(Here is my response to specific questions raised
by media on the Indian parliamentary delegation’s visit to Colombo on April 16,
2016.)
1. Is this parliamentary
delegation on a goodwill visit or fact finding mission to Colombo?
The visit is a reciprocal visit from our parliament
after a parliamentary delegation from Sri Lanka visited India. Such delegations
are regularly exchanged between many countries; in fact a Sri Lanka
parliamentary delegation visited Pakistan in February 2011. So the overall
objective of this delegation is also presumably to increase the goodwill
between Indian and Sri Lankan parliamentarians.
2. The visit of the delegation
became controversial particularly after Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Ms
Jayalalithaa condemned the move and withdrew her representative from the
delegation and the DMK also pulled out thereafter. Under such circumstances, do
you think goodwill would be increased between the two countries by the
delegation’s visit?
There is no doubt that both countries need to build
upon the goodwill already existing at all levels. This requirement has become
more urgent after it was eroded both in India and in Sri Lanka after India
voted for the UNHCR resolution on Sri Lanka. From this point of view, sending a
parliamentary delegation was a laudable initiative to improve the
relations.
There is a large Tamil constituency in India which
has been concerned at Sri Lanka’s insensitivity and callousness in not responding
to international concerns on allegations of human rights violations and war
crimes perpetrated against Tamils in Sri Lanka. The ethnic reconciliation
process is also making tardy progress. Actually India’s vote for the
UNHCR resolution reflected these concerns; however, Sri Lanka does not seem to
be very keen to address these concerns with any urgency.
Moreover, there had been a lot of political
grand-standing between the two Dravidian parties over the Sri Lanka Tamil issue
ever since allegations of Sri Lankan army war crimes triggered strong emotions
in Tamil Nadu. By virtue of DMK’s participation, the ruling coalition in New
Delhi has also become target of AIADMK’s barbs on Sri Lanka issue.
The cock fight between the two parties became acute
when they smelt blood with India’s vote in the UNHCR; so the dramatic last
minute pull out of the AIADMK from the delegation was probably on the cards to
increase its impact and embarrassment to the Centre, and the DMK following
suite in such eventuality was equally certain.
Under these circumstances, it is doubtful whether
the visit of a delegation would add any goodwill unless both countries had
planned and prepared for it well in advance. I have my reservations on whether
such preparation was done in this case.
I had expected the visit of the delegation to be
postponed as the circumstances are not suited to produce best results. But New
Delhi appears to have succumbed to other internal and international
compulsions. The delegation is headed by opposition leader Mrs Sushma
Swaraj and her views have to be respected as it could generate avoidable
polemics. Moreover, already the visit was postponed once due to the recent
state elections in the North.
Apart from attending to the sensitivities of
Southern Tamil constituency, the government has to keep in view the larger need
to firm up its strategic relations with Sri Lanka. So probably it went ahead
with the visit to show New Delhi’s solidarity with Sri Lanka despite the
hiccups in the post UNHCR period. So we have the visit mired in controversy
even before it took off.
One can only hope the delegation uses the
opportunity to improve the lot of Tamils there as well as to reinforce
India-Sri Lanka ties.
3. Do you think an opportunity to
assess the ground situation in Sri Lanka on the condition of Tamils was lost by
the two Dravidian parties boycotting the delegation visiting Sri Lanka?
The visit did offer a valuable opportunity to both
AIADMK and DMK to understand the situation in Sri Lanka first hand. If
they had really wanted to improve the lot of Tamils in Sri Lanka, they could
have got in touch with Sri Lankan Tamil political and civil society leaders and
based on their feedback worked out an itinerary for the delegation to
understand the ground situation. It would have indicated critical areas
that required immediate action from both Colombo and New Delhi. And the two
parties could have based their decision to participate in the visit based
on the replies from Colombo and New Delhi.
But unfortunately this is not the way most of the
political parties conduct themselves in this country. And Tamil Nadu is no
exception. During the last three decades, there is a deadly contest
between the two Dravidian stalwarts. Their focus is on proving who is a greater
champion of Tamils, rather than who can produce better solutions to peoples’
problems.
Confrontation rather than finding common ground to
evolve solutions has become the favoured option. And the coalition politics at
national level has further aggravated this race between the two major Tamil
Nadu parties.
The Sri Lankan Tamil issue has been a long standing
victim of this unproductive, polemical politics. It is being milked now to
kindle strong passions and emotions by all regional parties. And even national
parties appear to be preparing to join them, if we go by political indicators.
So most of the Tamil Nadu political leaders are not prepared to listen to
moderate Sri Lankan or Indian Tamil voices and prefer sensational and negative
outpourings from sections of Tamil Diaspora. And Sri Lanka’s studied
indifference to taking positive action, has helped them further go ahead with
this style of politics.
While AIADMK has opted for a confrontational path
with Sri Lanka on the Tamil issue, DMK’s confused and reactive responses show
it wants to retain its hold in the Centre while trying to maintain an
aggressive posture on Sri Lanka. As a result of this unseemly
competition, objectives of both parties are short term and immediate. At
present neither party appears to be keen on using goodwill with Sri Lanka to
the advantage of Tamils, or avoid provocative posturing and use their political
clout to pressurise New Delhi to help Sri Lankan Tamils.
4. This appears to be a
very pessimistic assessment; so what is the way forward?
It is realistic rather than pessimistic assessment.
Ideally to resolve this issue, India needs a strong national leadership
determined to achieve results. That does not appear to be in the horizon; so we
will continue to have a lot of foot dragging on Sri Lanka issue also.
I don’t see either the coalition compulsions or
competitive politics of Tamil Nadu ending in the near future, so both the
Dravidian parties will continue to wield influence in New Delhi. Ideally, if
the Sri Lanka issue ceases to be relevant to state politics as it happened
after Rajiv Gandhi’s assassination both the parties will lose interest in using
it.
The only way for this to happen is for Sri Lanka to
proactively take genuine action to respond to the peoples’ concerns. It has to
be more systemic than the cosmetic attempts now being made. Then only the Tamil
Diaspora’s voices would become more constructive than critical.
So Sri Lanka has a not so visible, but larger,
responsibility in this imbroglio. Will Sri Lanka do it? That is another
question and a much bigger subject.
Courtesy: South Asia Analysis Group Note No 648 of 17 April 2012
No comments:
Post a Comment