Indian and western policies on Sri Lanka

The exact objective of President Kumaratunga’s visit to India has not been officially spelt out, but going by reports from New Delhi, she appears to be trying to rejuvenate SAARC, which has been lying comatose for well over two years as well as discuss bilateral issues, particularly the problem of terrorism in Sri Lanka.

Sri Lanka, the last Chairman of SAARC, has had the unenviable task of being burdened with the paralysed body of SAARC and has been trying hard to resuscitate it. The last attempt was when a meeting of officials of SAARC were summoned in Colombo in order to kick-start the process but apparently without success. Yesterday’s reports from New Delhi said that a ‘breakthrough’ had been achieved during President Kumaratunga’s visit and that a meeting of foreign secretaries will be held in the next few months, which would be followed by a meeting of foreign ministers and finally the Summit will be held.

SAARC was stalled not due to problems within the seven-member South Asian organisation but because of Indo-Pakistan rivalry. Whether tempers have cooled – with a ceasefire being declared on the Line of Control, although incidents in the powder keg of Kashmir continue – for the South Asian organisation to resume its tardy progress is hard to say. Only the Sri Lankan government-controlled state media is speaking of a ‘breakthrough’.

Much more important to Sri Lanka are the talks President Kumaratunga had with Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee on the Sri Lankan terrorist problem. India having played no mean role in fostering the problem, still continues to be a key player in our problem. For instance, the Norwegian facilitator/(or mediator?) Eric Solheim continues to call on New Delhi after consultations with the Tigers in Europe or the Sri Lankan government. Some say that this is because India is South Asia’s ‘regional power’ and Sri Lanka falls within its ‘sphere of influence’. Even if we accept this concept of regional hegemonism, it has to be pointed out that India in recent times has become a rather reluctant regional power. This was seen recently when the LTTE appeared to be on the verge of taking over the Jaffna peninsula by driving out the Sri Lankan forces. Despite frantic appeals by Sri Lanka, India stayed put ‘offering only humanitarian assistance’. This is despite the fact that if the LTTE controlled north Sri Lanka, it would have been very much detrimental to New Delhi’s interests, besides Prabhakaran being a wanted murderer in India.

All this is explained away on New Delhi’s ‘Tamil Nadu compulsions’, particularly now, that the BJP-led coalition is being propped up by pro-LTTE Tamil Nadu parties. While this may be a perfectly sound explanation for the reluctance of the ‘regional power’ to act in its own interests, it leaves open the question: What is India’s Sri Lankan policy? Or what is the Indian government’s policy towards the LTTE?

What is India telling the enthusiastic European missionaries of peace on what its stand on Sri Lanka is? India’s declared Sri Lanka policy is that it stands for the unity and territorial integrity of Sri Lanka, while protecting Tamil interests. That is, of course, what Ms Indira Gandhi declared when she was promoting Sri Lankan terrorist groups on Indian soil and Rajiv Gandhi said even after forcibly landing Indian troops here. That is what the European Union, Britain and most western countries say their Sri Lanka policy is. All these policies on Sri Lanka fit in neatly to the minimalist demand of the LTTE: A confederation of two states within Sri Lanka – a penultimate step towards a separate state.

But what do they say to the basic demands of the Tamil separatists? Recognition of the ‘Tamil Nation’, right to self-determination, a separate Tamil homeland and right to secede? If a confederation, along with these demands, is agreed upon, a separate state will be a fait accompli.

To European nations, resolving the Sri Lankan issue is not vital to their national interests. At best, it would be another humanitarian effort, with the tantalising possibility of the Nobel Peace Prize being attached. To our former colonial masters in London, this is not an opportunity for the Sri Lankan whipper-snappers to dictate what the British policy on terrorism should be.

‘We know what is best for our former colonies.’

Never mind, if the poor fellows can’t even win a cricket match these days!

But India should realise that a separate state in Sri Lanka could be a prelude that could lead to the cracking up of the Indian Union. A Jeckyll and Hyde Sri Lankan policy will not do.

Your comments to the Editor