Whether there were other factors, which motivated the Minister to make a remark suggesting interference by the Indian envoy in this country, one does not know. Minister Bandaranaike had not been eloquent on those issues at any time even when New Delhi responded to Tamil Nadu pressure; Shrimathi Gandhi, who spoke of the importance of bi-lateral relations with Sri Lanka was training and financing Sri Lankan rebels, say, on the issue of the defence cooperation agreement; Sethu Samudra project, and the recent training of Police personnel, just to mention a few recent cases.

Over President Mahinda Rajapakse’s first visit to India soon after taking over the reins of government, despite the Indian envoy Ms. Rao’s efforts to make the reception as warm as possible, did New Delhi respond adequately? It certainly failed to persuade Tamil Nadu to receive the visitor, not to speak of putting the defence cooperation in the shelf.

As close observers of the scene, one is reminded of the warm welcome extended by Sri Lankans in April 1976 when Shrimathi Gandhi visited Sri Lanka. A sober observer, W. T. Jayasinghe wrote on this memorable meeting of two lady Prime Ministers on Sri Lankan soil: "All communities were looking forward to welcoming Nehru’s daughter, who was now visiting Sri Lanka as the Prime Minister of India." That is really an understatement if one knows how much emotions there was in this country among the common man over Indian leaders, especially, of the Nehru family, Mahatma Gandhi and others. Earlier, the Sri Lankans had welcomed Mahatma Gandhi, Shri Nehru with no lesser enthusiasm, even the people in our outback jungles of the NCP and the Vanni flocking along the railway line to greet the great leaders of India. (Bharat/Jambudvipa).

No doubt, High Commissioner, Ms. Rao would have tried her best to impress the Indian hierarchy of the importance of warmly receiving the new President, who represents a new generation outside the political dynasties, but perhaps, that did not go far enough.

One may ask why Minister Bandaranaike raised the issue of Indian High Commissioner’s interference now? Even if he was sensitive, like many other Sri Lankans, to the not-so-warm responses coming from New Delhi and hostile ones from Tamil Nadu over issues like the defence cooperation, or over GOSL’s recent success in the defensive battles against the LTTE at Mawil Aru, Muttur, Jaffna Peninsula and Sampur, or on receiving a TNA delegation are not matters over which it was his turn to speak but he did not specify any. One must allow that much degree of discretion to Minister Bandaranaike. So, on the Indian High Commissioner’s own speculation, one has to accept that the real issue was the Apollo Hospital affair!

The Indian envoy may not know how small countries react to intervention by foreign diplomats. At least one should grant that in Sri Lanka, the concept of democracy is far more stably established than in so-called western democracies and the GOSL. The problem is that we have been overtly generous despite diplomatic protocol governing the receiving of foreign envoys even though, generally, small countries are far more sensitive than the bigger ones.

That is how I explain the Swiss government questioning my meeting as a former Sri Lankan Ambassador, with the only opposition member in their Parliament (Bundes). That was in circumstances, where the Swiss Councillor concerned, barged into my hotel suite with camera wielding media personnel, unsolicited and uninvited even before I could settle down in my hotel when I expected only the baggage boy to enter.

The media not only attacked me personally but persuaded the Swiss President at the time to tell me that I had "met their opponents" meaning that it was against diplomatic etiquette in that country for a diplomat to meet members of the opposition in Parliament. The Swiss President even spoke of withdrawing the Agre’mont given to me as Ambassador of Sri Lanka (otherwise calling me ‘persona non-grata’) and said he would not do so only because there were important issues to be settled between the two countries. A very senior French diplomat with long experience in Switzerland remarked to me "Oh. This little village. (Switzerland)! Forget about it" and embarrassed senior Swiss diplomats in Bern. He spoke to me privately of the "stupidity" of their press and the political leadership.

I had to fight my battle single handed. There was no case of the Foreign Office coming to my defence as the Indian FO did in the case of Ms. Rao, though I was the most senior Sri Lankan diplomat in Europe at the time. It virtually took no notice of the incident except to call the Swiss Ambassador here to inquire about it because of the publicity it received.

I was vindicated when President J. R. Jayewardene himself received the controversial Swiss Councillor officially in Colombo a few weeks later! Our response to the Swiss situation could also be seen from the way even more recently, the government looked the other way when the Swiss Ambassador here, or other Ambassadors for that matter, went to Kilinochchi on prior arrangement with the LTTE to meet the leaders of that world’s most cruel terrorist outfit, which is continuing a terrorist war against the government and the people!

