Sri Lanka in a corner

The bloody civil war, which ravaged Sri Lanka for twenty five long years, came to an end in May 2009. However the battle of survival for the Tamils still continues in the island nation. There are no credible statistics to prove how many people were killed in the long civil war. Estimates put the numbers between 80,000 to 100,000 out of which close to 8,000 were killed in the final days of the war in May 2009. The dead include the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam (LTTE) insurgents and civilians. Millions of ethnic Tamils are still displaced and living in temporary shelters. The Sri Lankan army is accused of war crimes by the United Nations Human Rights Commission (UNHRC). On 23^rd March the UN body plans to move a resolution condemning the war crimes by Sri Lankan army.

Let me do some thinking. Again

The ministry of foreign affairs of India is in its usual state of flux. Newspaper reports suggest that the India wants to adopt the wait and watch approach. It does not want to comment without reading the text of the resolution. Parliamentarians from the southern Indian state of Tamil Nadu (who share ethnic links with the Sri Lankan Tamils) disrupted parliamentary proceedings on the government’s non committal gesture. Most of the shouting done by Tamil parliamentarians is for their electoral audience, but the government of India cannot ignore it. One of the Tamil political parties (DMK) is a major coalition partner in the ruling UPA government. The fortunes of DMK have sunk in the past state elections but nevertheless it holds 18 seats and is crucial for the survival of the government.

India’s policy of non interference into matters of other countries is used as an alibi. To make matters worse this is a case of insurgency, which haunts India in Jammu & Kashmir and some north eastern states. Supporting the Tamil cause would mean supporting separatist insurgency, something that India clearly does not want. Supporting the Sri Lankan government will pull India down from its self perceived high moral ground. It is not surprising at all that India is finding hard to take a call on the sensitive issue. But its time India takes a pragmatic approach to the situation.

For nobody but yourself

Monks protesting against the UN resolution in Colombo

India should use its influence on Sri Lanka to make Mr Rajapakse understand the follies of being in deliberate denial. The massacre by the Lankan army in the final days of the civil war is a reality. There are many cases with credible evidence (according to the reports of the UN delegation in Sri Lanka and the government’s self appointed Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission or LLRC) of war crimes. Notorious “white vans” roam the streets of Sri Lanka to abduct protestors who raise voice against the president. Most of the people abducted were later found murdered and their bodies abandoned. Reconciliation and rehabilitation of the displaced Tamils has sadly stayed on paper with little to show to the international community. There is a clear lack of genuine efforts by Mr Rajapakse to assimilate Tamils into the mainstream.

India should make sure Sri Lanka shows credible and sustainable efforts to investigate the war crimes. Taking the “white vans” off the streets should be the first step. Abducted protestors who are missing and if still alive should be released. Humanitarian assistance offered by India should be made available to the Tamils and the reconciliation process should be pursued with the same excitement as shown in the final days of the war in 2009. An honest effort by the president will have far reaching impact on the present situation of the country. A disgruntled population is a sitting tinderbox, waiting for the spark. 

India at the United Nations Security Council - You propose, I oppose

India has been a non-permanent member of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) seven times since 1950. Its current membership will end in December 2012. This membership period is perhaps the most interesting period in India’s history of UN membership of the Security Council. January 2011, started off with a wave of unprecedented string of uprisings in North Africa and Middle East. What started in Tunisia as a rebellion against the corrupt regime soon spread to the entire region and came to be known as the Arab Spring. Sadly as the Arab Spring gave way to Arab summer and winter, India watched the events from the sidelines or sat on the wrong side of the voting table.

The very first opportunity came up in shape of the Libyan crisis. As the Arab spring entered Libya hundreds of civilians became target of organised massacre by Mr Gaddafi. In middle of March 2011, Gaddafi forces announced a massive crack down on rebel forces in Bengazhi (second city of Libya), which immediately deteriorated the situation. The UNSC proposed to adopt a resolution (resolution number 1973) to enforce a no fly zone. The Libyans wanted UN intervention, the members of neighbouring Arab countries supported UN action, India however chose to abstain. The argument used to justify abstention on voting was more of a lame excuse. India said that the report prepared by the special envoy to Libya was not made available and the secretariat has not made an assessment of the report. In such a situation it will be unfair to take military action. India suggested political efforts to handle the situation, while a city of 650,000 people was under imminent danger from forward marching Gaddafi forces.

