Sunday Times 2
Links between Sri Lanka,India and economic diplomacy
The Bandaranaike Centre for International Studies seminar on Sri Lanka-India Relations on 16th June, generated perhaps, a re-think on our age-old links with Jambudhweepa. It coincided with Poson Poya and the sacred month of Poson when Thambapanni and Jambudhweepa built a firm foundation for future relations with the meeting of the most venerable Arahant Mahinda and King Devanam Piyatissa, in the holy precincts of Mihintale. The whole gamut of the political, cultural, economic and social relations between the two lands received a resurgence with this meeting, there were more ancient links extending beyond this historic meeting as evidenced by edicts, epigraphy and documentation, like the advent of Vijaya and his meeting with Queen Kuveni. That picturesque past about which we boast was strengthened by this sacred encounter that led to fruitful reciprocal benefits for both lands in later history.
Some of them were of a long-standing nature and the Buddhist doctrine was the most beneficial and important to Lanka. The Buddhist states of northern Jambudhweepa had a special relationship with Lanka which exists even to this day. The tensions that arose in the late centuries were brought to compromising conclusions based on the common doctrine followed by both lands; King Elara’s rule although foreign in a sense, concluded with a respect for common bonds based on the doctrine. Even Dutugemunu respected Elara although vanquished by him when he united Lanka in the name of the doctrine. His famous exhortation, ‘This exercise of mine is not for enjoying the bliss of kingship but for the perpetuity of the Buddha Dharma in this hallowed land’, encapsulates the spirit that runs in the veins of Lanka’s existence. The doctrine united Lanka in all its facets and Lanka’s relations with Bharat went from strength to strength.
In later centuries the invasions from the Southern Indian States however led Lanka to shift the capital from Anuradhapura to Polonnaruwa, Dambadeniya, Yapahuwa, Kurunegala, in the Northern plains, and later to the hills, Gampola, Maha Nuwara and the South West to Kotte, Raigama and Sitawaka. The invasions from South India were from the Cholas, Cheras, Kerala and Tamil Nadu. This phenomenon was understandable as they were of a different cultural blend based on Dravidianism which also had a long history. Historians record that these invasions of Sena, Guththika and Magha were from the Kingdoms of South India. They had links it is believed to the Dravidian cultures of Mohenjo-daro and Harappa. Although shrouded in legend and mystery they descend from a culture different from the people of North India. What is relevant is that Bharat, Jambudhweepa or present India consists of varied racial stocks, predominantly Dravidian and Aryan. The latter settled in the north, and the former in the south. In different historical times, and these were independent kingdoms. They united through conquests or the uniformity of ethnic, religious or geographical proximity. Lanka had relations with these states and also the states of the North. The latter relationship was friendly based on commonality of the cultures and the former had strains due to issues or due to kings of Lanka being of the same ethnic stock of the North. The descendents of the South Indian kingdoms settled mainly in northern Lanka and the history of Sri Lanka talks of their moving settlements at different times. Lanka had to develop good-neighbourly relations with South India due to its proximity and the smallness of the Island with an ethnic group also related to South India. This vicissitudes of strains of links continue to the present day.
Recent history: When Indian States unified under one administration following the British rule and the partition of India into India and Pakistan was based once again on religion, ethnicity and broadly culture, they faced the task of binding and strengthening the territorial integrity of the country’s land which is a sub-continent. It was in this equation that India built her relationship with her neighbours of South Asia. Sri Lanka too fell into this framework but with a special respect for the age-old links. This was so as the rulers of India were mainly from the region where the Buddha trod or the Hindi-belt as it is presently called.
At independence India had all her neighbours contiguous, except Sri Lanka and the Maldives which were Islands and position and size wise non-confrontational. After the partition of India in 1947, it concluded treaties of peace and friendship with Nepal and Bhutan and with the treaty with Sikkhim, India replaced Britain and made it a protectorate of India popularly known as ‘Sikkhimisation’. India secured her borders except with China. She signed a friendship treaty with the then Soviet Union in the cold-war geo-political background. Partially secure but for the Kashmir problem she concentrated on national development. The neighbouring countries too in the post-independence period were more engaged in national reconstruction. The issues whichever, arose only when national interests of neighbours impinged on the national and strategic interests of India. This was true for Sri Lanka too.
The issues that the two countries faced since Independence were settled or semi-settled perhaps in this spirit of mutual understanding. The major political issues faced were the ethnic problem which later developed in to a terrorist problem, the citizenship issue of the Indians of recent origin, Kachchativu Islands, demarcation of the maritime boundary and the fishing rights of both countries in the national maritime boundaries.
The maritime boundary was demarcated according to the international covenants and the islands in Sri Lanka’s territorial waters were included in her territory. Kachchativu was one such Island. It had a historic christian church where both Sri Lankan and Indian christians pay homage and a festival is being held annually. This was in the Sri Lankan territorial waters and the Sirima-Shastri Pact concluded it is Sri Lanka’s territory and there was no dispute since then. The fishing by Indian trawlers became an issue and it too was resolved with the Central Government of India. Unlike with other South Asian neighbours Sri Lanka does not have any issues relating to borders.
Indian citizens of recent origin did not have voting rights initially in 1947 as they were considered indentured manpower brought from India to work in the coffee and tea plantations in the highlands of Sri Lanka by the British. This problem which was being taken up by successive governments of the two countries was gradually taken care of by India accepting the population of recent immigration and Sri Lanka accepting the residue. It was also during the Sirima-Shastri period and Sirima-Indira Gandhi period that the bulk of the issue was settled.
