India”s vote against Lanka

Diplomatically Flawed Action?

Rajeev Sharma

India’s vote against Sri Lanka and for a United States backed resolution at the 47 nation United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHCR) in Geneva on March 22 was diplomatically flawed. The Manmohan Singh government was pushed to the wall by all parties of Tamil Nadu and after ally DMK had threatened to withdraw support from the government if New Delhi failed to vote against Colombo, the UPA government was forced to turn its foreign policy on its head.

India’s voting behaviour at Geneva has to be seen from political and diplomatic perspectives which are poles apart in this particular case. Domestic political compulsions mandated that good diplomacy would inevitably be bad politics for the UPA government. The government could not have taken the DMK threat lightly as the regional ally would have announced withdrawal of support minutes after the voting in Geneva, if India had voted in support of Colombo and against the resolution. The choice before Manmohan Singh was clear: sacrifice the government for the sake of good diplomacy or tweak the diplomacy to stay in power.

Remember Mahabharat. Karna had reserved his most potent divine weapon ‘Shakti’ for his arch foe Arjuna. But then he had not kept in mind the Krishnaleela. The Pandavas fielded Bheema’s demon son Ghatotkach who started his mayhem. Duryodhana told Karna to use his ‘Shakti’ against Ghatotkach. Karna refused saying that the weapon could be used only once and he had saved it for Arjuna. Duryodhana ordered him to use the weapon arguing that none would be left in the Kauravas camp if Ghatotkach was not dealt with first. Karna eventually used the ‘Shakti’, killing Ghatotkach, thus saving Arjuna’s life. The moral of the story is: a raging conflagration needs to be put out first than bothering about the future strategies and policies.

Another point to be appreciated is that Sri Lanka too has voted on a number of times against India at numerous fora, including the United Nations General Assembly. Having said that, it does not mean that foreign policy is run on a tit-for-tat basis. Quite often, domestic compulsions dictate foreign policy of a nation. And Sri Lanka is not unaware of the Catch 22 situation the Manmohan Singh government faced. India’s neighbours like China, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Maldives and friends like Russia did not face such domestic compulsions when they voted for Sri Lanka.

There have been reports that the India’s vote against Lanka would give a handle to China and Pakistan to boost their presence in the island nation and exploit the event strategically to harm India. Such assertions are outrageous. China and Pakistan have been in Lanka for decades. China has been Sri Lanka’s biggest foreign lender ($ 1.2 billion), not from today but since 2009. It was way back in 1963 when China had given the most-favoured nation treatment to commercial maritime activities with Sri Lanka. Over the past decade, China has invested huge political and commercial capital in building and improving Sri Lanka’s strategic infrastructure, the prime example being the billion dollar Hambantota Port project constructed by the Chinese. Sri Lanka had first approached India for help on the Hambantota project. That was a decade ago when Sri Lanka was still in the grip of a civil war and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, annihilated in May 2009, was going strong. India refused – again because of domestic political compulsions. China entered the Sri Lankan strategic space ceded by India and took up Hambantota project. The biggest strategic loss to India vis a vis Sri Lanka had happened then.

As for Pakistan, it is an open secret that Islamabad has been wooing Colombo for decades and been supplying arms and ammunition to Sri Lankan forces for years, something which India could not even dream of doing. The Sri Lankans had to make do with whatever weapons the Pakistanis were selling them, though the stuff supplied was of inferior quality.

The fact is that neither China nor Pakistan can ever be a substitute for India as far as Sri Lanka is concerned. One, culturally Sri Lanka is much different from China and Pakistan, while India is very close. Secondly, unlike India, China and Pakistan do not share maritime border with this South Asian island state. India and Sri Lanka may temporarily face a situation of acute differences of opinion on an issue, but both know that they have to co-exist and cannot remain without one another. India continues to be Sri Lanka’s largest trading partner. Therefore, to think that India has committed a major blunder by voting against Sri Lanka at the UNHCR forum would be a flawed and exaggerated approach of looking at the things.

One should not lose sight of the half-glass-full picture in this context. The Sri Lankan human rights record has indeed been pathetic and no government in New Delhi can afford to ignore the deep sense of hurt in the State of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry which together send 40 MPs to the 545-Member Lok Sabha. A pluralistic, democratic society like India has to take note of this major red rag in the Centre-State relations. India’s vote against Sri Lanka has thus sent a strong message to Colombo that the Mahinda Rajapaksa government has to pull up its socks and address genuine human rights concerns regarding the Sri Lankan Tamils community.

The Ministry of External Affairs, in its explanation of why India voted against Sri Lanka at the UNHCR, has pointed out that New Delhi believes that the primary responsibility for the promotion and protection of human rights lies with the nation states. Consequently resolutions of this nature should fully respect the sovereign rights of states and contribute to Sri Lanka’s own efforts in this regard.

