Transcurrents.com had carried my earlier blog on Channel 4 videsos
(http://transcurrents.com/news-views/archives/2202#comment-8859).
It evoked large scale response from readers. While some of them were
the familiar India-bashing type, one of the reader asked a few
interesting questions which reflected the suspicions about India's role
in Sri Lanka prevalents among sections of Sri Lankans. I chose one to
answer that had the most interesting questions. I am giving below my
answers to this reader which are carried in www.transcurrents.com
under the heading "Sri Lanka did not bother to listen to international
friends who helped it win the war - Col R Hariharan"
(http://transcurrents.com/news-views/archives/2339 for your reading.
Since Jazz has raised some interesting questions. I am normally accustomed
to abusive language, which Sri Lankans seem to be fond of while discussing
India. However, as he has politely worded his questions, I am answering them:
1. Do you believe that military forces around the world conduct ‘clean’ wars? If so, please be kind enough to mention those forces. Do you honestly believe that any kind of ‘war’ can be ‘clean’ in present day context?
Answer: Having participated in many of the major wars and minor
ones in my 28-year career, my answer is there are no ‘clean’ wars. They were
never clean and they would never be because basically army’s business is
killing and destroying material resources of nations. So there is no such thing
as aseptic war.
But it should be the endeavour of governments and armies of civilised, democratic countries to show that they are accountable for their dirty deeds during the war and compensate the victims and punish the culprits.
2. What is the goal of the military forces in times of war? Is it not to defeat/ weaken your enemy by destroying/ weakening the resources of the enemy- both human resources as well as material & infrastructure so that the enemy can no longer pose a military threat and could no longer propagate it’s political ideology?
Answer: You are absolutely correct about the goal of military forces in times of war except for the political ideology part. Armies fight as per national charter given to them. So they are not burdened with political ideology of the enemy.
3. Do you think the Indian forces conduct ‘clean’ military operations? Do you think the IPKF conducted ‘clean’ operations and had a ‘clear’ agenda/ mission in SL? Do you think the Indian forces conduct ‘clean’ operations in J&K? If we were to ask the people of J&K, would they feel that the Indian Military forces conduct ‘clean’ ops?
Answer: Please read my answer to your first question. The same answer applies to this including that of IPKF operations in Sri Lanka.Fighting forces are not privy to national agendas; during war they become killing machines. So it is upto the national leaders to give the agenda before the war.
4. Why is it that only SL forces conduct is scrutinised (and sometimes fabricated) and held to a higher standard? Could it be that geo-political reasons are motivating certain countries to do so? That is if you are honest enough to accept that there are geo-political issues.
Answer: Geo-political issues always condition how nations behave and that includes both India and Sri Lanka. That is what strategic security is all about. I don’t think Sri Lankan army’s conduct alone is singled out for scrutiny for geo-political reasons; that would be oversimplifying an issue to evade accountability. Many other armies including the Indian and American armies are facing this flak. But human rights watchdogs are active in these countries. And armies are taken to court and often penalised. As a result over the years, they have been trying to improve their existing systems and structures to sensitise troops on their behaviour to be more accountable and transparent though they have a long way to go.
The simple answer to ‘Why Sri Lanka is being questioned now?” is because Sri Lanka’s credibility is on a discount. Three possible reasons for this, as I see it, are:
a. Long before the Eelam War-4, Sri Lanka carried a baggage of human rights violations, lack of accountability of government, and violation of rule of law with impunity. And international community that was underwriting the peace process raised questions on these issues and asked Sri Lanka to be more accountable. But Sri Lanka did not appear to seriously attempt to satisfy them. It played the zero sum game, pointing out the gross violations committed by the LTTE and showed it was doing better. In this process Sri Lanka equated itself with the LTTE, rather than setting its own gold standard. Even now it is doing that by comparing itself with other nations. At least that is the impression outsiders like me get. So Sri Lanka army’s conduct in the war came to be under greater scrutiny.
b. During the war, Sri Lanka never allowed even limited access to media to report from the war front. UN and INGO representatives were hounded out. In the modern era of real time communication this was a blunder and Sri Lanka started with low marks on credibility as the global media had to depend upon government handouts and rumours and LTTE propaganda mills. Naturally government claims were not believed in full.
c. I am no expert on governance. But even I see that after the war, even before this issue was raised, Sri Lanka could have taken remedial action on its own. It could have appointed a commission solely to deal with public grievances and complaints to deal with sins of omission and commission of all stakeholders. Its agenda could have included public hearing on what the LTTE did. But grudgingly a Lessons Learnt Commission, which had a loose agenda, was appointed when a lot of dust was raised over the issue of misconduct. Now the LLRC is said to be “thinking of” looking at the veracity of Channel 4 videos (and its allegations, I presume). Sri Lanka did not bother to listen to international voices of friends who helped it win the war but became paranoid and saw a conspiracy. This has given wide publicity to the allegations and more and more countries are seeking answers from Sri Lanka.