Another major issue between the two countries was the illegal immigration from Southern India to Sri Lanka. There was established a task force for curbing this immigration called TAFFAI. This issue existed till the 1970s and it too got partially resolved as stricter measures were taken by successive administrations.
The Indian boats fishing Sri Lanka’s abundant fishing wealth was not settled and continues to this day, perhaps mainly due to the obduracy of the Tamil Nadu Government.
The most intricate problem that existed for decades was the terrorist problem of Sri Lanka in which India had differing postures, a silent onlooker, a provider of training and equipment to terrorists, an interventionist, a mediator, peace keeper and a watchful neighbour of events unfolding. As in the case of other bi-lateral issues the main culprit enlivening the terror on Sri Lanka was the State of the Tamil Nadu. Our readership is conversant with events from the 1970s to 2009, when the LTTE was being groomed by the State of Tamil Nadu which resulted in a loss of thousands of innocent lives. This article, due to space constraints will focus only on the main eras of development.
From the 1960s Tamil Nadu was advancing the Dravidian consciousness and was professing a Dravidian empire encompassing South Asian Dravidians and South East Asian Dravidians on the premise that the Dravidians although vast in numbers were dispersed in many lands that they should be brought under one flag and a State carved out for them. In the 1970 s and 1980s a journal called ‘Tamil Times’ carried articles on this Tamil consciousness. The contributors were very recognized Tamil academics and this doctrine was the basis on which Sri Lanka’s Eelam concept was built. This thesis propounded that the countries in which Tamilians live are powerful States and hence the territory to be the centre of a nation should be at the weakest link in the whole spectrum which is Sri Lanka. In fact Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam propounded a separate Tamil nation at the initial stages but it failed due to the strength of the Indian nation. Periyar, who headed this movement had to see the forces disintegrating and many parties were formed AIADMK, ADMK, DMK etc.
The events unfolding in Sri Lanka like the 1983 riots, added fodder to the Eelam fire. India at that time was making overtures to Government to grant devolution and more powers while training the militants in Tamil Nadu. By the end of the 1980s India got involved as mediators and the famous or infamous 1987 July accord was signed. Terrorism was fully entrenched and the LTTE became the dominant terrorist outfit. Sri Lanka under successive leaders was trying to contain terrorism, while the LTTE assassinated Ministers, army heads, civilians and were in no mood to give-up. J.N. Dixit in his book ‘Assignment Colombo‘ describes India’s role to settle the problem as it was affecting India too. Ministers Lalith Athulathmudali, Gamini Dissanayake and President Premadasa were assassinated and Premier Rajiv Gandhi too was killed by a suicide-bomber. Varied overtures at peace failed which ultimately led President Mahinda Rajapaksa and his team to wage an offensive which saved Sri Lanka. India at the later stages did not interfere and Sri Lanka-India relations rolled onto a new beginning.
New Issues:
The post-2009 period has marked solutions to some bilateral issues, and some have been partially resolved. However the issues that had been resolved are being brought to the fore by the Tamil Nadu Government. The new biliteralism is based on the new thinking of the Governments which have taken office in both countries, the fact that major irritants have been resolved like the terrorist problem, the geo-political cold-war scenario had diminished, the dominant-regional position of India has been recognised, the emergence of economic diplomacy to prominence in place of political diplomacy and the fact that both countries have realised that the major irritants arise due to the obduracy of neighbouring Tamil Nadu in dealing with Sri Lanka.
The Kachchativu island’s ownership has been rightly granted to Sri Lanka by an international treaty. Even the supreme court of India has determined that the agreement is non-revocable. Yet Chief Minister Jayalalitha makes exhortations that she will force a revocation of the agreement. This attitude confirms that widely held view, that it is the Tamil Nadu Government which sours the bilateral links between the two countries. In fact at the Bandaranaike Centre for International Relations seminar this adverse role played by the Chief Minister was emphasized by the panel of experts.
The fishermen of Tamil Nadu continue to encroach on Sri Lankan fishing grounds and this too has the sympathy of the Chief Minister. It is a matter for the Central Government of India to resolve amicably with the Sri Lanka Government.
The Sri Lankan refugees living in Tamil Nadu are welcome to return and the Tamil Nadu Government should facilitate their smooth return. The difficulties they encounter in their children’s education, temporary residential facilities in Tamil Nadu are not livable and the Sri Lanka government is ready to accept them in their habitat. This should not be made a bilateral issue between India and Sri Lanka.
There are negotiations on trade agreements between the two countries in which reservations have been made by professional groups in Sri Lanka. It is the responsibility of our policy makers to smoothen the safe passage of these vital negotiations.
Economic ventures like the Sampur Power Generating Project have already been delayed and the relevant concerns should be addressed to commence the plant as had been argued at the seminar.
More importantly dealing with Tamil Nadu is a responsibility vested with the Central Government of Sri Lanka with the approval of the Central Government of India. It is not a responsibility of any of the Provincial Councils of Sri Lanka. There were media reports that the Chief Minister of the Northern Province has approached the Tamil Nadu Government on certain issues. If these reports are correct it could be the start of another period of unrest instigated from within the Sovereign State of Sri Lanka. The Tamil Nadu state administration has no legal right to deal with a Provincial Administration. Such overtures go contrary to all major constitutional and diplomatic ethics and norms.
It is the bounden duty of Sri Lankan Government to ensure that this thrice blessed land will continue with the peace that has dawned and not allow interested parties to scuttle the developing good relations between Sri Lanka and India.
(The writer was an Ambassador and Deputy High Commissioner to India.)