The recent vote on Sri
Lanka at the nineteenth session of the United Nations Human Rights Council
(UNHRC) saw India isolate itself and make a hurried
statement that appeared to be an apology for its foreign policy.
The US sponsored
resolution was passed with 24 countries voting for, 15 voting against and 8
abstentions. India voted with the US in support of the resolution.
India a pioneer of of
non-alignment
 |
| India's Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru with other world leaders who pioneered the non-aligned movement (Photo courtsey: www.sukarnoyears.com) |
It was in the 1950s that
India’s then Prime Minister Pandit Jawaharlal
Nehru promoted the policy of non-alignment. The policy was the outcome of
the increasing polarisation of the United States and its allies and the Soviet
Union and its allies. In fact, the term non-alignment was coined by Nehru in a
speech in Colombo in 1954.
Since its inception and
the first meeting of the Heads of State of the non-aligned countries in 1961
India has strongly argued for a policy of non-alignment even in the
post-cold-war era.
Therefore, many not just
in Sri Lanka but around the world were surprised, when Prime Minister Dr.
Manmohan Singh recently told the Indian Parliament that India was likely to
vote against Sri Lanka and in favour of the US sponsored resolution which
sought to force Sri Lanka to act according to the dictates of the United States
and other powerful western countries that dominate the United Nations system to
force Sri Lanka to act on the recommendations of the indigenously implemented
mechanism of the ‘Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission’.
India’s
stand in Geneva is all the more intriguing since it was only on February 28
that India launched
a report written under the auspices of both the National Defence College
and the Centre for Policy Research outlining a strategy
for non-alignment in the 21st century.
India had ball-by-ball
description of progress of operation against LTTE
 |
| Sri Lanka's Minister Basil Rajapaksa and India's Pranab Mukerjee at a meeting on bilateral matters (Photo courtesy: www.amila-kumanayake.blogspot.com) |
The vote naturally angered
Sri Lanka. India despite its history of having trained and armed the LTTE on
its soil had been an ally over the past several years. Sri Lanka and India had
stood together over the final years of the conflict with consultations at the
highest levels as frequently as weekly at certain stages. It was not uncommon
for senior ministers of the Sri Lanka government to fly to New Delhi with only
a day’s notice to brief the Indian government on the progress on the ground.
Similarly Indian Ministers and senior officials would fly over to Colombo and
meet even President Mahinda Rajapaksa even if he was away in Kandy. The leaders
would also converse regularly on the telephone.
Vote
against Sri Lanka has angered Indians
India’s
volte-face also drew much flak from within the country. Many including
well-known journalists took to twitter condemning the Indian government for its
stance and warning of the dangers ahead. Kanchan Gupta, Writer, Journalist and
Associate Editor of The Pioneer was one such who used twitter to drive home a
strong message. On March 19, he tweeted, “A vote against Sri Lanka at UNHRC
is, ultimately,
a vote against India's national interest. Tragic to see Indians pushing for
it.”
He
was even more forceful in a column titled, ‘Helping
‘realise’ Tamil Eelam’, where he said,
“It’s
akin to the Government of India endorsing separatism in Jammu & Kashmir and
standing by those individuals and organisations in Pakistan who fuel and
promote this separatism. If that is unacceptable to us, then there is no reason
why we should not find Karunanidhi’s ‘unrealised dream’ and Manmohan Singh
abusing his executive authority to help realise that dream odious and
objectionable.”
Another
of @KanchanGupta’s tweets gave a hint of what has been india’s
long-standing policy in dealing with Sri Lanka. “@dhume01 I
think it was Bandung. Nehru summoned Bandaranaike, asked him to show his
speech, set it aside and told him he would redraft it.”
It
was India’s Big Brother policy; India would do as it wanted with small Sri
Lanka.
Having
nurtured the LTTE’s armed terrorism India was sadly jolted from its complacency
when the monster struck with ferocious intensity killing former Prime Minister
Rajiv Gandhi with a human bomb. India began to change its policy towards Sri
Lanka but not before helping nurture the seed of separatism in Tamilnadu, no
doubt to the delight of western nations who replaced colonial authoritarianism
with democracy. Democracy as we have seen is a more pliable mechanism that
western nations have used to change regimes at will and exploit the resources
that rightfully belong to the citizens of that country.
