India’s Sri Lanka Vote: A Diplomatic Harakiri
March 24, 2012 by Team SAISA
Filed under foreign policy
In international relations taking firm stands against internal affairs of a country has never been India’s stated stand. Purely from a non alignment 1 and 2 angles, the Indian vote against Sri Lanka at the UNHRC came amidst increased political pressure from DMK rather than an independent stand taken to ameliorate the condition of Tamils in Sri Lanka.
If the Indian aim was to ensure a deal for the Sri Lankan Tamils there were a range of options – diplomatic, political and economic available to India. This frontal attack has marginalised India in South Asia when all the South Asian nations along with China and Russia voted against the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) recommendations.
In a veiled attack on India, Sri Lankan Foreign Minister G L Peiris, who was present during the voting, said the most distressing feature is the reality that voting at the Council is now determined not by the merits of a particular issue but by strategic alliances and domestic political issues in other countries, an apparent reference to the politics in Tamil Nadu.
How do the Sri Lankan Tamils benefit from the treachery of coalition politics in India? If anything the Indian stand has alienated India amongst the Sinhalese public and sown the seeds of mistrust in future. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh later said: ”We had to weigh the pros and cons. What we did was in line with our stand.”
What is India’s stand?
Hindu had quoted the Prime Minister on 13 Mar 12 to follow a conciliatory approach without hurting Sri Lankan sensitivities. Dr. Singh said that in its engagement with the Sri Lankan government, India had urged it to put in place a process of resettlement, rehabilitation and reconstruction, including early return of all internally displaced persons, early withdrawal of emergency regulations, investigation into allegations of human rights violations, restoration of normalcy in affected areas and redress of humanitarian concerns. The Government of India was implementing projects covering housing, education, health, vocational training, agriculture and reconstruction of infrastructure. “We intend to remain engaged with Sri Lanka in order to take this process forward.” The Hindu had also surmised two days before the vote that India would vote for Sri Lanka. But this was not to be.
As it is apparent now, India failed on both counts: that of managing the Sri Lankan Sinhalas or the Tamils. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had sought to explain that he favoured a way forward on accountability and reconciliation issues without creating mistrust and confrontation. That is exactly what the vote has resulted in.
All the voting South Asian countries as also China and Russia spoke strongly against the adverse consequences of such a resolution and interference in the domestic affairs of a sovereign state. India has been combating insurgencies in Kashmir, the North Eastern states and faces the menace of Left Wing Extremism in over 200 districts. Insurgencies do tend to result in excesses from both the insurgents and the counter insurgents. Throwing stones at neighbours while living in glass houses certainly does not augur well for Indian foreign policy. This, when Sri Lanka is increasingly drifting towards China.
If the Indian vote hardens the stance of the Sri Lankan Government and diminishes further the facilitatory role India could have played in ensuring reconciliation and justice for the Tamils, it would prove wholly counter- productive.
A similar disservice was done to the nation when India could not ink the Teesta water accord with Bangladesh due to domestic coalition politics compulsions. The repeated attempts to keep the coalition afloat while jeopardising relations with neighbours in the periphery is bad dharma. It would ultimately marginalise India in South Asia to the advantage of China which is fast developing credible political, economic and military relations with all Indian neighbours.
Editorials of all leading Indian papers have argued against the Indian decision which does little to help the reconciliation and devolution process of the Sri Lankan Tamils. DMK has won little and made the nation lose a whole lot by pressurising New Delhi.
The larger lesson for India is to develop consensus amongst various members of the coalition on issues relating to maintaining and managing a vibrant foreign policy, especially when it comes to its immediate smaller neighbours. Putting the interests of the coalition ahead of the country is unacceptable.
Teesta and LLRC will weigh heavily on Indian credibility in times to come.
Related articles
- SL urges India to rethink on war crime motion (ibnlive.in.com)
- UN High Commissioner Pillay speaks out against harassment of Sri Lankan HRDs during Council in Geneva (thoolen.wordpress.com)
- Uproar in Rajya Sabha over Sri Lankan Tamil issue (thehindu.com)
- UNHRC Passed Resolution on Genocide of Tamils.Win for Sri Lanka. (ramanan50.wordpress.com)
- UN war crimes resolution: India to vote against SL (ibnlive.in.com)
- India should support US-backed resolution against Sri Lanka (thehindu.com)
The reality is that:
Emerging India must let the world know that its nationals matter. It is projection of national power at long last.
Yes, vote bank politics and survival forced the MEA to be bold but so what? the fact is that Indians being oppressed abroad is now unacceptable and need support.