So, there are lessons which greater democracies in Europe, which are quoted to us as models to emulate, could learn from us.

The Indian envoy must be happy that she did not hear such harsh words as I received from the Swiss media calling me a "goof" in over 100 media references all at once! In my view, this sort of exposure is good for countries from time to time as long as they are not taken too far. Apart from encouraging democratic criticism even of foreign countries and the role of their envoys, such flare ups allow for stock taking in situations where a stalemate has been reached in relations between countries. The Swiss experience taught me to be extra sensitive to local situations. On the other hand, it also provided me an opportunity, which I never expected, i.e., a very close rapport with the foreign media. The editorial board rooms opened up for me just for the asking thereafter, and some came to Paris to interview me. I began to visit Switzerland at least once a month whereas my predecessors had been called over there only once during their posting to present credentials.

These are the positive aspects. I can see the India envoy enjoying the spell of publicity she received and taking the full opportunity for a personal "montage" as she says and to revisit the field of bilateral relations between the two countries. For example, we are hearing for the first time that India is not intervening in Sri Lanka’s internal affairs! Or not playing the "Big Bully"? How wonderful! Isn’t that as beautiful as her looks and charm! Isn’t that a change in "montage"?

But, the disturbing fact is didn’t we hear a different song from New Delhi in the 1980s. The wording as I recall was: "India had a right to interfere in Sri Lanka". Yes, "interfere". That is exactly the correct Consular Law usage as far as I recall, for intervention on behalf of one’s nationals.

No. Then India was not "interfering" on behalf of their nationals; but Tamils because they said they were relatives of Tamils in Tamil Nadu. I think I still have the tape of the then Indian High Commissioner in London, later President of the country, with "Channel Four". It was the same Mantra that others sang. What did the Nazis say of Germans in Austria, Switzerland and those scattered behind the Iron Curtain countries? Did they appeal to them in the name of "Fatherland"? Isn’t that also Tamil Nadu’s song?

If training and financing Tamil militants in India and providing them a safe haven for hit and run operations in Sri Lanka cannot be called interference, then what is interference? How could one then accuse Pakistan of aiding and abetting terrorism in Kashmir or Bombay? Isn’t that tongue in cheek stuff, whether it is coming from New Delhi or from the present Indian High Commissioner’s interview?

The words may have changed in New Delhi today with the memory of the murder of Premier Rajiv Gandhi by the LTTE standing in between. No direct intervention. No parippu drops violating the air space now. But the refrain is the same. "Negotiate!" (with the terrorists), while India was never ready to negotiate with her own terrorists.

We are yet to hear the refrain "Back to CFA lines"! That is what TNA is asking India to press for after Thamilche- lvam said it.

If Minister Bandaranaike’s statement had any effect, though it may have been intended for the Apollo Hospital affair, at least it is that the Sri Lankan protest had been heard loud and clear; and that Sri Lankans could also be sensitive people (and there are still a few left with guts to defend this country’s honour) and that ought to be taken stock of. As I see that seems to be the fallout of this statement. That it came from a person like Minister Bandaranaike, who was well qualified and could speak with authority made all the difference.

For the present, at least it may have made New Delhi to have second thoughts; and thwarted prospects of receiving the TNA delegation if that had been on the agenda. How could they do that with men like Anandasangari sending different signals unless New Delhi was prepared to hear from TNA as Tamil Nadu did, that Anandasangari, like Lakshman Kadirgamar, "...knew no Tamils; and Tamils did not know him." (The quote is from Prof. Suriyakumaran on Lakshman Kadiragamar’s advice to Radhika Coomaraswamy). See my Article "That Warning to Radhika?" in The Island.

It would be well for the Sri Lankan government to proceed carefully on this issue with India’s role, unless it agrees with the Sunday Observer correspondent (PNC Silva) that India is the hand that feeds us (not the Tigers any more), however, compelling it may be for the country to do so to please India. Even if it were a bully, which Ms. Rao says, India is not, one has to be careful. I once told an Indian Joint Secretary, a close friend of mine, who was visiting Paris to supervise arrangements for Rajiv Gandhi’s official visit there, how uncomfortable it was to lie next to an elephant. His response was that "the elephant was a vegetarian". Yet I insisted that the impact would be unbearable for a small creature. IF the Indian High Commissioner says, India is no "Big Brother", no Bull (Elephant)— she may add "vegetarian too" let it be so. But, the point is, it has not become impotent but more virile and even vile. (a la Dixit). It has even acquired nuclear teeth and is jockeying for a permanent seat in the UN Security Council and running for the Secretary General stakes!