Sri Lanka not amused by India’s alignment with US
Sri Lanka was not amused with India’s stand at the
UNHRC. President Mahinda Rajapakse has said human
rights are a part of Sri Lankan history and that Sri Lankans have been
protecting human rights since the introduction of Buddhism to the country. External
Affairs Minister G.L. Peiris in a statement following the vote said,
“It is a matter of
great satisfaction to us that 15 countries voted with Sri Lanka, despite the
intensity of pressure, in a variety of forms, exerted on them all. We
convey to them our warm thanks and deep appreciation.
We also thank
sincerely the 8 countries which, by abstaining, declined to support the
Resolution.
With 15 countries
voting with Sri Lanka, and 8 countries abstaining, the final result was that 23
countries, out of a total of 47 members of the Human Rights Council, did not
support the Resolution, while 24 supported it. The margin was as narrow as
this.”
The statement added,
“This is a highly
selective and arbitrary process not governed by objective norms or criteria of
any kind. The implications of this were not lost on many countries.
As far as Sri Lanka
is concerned, our policy in respect of all matters will continue to be guided
by the vital interests and wellbeing of the people of our country. It
hardly requires emphasis that this cannot yield place to any other consideration.”
That
was obviously why Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh sought to placate Sri
Lanka and wrote
a letter to Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa. The resolution united
Sri Lankans not only within the country but outside as well in their outrage
against the foreign interference. Singh’s placatory letter is unlikely to
impress the island’s 20 million inhabitants who have begun to enjoy the
benefits of peace. Three decades of bitter conflict cannot easily be erased
from memory and any attempt to drive a wedge in the country’s social fabric under
the pretext of safeguarding human rights is unlikely to succeed. Many would however
admit to the necessity for improvements in law and order; an endeavour already
underway that needs acceleration.
Vote
scares small countries
India
stood out as the only country in Asia to have voted against Sri Lanka. The
implications are enormous. It has effectively abrogated its role as the
superpower in South Asia. By aligning itself with the west India has alienated
itself and departed from the long-held policy of non-alignment. In the future, neighbors and small countries will both step warily around India unless and
until it is seen to demonstrate a firm foreign policy that balances national
interests with regional and global realities. Smaller countries in the Indian
Ocean region which looked up to India would in particular need to be reassured
that India respects the principles of sovereignty and security of countries.
These assurances would have to be demonstrated practically at the bilateral and
multi-lateral levels and not be limited only to pious pronouncements.
Has
India again encouraged separatism in Sri Lanka?
The
dangers are even greater. Sri Lanka has warned India that the vote in Geneva
could be used as a
precedent to bring a similar resolution on Kashmir. It was more than
conjecture that entities in western countries if not the countries themselves
aided the LTTE and the call for a separate state in Sri Lanka. The efforts
of western nations to save LTTE leader Velupillai Prabhakaran appear
to reinforce the view that western countries wished to encourage a separate
state in Sri Lanka.
Democracy
as a tool for ‘regime change’
Recent
events in India tend to give more perspective on the rationale for such a
policy. However, to understand the implications for India and the region, it is
necessary to briefly view the reasons for the end of the ‘cold war’ and events
in its aftermath. The cold war ended only with the dismantling of the Soviet
Union and its allies such as Yugoslavia. Gradually western capitalism has eroded
the social fabric in these countries replacing the authoritarian communist
governments with ones where power resides with a wealthy elite and corruption
is rampant.
More
recently, Iraq was invaded under the protection of UN resolutions on the basis
the country possessed weapons
of mass destruction, a
claim that has since been disproved. The ‘Arab
Spring’ began in Tunisia where
despite the optimism many
are still frustrated well over a year after the revolution. Egypt which was
stable despite the lack of democracy is now in continuous
turmoil with religious
intolerance a major issue. Libya
is still an unknown melting
pot. More
recently a coup was staged in Mali. Interestingly, one of the coup leaders
has said that he received
training from the US Marines and Intelligence. Some of these events have had
direct intervention by western countries led by the US or NATO or both under
the protective umbrella of UN resolutions. In many of the ‘Arab Spring’ revolts
speculation has been rife that western countries have been catalysing democracy
by encouraging, training and even arming ‘dissidents’. Critics including Russia
have accused the west of meddling
in Syria.
In
this context it is interesting to note US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s
remarks at the opening of the Anna Centenary Library in Chennai in July 2011.