The handling of the recent Italian and Norweyan small issues should be seen as reflective of a stronger MEA.
Countries finally respect display of power. We should learn this from China and to an extent, USA.
Pakistan and China are ALREADY entrenched in Sri Lanka…so whats new? that was a MEA mess up which will take adroit diplomacy to undo/contain.
The war crimes are NOT imagined but real. Thousands of Tamils have been brutally murdered by the Sinhalese. Did this not need condemnation?
Nepal is now getting “fresh”. India needs to carry forward the policy there by acting in concert with our military HR and security concerns. Being wimps and getting the tenuous Govt to whip lash us is silly and stupid. People understand economics better than we think they do. Firmly delivered messages are often well understood. Each year we pump in about 1500 crores into Nepalese economy. Have never taken due mileage for that. Enhance it by all means but dont take bullshit and so wanly.
Diplomatic Harakiri? I seriously wonder.
Since when did Srilankan Tamils become Indian? Shouldn’t Bangladeshi’s and Pakistani’s then not be considered to be Indian as well?
What can you say about a party and its leader when the Govt that party leads supports UN action that has nothing to say about the brutal acts of the LTTE but moralises about Sinhalese actions, not forgetting the fact that the LTTE assassinated the spouse of its present leader.we also need to introspect as to how come every one forgets the brutal actions of the LTTE against the IPKF and all the Indian casualties their actions led to.
You are right. We wish to make virtue out of any political mileage we can get from any issue – right or wrong
There is much more to diplomacy that hysterical “breaking news” would have us believe. Regrettably, media often misplaces shortsighted, emotional and sometimes jingoistic considerations for perspective while analyzing events such as the “anti Sri Lanka” vote.
For one, Sri Lanka has savagely faulted and knows it. There have been uncontrolled war crimes by both LTTE and the Government forces. Their condemnation by India is not short sighted but is absolutely in order. Secondly, Indian citizens who are in distress or have their human rights infringed have a right to be heard. India is morally accountable for the well being of its citizens and its culture world wide. The Indian handling of the Ban- Gita issue in Russia, the follow up of the Israeli diplomats shooting with Iran, the unfortunate Italian shooting of fishermen and the case of child custody in Norway are clear indicators that the country is coming of “strong diplomacy” age. Lastly, relationships between countries do not hang by the proverbial thread. Diplomacy has space for ups and downs without foaming at the mouth. In this instant case, Sri Lanka had to be chided and that is done and over with. The Tamil rehab in Sri Lanka and their “Constitutional well being” under Sri Lankan laws is more important and India must ensure that the changes sought are implemented with mutual agreement, dignity, promptitude and without acrimony.
Your assessment is based on a faulty assumption. The Tamils we are talking about are not Indian Citizens. Lanka has two variety of Tamils, one, the Tamils of Indian Origin who left India to go and work in the tea gardens in the erstwhile Ceylon. They are settled in the up country and there is no problem with them. The second, are the Sri Lankan Tamils. They are Sri Lankans and have no connection with India other than the fact they too speak Tamil which is spoken in Tamil Nadu.In fact their Tamil is quiet different from the Tamil Spoken in Tamil Nadu.
My view is that the Sri Lankan Tamils in Sri Lanka are no more to India than the French Canadians in Canada are to Canada.
Kindly see my blog on the subject below.
we should see things with war crimes as background. Wether, they are sri lanlan Tamils or Indian tamils? This question is irrelevant. The vote aginst Sri Lanka is in right direction. Any how, we are already facing problems of refugees coming from Srilanka. So probelm should resolved and any compensation or benfit or confidence should be given to community which is in helter-skelter state with nobody owing their cause.
“Strong Diplomacy”? The very phrase is a misnomer – there’s nothing like that. The only relevant phrase is “Prudent Diplomacy”. If prudence dictates strong arm diplomatic tactics or rhetoric – so be it. The fact is that the anti Lanka vote is imprudent on all counts. Prudence dictates that the country and its leadership have intimate idea of its ‘usable power’. Usable Power depends upon how the entity over which the power is sought to be applied, responds to its actual application. Power which is sought to be applied without this basic consideration and only to appease a third party or to prematurely boast of one’s ill-perceived ‘power in being’ – to have entered the ‘strong diplomacy age’ is indicative of geopolitical naiveness.