The second opportunity came when the case of Mr Gbagbo came up for discussion. Mr Gbagbo disputed the victory of Mr Ouattara, his political rival who won a presidential runoff election in November 2010. Mr Gbagbo’s refusal to hand over power to the legitimate winner (the election was monitored by international observers) started a spate of political violence. Thousands of people were killed by supporters Mr Gbagbo and hundreds of thousands fled their homes. The scale of violence was grave enough to be termed as the second civil war of Côte d’Ivoire. The UNSC adopted a resolution sanctioning military intervention to save civilians from the ongoing killings. The situation in Côte d’Ivoire was clearly an anathema to India’s democratic values. India was not a member of UNSC at the time the resolution (sanctioning military intervention) was adopted. However, India voted against another resolution (on 31^st March 2011) referring the case of Mr Gbagbo to the International Criminal Court. In its speech on the voting floor India came across as a country which preferred restrain even as thousands of civilians were killed or displaced.

Let there be no vote

Yet another opportunity presented itself with intensifying of conflict in Syria. The Human Rights arm of UN, The Human Rights Council on 23^rd August proposed to adopt a resolution to send an independent international commission of inquiry to Syria to investigate alleged violation of human rights. Syrians have been experiencing government crackdown ever since the protests first started on 26^th January 2011. Thousands were killed, tortured and arrested by August 2011. In its response to the resolution India said, “India’s traditional position on country specific resolutions is well known. We do not regard spotlighting and finger -pointing at a country for human right violations as helpful. We believe that engaging the country concerned in collaborative and constructive dialogue and partnership is a more pragmatic and productive way forward...” India abstained from voting.

Beware of the foreign hand

Three crucial votes and India played the spoilsport in all three. India however was not the only country sitting on the wrong side of the table. Russia and China consistently opposed most of the resolutions (it took a lot of effort to make them support the no fly zone over Libya). On careful analysis all the three resolutions were also an instrument of regime change. The UN on behalf of its member states and with support of NATO forces successfully changed regimes in Libya and Côte d’Ivoire. For countries like Russia and China this is their worst fears coming true.

Both Russia and China are accused of large scale human rights abuses, restricting free press, restriction on free movement of people and above all murdering democracy. While the Arab world was blossoming in its Arab Spring, China put extra policemen on the streets to stop a Jasmine revolution. Election results in Russia were predefined and Mr Putin decided to grab power for two more terms. Elections in China happen every decade without a single vote being cast. With political opponents and dissidents being sent to prison on frivolous charges both Russia and China are the hotspots of absolute power. They would be the last ones to support any such resolutions, which are aimed at altering the political framework of a country.

On the contrary India is a shining example of democracy. Human right records put India much ahead of Russia and China, India enjoys a free press and people are free to move within the country. With all the good players on its side India still lost the game. What went wrong with India? There can be many reasons as to why India behaved the way it did. The reasons can be traced back to the cold war and beyond.

As a young democracy India preferred to not align with any of the military blocs during the cold war. Acting on the principle of non interference India together with Egypt and what was then Yugoslavia started a Non Align Movement. This was a bloc of recently independent colonies in Asia and Africa (mostly poor). This bloc came to be known as the third world (the West and Soviet being first and second). India wanted to shed its colonial baggage and march ahead. However, later on India did suffer from some setbacks where the Western bloc meted out a raw deal to India. The non cooperation of the West in the Kashmir issue at the UN and later a war with China demonised it. India opposed whatever the West proposed. This also led to India’s proximity with the Soviet Union during later years of the Cold War.

Though India has emerged out of the “Hindu rate of growth” in economic terms it still is stuck in the cold war days when it comes to diplomacy. It still finds the concept of “sovereignty” extremely touchy and sometimes misunderstands it. Political veterans still refer to the “foreign hand” when situations go out of control (be it inflation or FDI in retail). India still feels threatened by the West and its ideas. However, India aspires to be the member of UNSC. But the question is, is India ready for that position?