She said, “President Obama made a state visit to India last year. I have been
here twice in the last two years. And why, one might ask? Why are we coming to
India so often and welcoming Indian officials to Washington as well? It’s
because we understand that much of the history of the 21st century will be
written in Asia, and that much of the future of Asia will be shaped by
decisions not only of the Indian Government in New Delhi, but of governments
across India, and perhaps, most importantly, by the 1.3 billion people who live
in this country.”
India
part of US Global Strategy
 |
| President Barack Obama of the United States and Indian Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh in a warm embrace. (Photo courtesy: www.rediff.com) |
India
as the world’s largest democracy is already a global superpower. Unlike China,
its Asian neighbour which compares easily and even exceeds on population and
land mass, India has 28 democratically elected state governments with defined
state borders. India’s more than one billion population is a ready market for
goods whether from the west or the east. During a time of economic recession
the west is undoubtedly keen to harness this great resource.
Addressing
the US – India Strategic
Dialogue Secretary Clinton said, “Each of our countries can do more to
reduce barriers, open our markets, and find new opportunities for economic
partnership. Taking these steps is in our mutual interest. We can
improve millions of lives and increase both of our nations’ economic
competitiveness.”
Speaking
at the opening
of the Anna Centenary Library in Chennai, she went on to stress the global
superpower’s reliance on India as a market. “Well, speaking for the United
States, I can tell you that we are, in fact, betting on India’s future. We are
betting that the opening of India’s markets to the world will produce a more
prosperous India and a more prosperous South Asia. It will also spill over into
Central Asia and beyond into the Asia Pacific region.”
“There
is no better place to discuss India’s leadership in the region to its east than
here in Chennai. In this port city, looking out at the Bay of Bengal and beyond
to the nations of East and Southeast Asia, we are easily reminded of India’s
historic role in the wider region.” Clinton used the opportunity to strike a
chord with Tamilnadu’s population sympathetic to their brethren in Sri Lanka,
“Here in Chennai, we can see how much a society can achieve when all citizens
fully are participating in the political and economic life of their country.
Every citizen of Sri Lanka deserves the same hope and opportunity for a better
future,” she said to applause from the audience in Chennai.
Scope
of Tamil Separatism
 |
| Map showing Tamilnadu in South India and proposed state of Tamil Eelam in the north and east of Sri Lanka (Courtesy: www.en.wikipedia.org) |
A
separate state in Sri Lanka as envisaged by the LTTE and its supporters would
have afforded the western countries unfettered access to the coveted
Trincomalee port – the world’s largest natural harbour as well as two-thirds of
the country’s coastline together with some of the most valuable natural
resources. More importantly it would have hastened the break-up of India with
each of the states becoming an independent country. It is quite likely that
this ‘Indian Spring’ would have begun in Tamilnadu where even now leading
politicians are promoting a separate state in Sri Lanka. Tamil
nationalism in India has been discussed elsewhere in greater detail by Dr.
Dayan Jayatillleka. The idea is well illustrated in the map on the Facebook
page titled, Tamil nadu separatism.
A
separate Tamil state in the north and east of Sri Lanka and another in
Tamilnadu would have opened a contiguous area of sea that would have been open
for the west to exploit. Today the sea-routes between east and west pass very
close to the coast across Sri Lanka’s territorial waters. Western countries
could also be eyeing Sri Lanka as a potential spacecraft launch pad being very
close to the equator and having sufficient sea area in the event of an aborted
flight or for the jettisoning of used stages of rockets.
Pain
of Partition a reason for India to remain united
 |
| India's partition was a traumatic experience for both Indians and Pakistanis (Photo courtesy: www.johnbatchelorshow.com) |
A
united India has so far not shown itself as a military threat to any other
country. Any break will be more painful than the partition of India when
even desks and chairs were reported to have been broken into a third and
shipped to Pakistan. (This was reported in a detailed report in the Readers’
Digest many years ago.) It would prove to be a lucrative market for a short
period till conflicts between states begin to create huge complications as
landlocked states depend on access through others. India needs to remain united
both for its own and for global stability.
By
isolating itself from other countries that wished away any assault on their
sovereignty, India has shot itself in the foot. On an occasion when even strong
allies of the United States saw the dangers and decided to vote against the
resolution, India has not only hurt Sri Lanka, its closest neighbour with whom
it shares even the Ramayana, but left itself wide open and vulnerable. END.
(Follow
the writer on twitter: @Panhinda)