India had welcomed the recommendations of Sri Lanka’s Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) report, a body which constituted by the Rajapaksa government in the first place. Moreover, the UNHCR resolution issue has been hanging fire for three years and it is not as if that Sri Lankan government was arm-twisted by the international community and the resolution was drafted overnight. The Rajapaksa government would now do well to read the writing on the wall and move ahead by forging a consensual way forward towards reconciliation through a political settlement respecting all the ethnic and religious groups inhabiting the nation, something which the Sri Lankan Government had committed to the UNHCR in 2009.

The Sri Lankan government needs to take forward the process of broader dialogue and show concrete movement towards a meaningful devolution of powers, including the implementation of the 13th Amendment and beyond. Nonetheless, there will be diplomatic repercussions of India”s vote against Sri Lanka and it is already showing in Colombo”s opposition to the Kundankulam nuclear power project in Tamil Nadu.?

NEWS IN BRIEF

Pawar asks PM to reverse anti-farmer policies?

NCP leader and Union Agriculture minister Sharad Pawar has sent an angry letter to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh criticizing the policies of food and textile ministries headed by KV Thomas and Anand Sharma respectively and urged him to urgently amend the UPA government’s policies that are hurting the farmers.

Pawar has also expressed his annoyance with the continued curbs on exports of sugar, cotton and milk. Significantly, on the issue of cotton exports, Pawar’s stand has been firmly backed by the Maharashtra and Gujarat units of the Congress party as well as Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi.

Pawar Speak

The UPA government on April 9 claimed tangible progress in talks with ULFA, but independent sources said the main objective of stopping the ULFA bloodbath would not be fulfilled until the outfit’s elusive commander-in-chief Paresh Barua is captured, dead or alive. Barua is believed to be in hiding somewhere in the China-Myanmar border region, some reports even claiming that China is patronising him.

Union Home Secretary R K Singh on April 9 chaired a tripartite meeting involving the representatives of Government of Assam, ULFA and the Centre to discuss demands submitted by ULFA. The Ministry of Home Affairs claimed “tangible progress” and noted thus in a brief press release: “There was tangible progress in the talks. Both sides were satisfied with the progress made. Government of India’s Representative PC Haldar has been requested to hold further meetings to discuss some aspects in detail. Noting the tangible progress in talks with ULFA, Union Home Secretary stated that he would review the progress of talks with ULFA periodically.”

ULFA Chairman Arabinda Rajkhowa, Assam Chief Secretary NK Das, Centre’s pointsman and Special Secretary (Internal Security) in the union home ministry PC Haldar,, Joint Secretary (North East) Ajay Chadha and GD Triphati, Secretary (Home) West Bengal Government were among those present at April 9 talks.?

However, Pawar has been quite polite and deferential to the Prime Minister and blamed the ministries of food and textile for pursuing policies that are hurtful to the farmers. “On numerous occasions I have discussed with you the need to have farmer-centric agriculture policy…On each of these occasions, I have found you in consonance with these ideas. However, despite this, our government has time and again taken the decisions which go against the interest of the farming community and adversely impacts its growth and stability,” Pawar said.

The NCP supremo shot off his letter to the PM on April 9 contending that the farmers are being asked to subsidise the industry. Livid over a Group of Ministers decision on April 9 to ban cotton exports beyond 13 million bales for the current marketing year, Pawar said such restrictions were retrograde. In this context he roundly criticized the functioning of the ministries of food and textile and criticized their “ambivalent” and “anti-farmers” policies.

On milk exports, Pawar said the Centre”s policy was “equally ambivalent” and demanded opening of export of skimmed milk powder and casein. On sugar exports, Pawar lambasted the “negative approach” of the Food Ministry which led to heavy losses in export earnings which could have been used to clear cane arrears to farmers that have crossed Rs. 8,000 crore.           (FOC)?

UPA claims “Tangible progress” in ULFA talks?

The UPA government on April 9 claimed tangible progress in talks with ULFA, but independent sources said the main objective of stopping the ULFA bloodbath would not be fulfilled until the outfit’s elusive commander-in-chief Paresh Barua is captured, dead or alive. Barua is believed to be in hiding somewhere in the China-Myanmar border region, some reports even claiming that China is patronising him.
Union Home Secretary R K Singh on April 9 chaired a tripartite meeting involving the representatives of Government of Assam, ULFA and the Centre to discuss demands submitted by ULFA. The Ministry of Home Affairs claimed “tangible progress” and noted thus in a brief press release: “There was tangible progress in the talks. Both sides were satisfied with the progress made. Government of India’s Representative PC Haldar has been requested to hold further meetings to discuss some aspects in detail. Noting the tangible progress in talks with ULFA, Union Home Secretary stated that he would review the progress of talks with ULFA periodically.”
ULFA Chairman Arabinda Rajkhowa, Assam Chief Secretary NK Das, Centre’s pointsman and Special Secretary (Internal Security) in the union home ministry PC Haldar,, Joint Secretary (North East) Ajay Chadha and GD Triphati, Secretary (Home) West Bengal Government were among those present at April 9 talks.?