What are the geopolitical objectives of India in Sri Lanka? Does this act help pursue any of those objectives? The answer is a big NO. How can a diplomatic act be justified which does not help pursue any of geopolitical objectives and rather risks whatever would be or was being achieved through other means? Let’s not de-link diplomacy from geopolitical goals and use it as an instrument of ‘grand standing’, hollow slogan shouting (coming of age). Even the so called ‘strong diplomacy’, if backed by actual ‘usable power’, ought to be executed subtly, behind the scenes (as that is what diplomacy is all about) purely to pursue own legitimate national aspirations & interests and not through grand-standing on resolutions sponsored by third parties pursuing their own interests.
Let us not offer justifications to a grossly foolish diplomatic act of the govt by cloaking its actual motives with ill-perceived notions of India’s actual ‘usable national power’ and prematurely resorting to grand-standing.
The true motive of the govt that weighed in favour of it choosing to risk the larger national geopolitical interest, is well known to most for them to be fooled by ill perceived justifications and gullible impulse of grand-standing.
The Sri Lanka media and government are furious with India over the vote and have asked Sri Lanka to revoke the trade agreement with India. In addition Sri Lanka Government spokesman Lakshman Yapa Abeywardena said in Colombo that some countries or groups might use the vote on Sri Lanka as a precedence to bring a similar resolution on India over the Kashmir dispute.
With India voting in favour of the anti-Sri Lanka resolution at the UN Human Rights Council, Delhi finds itself in a precarious position in Colombo vis-à-vis Beijing. Worse, it’s likely to make the lives of Tamils more difficult in the island nation.
I think the issue of devolution of powers to Tamils could have been better served by a strong diplomatic offensive with Sri Lanka rather than through this vote.
Considering that Sri Lanka lost the vote 24-15, with eight abstentions, history will argue for a long time if the Indian vote did make any difference, going by the final figures — or, if an Indian vote against the US-sponsored resolution would have encouraged at least some of the fence-sitters, as the abstaining-members would be known, to vote in Sri Lanka’s favour. One will also argue if the UPA’s decision to vote in favour of the anti-Sri Lanka resolution — ignoring the fact that this may not only sour bilateral relations but also push Colombo closer towards Beijing — was aimed at improving the lot of Lankan Tamils. Or, was it just a political decision meant to appease the DMK?
India’s strategic dilemmas are best highlighted by events such as the Sri Lankan vote or the Teesta water accord where domestic coalition compulsions are over riding foreign policy objectives. This has been a serious lacunae where India the big neighbour stands isolated among its smaller South Asian partners.
Considering all the Sri Lankan AND LTTE atrocities to be true standing up against your neighbours, making their governments look bad and joining global players in castigating nations because one has ethnic similarities is bad policy. This would achieve nothing apart from hostility from those around India without helping the devolution cause.
India needs to have a more pragmatic and realistic foreign policy without pandering to coalition dharma or the big powers because geography mandates otherwise.
Yes, the human rights violations by the Sri Lankan army on the Sri Lankan Tamils is condemnable but what about the atrocities committed by the LTTE on their own population as well as the Indian Army which had gone there to bring peace to the region? Why it is that no one in is talking about it? Is it because the lives of the Indian soldiers are expendable? Having sent the Indian Army to Sri Lanka, Mr Karunanidi, one of the Chief Ministers of the country did not even have the courtesy to receive them when they were being de inducted from Sri Lanka. What more, the Indian Premier Mr Man Mohan Singh did not consider it appropriate to declare open a memorial which was built in Sri Lanka for the martyrs of the Indian Army. For these gentlemen political considerations are more important than the lives of their own soldiers.
The Tamils in Sri Lanka are of two varieties, the Tamils of the Indian Origin and the Sri Lankan Tamils. The Tamils of the Indian origin are those who went from India to work in the tea gardens in the erstwhile Ceylon. The Sri Lankan Tamils are citizens of Sri Lanka. I fail to understand as to how the Sri Lankan Tamils have become more important to India than the French Canadians in Canada to France. Why this hype? If at all, what special benefits do we think we will derive from the Sri Lankan Tamils which we cannot get from Sri Lanka?
The North and the North Eastern parts of Sri Lanka are parts of Sri Lanka and are no way different from J & K which is a part of India. Why are we interfering in the internal affairs of Sri Lanka? I think the Government is being ill advised or political considerations have become more important than National interests to these self serving lots.
Conflicts are always there in the history of world and war brutality is part of the package but complete genocide is deplorable. When Sri lanakan army at control at the later stage of war should have shown little restrain,things would be differenet. There is compelet difference between winning a war and complete extermination.
We are a country of diversity and coalition politics is the norm of the day.As per the editorial, there is a strong essence that National interests should not be marganalised and putting the interests of the coalition ahead of the country is unacceptable.There is a plethora of nationalist jingoism.