5. What is India’s policy with regards to Sri Lanka? What are India’s geo-political/ military concerns with regards to Sri Lanka. Is it those concerns which has India fumbling and unable to map out a cohesive relationship/ strategy when it comes to SL in particular and South Asia in general?
Answer: I have to write a doctoral thesis to answer you as I am not equipped to do it here in a few sentences. However, during the last 7 years, I have written a number of articles giving my views on India’s Sri Lanka policy dilemmas on Sri Lanka. My blog (www.colhariharan.org) and Tamil Week carry most of them. Please refer to South Asia Analysis Group website (www.southasiaanalysis.org) Sri Lanka updates for my inputs on this issue. Recent ones are “Jayalalithaa fires the first salvo (update No 209)” and “Brutalisation of society (Update No 210)”
6. Does India respect the sovereignty of Sri Lanka or does India still have the same ‘attitude’ towards Sri Lanka from the good old Indhira Ghandi days? Her ‘vision’ was that at best, Sri Lanka can only develop both quantitatively and qualitatively and prosper only as fast as India can and no faster. And if Sri Lanka and it’s people tried to fulfil their true potential, then Sri Lanka would have to be stopped ‘somehow’.
Answer: I don’t know where you derived India’s vision on Sri Lanka (I am still trying to find out what is India’s vision as a nation). My complaint is India is not devoting enough attention to Sri Lanka in its vague vision. Why should India stop ‘somehow’ the Sri Lankan people from achieving their true potential? India is desperately trying to bring its own people to a level of achievement that would help them to think of achieving their full potential. Unfortunately, it is not thinking enough about its neighbours potential.
7. Does Sri Lanka have a right to map out it’s own path to ‘prosperity’ and ‘development’ without interference from India? Or does Sri Lanka have to give up that right simply because of her geographical proximity to India?
Answer: The answer to this question should come from you. Do you want to do it? Who am I to give you the “right”? You decide your own destiny. As our geographical proximity is a reality, in my view it would be a folly if Sri Lanka does not to take advantage of it and use India’s size, economic and political strength as tools for its own prosperity and development.
8. In present day context, how would you compare the quality of life of Sri Lankan tamils with those in Tamil Nadu? Please be honest, because I have lived in TN and know what it’s like.
Answer: Why are you asking me this? You were here and be your own judge. What do you mean by quality of life? I use only UN indices. I think as an Indian first; and among Indians, I am glad Tamil Nadu has a better reputation as a growth and development centre.
I don’t know about the quality of life of Sri Lankan Tamils but I am aware of their continuing sense of insecurity and trust in their government which does not exist among the people of Tamil Nadu.
9. How do you assess the quality of life of Sri Lankan tamil refugees in TN? Are they absolutely ‘loving their life’? Can India truly afford to criticize how the SL govt. is handling the rehabilitation process considering the Indian/ Tamil nadu govts handling of Sri Lankan Tamil refugees in spite of more financial resources at their disposal?
Firstly, I think you should raise the question to OFFER. They are more competent to answer. Secondly, from what little I see, the life of Sri Lanka refugees in Tamil Nadu is tough and tragic. Why are they here and not returning to their country? That is a question Sri Lankans should ponder. But when you talk of standard of life of refugees, remember it is better than some of our own people and the refugees are having a share of what little they have.
10. Does Sri Lanka have the right to decide on her own, who she wants to maintain as ‘friends’ and ‘do business with’? Or does India decide that for us as well?
Answer: I did not know Sri Lanka is doing business with China and Pakistan with India’s permission. But I know one thing for certain: it is for you to decide whether you want to do business with India at all.
11. With Sri Lanka’s remarkable ‘turnaround’ in terms of development projects and economic indicators since the end of hostilities, could there be a little ‘sour grapes’ by certain countries. Maybe, they feel that Sri Lanka may outpace certain countries in the not too distant future if this trend continues.
Answer: I am a military guy and not a politician. I appreciate straight questions as I don’t understand word play subtleties and innuendoes, if you intended them to be. Please raise a direct question. If you think India is envious of Sri Lanka, thank god we have bigger ambitions. We have China to contend with and ‘our grape growing business’ is with them.
No comments:
Post a Comment