My take on ‘Who is Running Sri Lanka’?

I read with interest Mr Gamini Gunawardane’s piece ‘Who is running Sri Lanka’ in the opinion column of The Island dated June 11.

As he has referred to my article published in The Island on June 8 ["India's Concerns in Sri Lanka" published in this blog on June 7, 2010], I would like to share my views on some of the points he has raised in his letter.

President Mahinda Rajapaksa has won an overwhelming popular mandate than any of his predecessors in both the presidential and parliamentary polls. To raise the question ‘who is running Sri Lanka’ when he is visiting India will be ignoring not only the President’s remarkable ability as a goal achiever but also the public affirmation of his performance. Surely there should be no doubt ‘who is running Sri Lanka.’ I fear his rhetorical question will not find many takers in India as India has its handful running its own country.

My article was primarily written for Indian readers, who generally have a hazy view of developments in Sri Lanka, to focus on some of the gritty issues between the two countries on the eve of President Rajapaksa’s visit to India. So naturally my analysis had been India centric. I welcome Mr Gunawardane’s comments even though they are critical of India as they enable me to appreciate diverse points of view.

India and Sri Lanka are physically, culturally and socially (and as a corollary economically) too close to ignore developments in each other.’ This is inevitable as it affects them. And whatever be their differences, they have to coexist and thrash out their problems by promoting a healthy dialogue. This is a reality whether some people in either country like it or not. And however much one may admire China, this does not apply to China’s growing relations with either India or Sri Lanka. Foreign relations are not a zero sum game. As Sri Lanka’s relations with India and China are on different planes, growth of one does not cancel the other. The same applies to India also.

India is a big country not out of choice and it cannot help being so. And India should definitely not conduct its relations with its smaller neighbour as a big brother. But this is not always easy. India had been having a problem in handling its size and growing economic power while formulating its foreign policy. But it is learning. India and Sri Lanka have been striving to have healthy relations based on mutual respect. Similarly neither India’s political nor economic models are ideal. At the same time, one cannot ignore the remarkable progress India has made in many aspects, despite its enormous problems. It will be useful for Sri Lanka to avoid India's mistakes and understand how India overcame them to make progress. The same applies to India also. If either country chooses to ignore such learning, they only will be the losers.

I am surprised to see Mr Gunawardane has chosen to blame India for the growth of Tamil militancy. This is over simplifying a complex problem and travesty of history. He has chosen to ignore the fact that it was the very same Indians who fought to disarm the Tamil Tigers and sacrificed the lives of 1255 of their own soldiers in the process. And if the LTTE had continued to flourish for another 20 years after India kept its hands off the Sri Lanka ethnic conflict, apparently there was something wrong with Sri Lanka’s approach to the problem. President Rajapaksa succeeded in eliminating the LTTE because he realised this home truth. And the 13th Amendment is part of the Sri Lanka constitution introduced to decentralise power to the provincial level; ultimately it is the people of Sri Lanka who should decide whether to enforce their own constitution or not. I have not understood why Sri Lanka should feel humiliated when India requests Sri Lanka to do so because the Tamil issue has political fallout in India. This is what friendly nations do all the time.

As one who had spent most of his professional life fighting insurgents, I am always opposed to arming of non state actors (militant groups) by the state. Even in the case of arming Tamil militants I had made my objections clear in our own service channels. But the point to note is even then India had always stood for a unified Sri Lanka. However, such acts leave a scar on relations; they only aggravate mutual suspicion. So I can understand the author’s criticism of India on this count. Such had also been our own reaction when President Premadasa started arming the LTTE even as the Indian army was fighting on in Sri Lankan soil to eliminate it. But digging up evidence of aberrations in relations can only increase acrimony and does not solve present problems of either country.

I agree India as a bigger country should go out of the way to help Sri Lanka. And Sri Lanka should help this process. I have always been for promoting greater understanding between the two countries. I agree with him that India should pay greater attention to Sinhala sentiments. The establishment of Sinhala language departments in Indian universities would help in this. But India should do this for its own reasons and not because China is doing so. There will always be areas of acrimony and admiration in any close relationship between India and Sri Lanka (I dare not call it husband wife relationship as Mr Gunawardane has chosen to do). I am confident that the leaders of both countries are fully aware of this, though their actions at times might belie it FOR reasons of political expediency.

When the two countries take any action that would impinge upon the other, they would do well to remember what Chanakya wrote in third century BC: "Before you start some work, always ask yourself three questions - Why am I doing it, What the results might be and Will I be successful. Only when you think deeply and find satisfactory answers to these questions, go ahead."
Col. R. Hariharan retd

Courtesy: The Island, Colombo, June 15, 2010
URL:http://www.island.lk/2010/06/15/opinion1.html