What i want to highlight is that interanally strong relationship with diverse states and coalition is more important than the vibrant strong foreign policy. We need to balance the both but outrightly, wisdoms says that “Pehle Ghar ko dekho, baher bad me”
Indranil Bannerjee, writing in Asian Age of 27 March, articulates that “an issue that agitates the country’s Tamil population is a national issue and has to be directly addressed in a heterogeneous democracy such as India”.
By this rationale India has a right to meddle with internal affairs of each country, especially in South Asia because of common lineages. As the UNHRC resolution is toothless a much better approach would be to deal one on one with neighbours on sensitive issues.
As if on cue, UN rapporteur Christof Heyns said on Monday that his current visit to India is aimed at examining all killings that are in violation of international human rights or humanitarian law. The focus of the visit, however, is “prevent such incidents and ensure justice is meted out to the victims,”.
How would India like the neighbours to react to these investigations where Association of Parents of Disappeared Persons argues against the nation and the call for removal of PSA and AFSPA are undertaken by the neighbours?
In pursuing national interests friendly relations with neighbours cannot be overemphasised – the glass house syndrome!
This note from MJ Akbar explains the harakiri well:
“It was public pressure from Indian Tamils that finally forced DMK and Congress to take a position; they had enough time to take the initiative themselves, but did not do so. Indian diplomats surely do not need the United Nations as a player in what, ideally, should have been part of the bilateral process between India and its neighbour.
The sin of omission was compounded by the sin of commission. The manner in which UPA took this decision betrayed its vacillation and weakness. When foreign policy becomes hostage to coalition compulsions, it is evident that the political class is not doing any thinking. Over the last three years, there has been a sequence of blunders in the neighbourhood, from mentioning Balochistan in a communique with Pakistan to dropping the Teesta ball with Bangladesh and now a faux pas with Sri Lanka.
Political uncertainty has made Indian diplomacy weaker than India’s weight would warrant. The consequences will last longer than this government”.
India had strongly supported the right of the Government of Sri Lanka to act against terrorist forces. At the same time, it conveyed at the highest level its deep concern at the plight of the mostly Tamil civilian population, especially as the conflict intensified and a major humanitarian challenge emerged, with nearly 300,000 Tamil civilians housed in camps for Internally Displaced Persons. India had emphasized to the Sri Lankan Government the importance of focusing on issues of relief, rehabilitation, resettlement and reconciliation, and the Indian people are proud that our Government is working actively in assisting in these “four Rs” in Northern and Eastern Sri Lanka.
There is a need to reinforce a political consensus behind giving the Tamil people of Sri Lanka an honoured place in their own country, within the framework of a united Sri Lanka. We all see a need for national reconciliation through a negotiated political settlement, which is acceptable to all communities and is consistent with democracy, pluralism and respect for human rights.
India and Sri Lanka must look to the future, to an interrelated South Asian future where geography becomes an instrument of opportunity in our mutual growth story, where history binds rather than divides, where trade and cross-border links flourish and bring prosperity to all our peoples. Some will say these are merely dreams; yet there few worthwhile achievements in the world that have not been preceded by ambitious aspirations.
This vote undermines the above narration without furthering the cause of Tamils in Sri Lanka.
India decided to vote after persuading the sponsor to make two changes in the draft so that it became “non-intrusive” and contributed to a political reconciliation process in the island nation.
India did not participate in the debate, but voted with countries like Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Italy, Spain, Switzerland and Uruguay.
Many of India’s neighbours, including China, Bangladesh and the Maldives; Russia, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Indonesia were among the countries that voted against the resolution, which asked Colombo to implement the LLRC’s constructive recommendations.
India lost the big picture in pleasing allies and the vagaries of this decision will attach a stigma to Indo Sri Lanka relation for ever.
The first major UN report a week after the Sri Lankan vote now asks India to repeal AFSPA – a natural fallout of India’s stand on human rights
http://www.deccanherald.com/content/238502/un-seeks-afspa-repeal-kashmir.html
To expect a cohesive, cogent and coherent foreign policy from European Union is tomfoolery. France was against second Gulf war, Germany was against Libya action. Now EU is less than lass in terms of population compared with India. It is extremely difficult till we have the strong central party that can take the unpopular decisions. Since the end of one party rule and the beginning of coalition governments, the irony of Indian FP is that we expect the other countries to understand the reason for our particular step. When it comes to Iran, we have our so sensitive 35 million Shia community, when Teesta that mercurial and second largest component of ruling UPA, and when Srilanka vote then third largest coalition partner.
Not to say this is bad, but Indians understand that the world can understand us.