INDIA MUST STAND BY SRI LANKA, vote against US resolutions
Kanchan Gupta
One of the UNHRC sittings
|
How Colombo deals with its domestic Tamil problem is entirely its
business. New Delhi must mind India's interest and not succumb to DMK's
political blackmail. Nothing would be more disastrous for India’s
national interest if the Congress were to decide to force Prime Minister
Manmohan Singh and Minister for External Affairs Salman Khurshid to vote
for the resolution against Sri Lanka moved by the US in the United
Nations Human Rights Council.
At the fag end of UPA 2’s tenure, the Congress would be tempted to
appease the DMK rather than risk the alliance collapsing and dying a
premature death. But as Khurshid knows, succumbing to political
blackmail at home can lead to possibilities of more than embarrassment
abroad: It required Herculean effort to stave off a similar anti-India
vote at the UNHRC when PV Narasimha Rao was Prime Minister and President
Bill Clinton was determined to rub India’s nose in the dirt. Robin
Raphael was implementing a Democratic Administration’s South Asia agenda
which could witness a revival with US Secretary of State John Kerry and
Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel pitching for Pakistan against India.
As Minister of State in South Block, Khurshid barely managed to
prevent the anti-India resolution from being put to vote in Geneva — had
it not been for Atal Bihari Vajpayee stepping in to retrieve the
situation by deploying his diplomatic skills and calling in favours,
Pakistan would have scored a splendid victory. Times have changed, India
is in a far more stronger position today than it was in the 1990s and
the US is no more the sole and dominant global power.
Counter-terrorism operations
Ironically, it is precisely for those very reasons that Khurshid will
find it impossible to prevent an anti-India resolution from being
carried through on the back of a majority vote. Among those voting
against India would be Sri Lanka and all sundry countries who stood by
that country when New Delhi broke ranks to vote against Colombo in March
last year. Not that Sonia Gandhi would want to take the Opposition’s
help in such a situation, but even if she were to do so, Khurshid would
not have Vajpayee leading the counter-offensive.
Even the most casual reading of the draft resolution circulated by
the US would show that a similar resolution can be moved against India
at the UNHRC to demonstrate care and concern for Kashmiris. There would
be more than enough takers for that, even if the care is bogus and the
concern treacly — make no mistake of that. For, if Sri Lanka is accused
of unfair use of state power against civilians and ‘armed opposition’,
so is India charged in some quarters about counter-terrorism operations
in the Kashmir Valley.
If Sri Lanka is guilty of suppressing Tamil aspirations (including
the right to self-determination), India stands accused of doing far
worse, not only in Pakistan but also in Europe and America. If Sri Lanka
must open its doors to international rapporteurs and allow unfettered
access to the UN Human Rights Commissioner and other UNHRC staff, then a
similar and seemingly credible demand can be made of India. Are we
willing to accept this and other demands? Are we willing to subjugate
our national sovereignty to illegitimate interference in our domestic
affairs? These and other questions must be confronted and answered
before we push for punitive action against Sri Lanka.
War on terror
It could be argued that separatism and its attendant terrorism in
Kashmir Valley cannot be compared to Tamil separatism in Sri Lanka. A
legitimate case could also be made in justification of putting down
terrorism in Kashmir Valley and disallowing secessionists their presumed
right to secede territory from the Union of India. But in the popular
perception, and if the veneer of sophistry were to be rubbed off, there
is little that separates Kashmiri separatism in India from Tamil
secessionism in Sri Lanka. Colombo had the guts to declare war on
domestic terror and take that war to its logical conclusion.
New Delhi has been consistently hypocritical, refusing to acknowledge
that the Indian state is indeed waging war on terror — whether in
battling jihadis in the Kashmir Valley or Maoists in the jungles of
central and eastern India. Our hypocrisy blinds us to the fact that in
any asymmetrical war of this nature there are bound to be collateral
damages; Sri Lanka witnessed similar losses to life and property in
wiping out, root and branch, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. How
they cope with those losses is their concern inasmuch as how we deal
with death and destruction at home; there is no scope for third party
intervention just as there is no space for third party mediation.
This is not to suggest that Sri Lanka’s Tamil minority must remain
uncared for or denied equal social, economic and political rights by the
country’s Sinhala majority.
India could have prevented that. If only New Delhi had been wise
enough to dishonour bogus ‘coalition dharma’ and partnered Colombo’s war
on terror, it would have been in a position to influence both the
conduct of the war and the terms of peace. But India erred, and erred
grievously. Instead of standing by Sri Lanka, it vacated space for China
to step in. No less fatally flawed was India’s policy after the guns
fell silent — we could have, even at that late stage, proactively
engaged with Sri Lanka and fashioned a durable peace. Sadly, we took
recourse to highfalutin bunkum that neither impressed nor scared Sri
Lanka.
National interest
We allowed national interest to be subverted by the crude identity
politics of the DMK whose chief M Karunanidhi brazenly proclaims, every
now and then, that seeing the creation of ‘Tamil Eeelam’ (whose borders
he does not specify) is his dream. We prostrate ourselves before
Karunanidhi to ensure parliamentary majority; would we be so supine
with, say, Syed Ali Shah Geelani?
There is still a window of opportunity that is open to us, a tiny
window no doubt but a window nonetheless, to cut our losses and ensure
national interest takes precedence over vacuous politics of cynicism.
India must vote against the US-sponsored resolution in the UNHRC. It’s
also an opportunity for Khurshid to do what he (and I know this for a
fact) instinctively believes is the right thing to do.
Voting against Sri Lanka in 2012 was bad enough; repeating that folly
would be unmitigated disaster — for us, and for Sri Lanka’s Tamils.
(The writer is a senior journalist based in Delhi)
Courtesy: National Pioneer |