of the ITAK had suggested that Sri Lanka should sever ties with Pakistan because of the ‘genocide’ that was being committed in East Pakistan. Mrs Bandaranaike had chided Dharmalingam for speaking like an Indian and not a Sri Lankan. Reacting to Dharmalingam’s accusation that Sri Lanka had allowed arms and ammunition to be ferried across her territory into East Pakistan, Mrs B had asked angrily whether Dharmalingam had seen weapons being transported and she also explained that only planes moving from East Pakistan (Bangladesh) to West Pakistan carrying evacuees had touched down in Colombo.

Yet when the JVP insurgency had broken out earlier that year in April 1971 India was the first country to come to Sri Lanka’s aid by sending emergency stocks of ammunition to quell the insurgency. It was Anuruddha Ratwatte who had gone to Bangalore to accept the ammunition given by India which was transported in Indian planes to Sri Lanka because Sri Lanka didn’t have aircraft to transport the ammo to SL. However Pakistan too had come to SL’s aid by providing helicopters and the like. When war broke out between India and Pakistan a few months later, Mrs B took steps to ensure that that she remained neutral between the two neighbours. One way she did that was not by asking India whether to allow Pakistani planes to refuel in Colombo – she made that decision on her own as the leader of a sovereign nation. She was a friend to both Pakistan and India and not servile to either. Today however the situation is very different.

Later when Mrs Indira Gandhi visited Sri Lanka in April 1973 barely eighteen months after these events, there wasn’t even a hint of tension between Sri Lanka and India on this matter of the re-fuelling. On the contrary the speeches made by both Mrs B and Indira Gandhi were oozing with warmth and stressed the personal friendship between their two families. Indira Gandhi did make a reference to the war with Pakistan but that was to say that she herself was keen to settle the problems between neighbours amicably and she explained how any territory belonging to Pakistan that India had overrun had been promptly handed back to Pakistan and she went on to say that war and military tensions between neighbours grappling with problems of poverty on the scale seen in South Asia was a joke. Indira Gandhi was in so many words, endorsing the equidistant posture taken by Sri Lanka during the Indo-Pak tensions in 1971.

Courtesy:Sunday Island