Untitled Document

Political Column

By a special correspondent

Why the Indians get angry but won't show it

By Our Political Editor
India made it clear that the government will support a resolution of the Sri Lankan
conflict only if principles of democracy, pluralism and human rights are respected on the ground. This was stated emphatically by Indian Foreign Secretary Kanwal Sibal at the end of a two day visit to Sri Lanka.

Ranil uses the F word in Cabinet and gets away with it….
Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe told Cabinet of the Federal solution, and yes, again, he seemed to have got a resounding approval rating, in spite of the fact that the "F' word was anathema in Sri Lankan political circles, at whichever level, a couple of years back.

The federal sentiments emerged in Oslo almost serendipitously when the Sri Lankan delegation led by G. L. Peiris were meandering about matters such as the setting up of courts, etc by the LTTE which was, it was said, leading to high levels of agitation in the South about the tearing asunder of the concept of the unitary state.

From there it was a short way for the Sri Lankan delegation to state that a unitary framework was a sine qua non of any process of arriving at a settlement, to which Anton Balasingham replied that self rule and self determination within the parameters of the (rather new fangled) concept of internal self determination was a position that the Tamil Tigers will be agreeable to.

Minister Moragoda then intervened to say that what should be brought about is a reconciliation between these two positions, and an attempt to 'bridge the divide' between the two stated positions. Eventually this is how the concept of Federalism was made the eventual point of agreement in a envisaged political solution to be hammered out at future meetings.

The news was not received with a thunderclap in Sri Lanka, because it seemed to be coming for a long time, and also because at least vast fears entertained about a loosely strung confederacy agreement had been avoided. The opposition decided that it will not oppose willy-nilly the use of the 'F' word, but took the immediately available strategy which was to say that federalism as a concept was not entirely objectionable - but the problem they said was that federalism was being used here by the LTTE to construct a platform for the further pursuance of the concept of a separate state of Eelam.

The JVP also took this line, more stridently and vehemently and some of the JVP frontliners were heard to say that ' there is no Tamil culture in this country, because there isn't a single Tamil film that has been produced in Sri Lanka given the excessive Tamil fondness for Tamilnadu flicks.'' A Tamil culture needs to be constructed, he said, and this was his way of meeting the LTTE argument of ' self rule ' and perusing its agenda for self rule within a homeland concept in which the language and culture of Sri Lanakn Tamils was to be fostered and preserved.

But if pace was a marathon that covered hills and valleys, will the runners who reach the 'stadium' at the end of the race find out that the stadium doors are closed when the race was over and the last lap has been run? Will parliament, in the final analysis, stifle the eventual reaching of an accord between the LTTE and the GOSL if and when it does happen.

Government insiders feel that if a LTTE- government accord is reached, the MPs of the opposition will not be vehement in their opposition, ie. they can be won over, on the basis that this is a once in a lifetime chance in which the LTTE and the government have been able to reach a point of agreement within the larger parameters of the concept of a unitary state.

But, what if the PA pulls the rug from under the feet of the government and topples the government before that.

'Feelings of panic need not surface', seems to be the going policy in the UNF frontline, for the simple reason that the PA is currently not a cohesive unit. The older parliamentarians in the PA who do not have much time to charter the course of their political futures, feel a need to force the pace of the opposition's power bid - - but this is not the same feeling within the rank and the file, they say.

It means that the President will not dissolve parliament, even though she is seen as the most erratic and unpredictable factor in the entire PA equation ie. its power bid.

But will the President have her own way, or will the apparent convulsions and cross currents within the party keep her restrained from demolishing the house of cards with one bludgeoning sweep by using the considerable constitutional powers that are vested with her? The UNF bet is that she will not do it (dissolve parliament) but that even if she does, the peace momentum has created in its wake enough national support for the UNF to carry the electorate at any forthcoming election.

The People's Alliance by the time this appears would have probably come out with a statement, about the current political developments with regard to the federal solution. The old left would be looking daft if they do not support federalism, but the PA is committed largely to the draft constitution 2000 which even though presented by G. L. Peiris was in large part the work of KN Choksy. Sarath Amunugama said something to the effect that the PA supports federalism, but he said it in quick draw, and it remains to be seen what the PA will do now.

The UNF is on the other hand for Federalism now, but though they were part of the drafting process of the 2000 constitution, it is public knowledge the extent to which they want to undermine a vote in favour of it.

Perhaps India couldn't ignore the overarching political sentiment within the Indian union. The ruling Congress in Pondicherry for example, urged the Union Government to take all steps to the expedite extradition and arrest of LTTE supremo V. Prabhakaran. These considerations and others signified a shift in formal stated Indian policy. Whereas India earlier stated only that there will be support for the current process of resolving Sri Lanka's crisis, this time the Indian government formally added the rider about "democracy, pluralism and human rights.''Pondicherry Pradesh Congress Committee President V Narayanaswamy said in Pondicherry at a press conference for instance, that India should not support any agreement between Sri Lanka and the LTTE as long as Velupillai Prabhakaran leads the organisation.

''If India accepts any such agreement, it would amount to supporting terrorism,'' he said.Mr Narayanaswamy also said that he is taking steps to release some Karaikal fishermen detained by the Sri Lankan Naval force. The Central government seemed to be listening.

The underpinning of the Indian message seemed to be that India needs to be sensitive to the developments within and without the country, and could not therefore accept an agreement between the Sri Lankan government and the LTTE, unless there was an assurance that the LTTE will not be given a carte blanche to operate in the North and the East in a way that will jeopardise even Indian interests.The Indians are certainly feeling that the rapid developments in the island nation to the South of it cannot be ignored - for example, the Indians feel jumpy about the increasing Japanese involvement. Japan for instance, had wanted to send its Foreign Minister for the SAARC summit to familiarise himself with the SAARC agenda by meeting with the region's Foreign Ministers.

This underlines Japan's international profile, which is going from plain old aid giver, to that of involved player. Yasuchi Ahashi is playing a frontline role in the Sri Lankanpeace process for instance; he is ex- UN diplomat who has the credentials for international diplomatic exercises.

Japan for instance shifted from its position of being unwilling to give aid to the LTTE, and the Japanese position now is that the government is willing to extend financialsupport to any fund in which the LTTE is a member.

The Indians on the other hand have been showing a worried streak particularly after the news that 6 tons of equipment have been despatched to augment the Voice of Tigers broadcasts . This issue was raised by the Indian Foreign Secretary with the Prime Minister. The government of Sri Lanka and the LTTE seemed to be sensitive to these Indian concerns; for example the statement issued after the Oslo talks was replete with references to Tamil speaking areas, Tamil habitat, etc.,

These words were in fact taken from the Indo-Lanka accord and they were aimed at diffusing the Indian government's dislike for the 'homeland concept' which has been theTiger preference (ie: the North and the East are the Tamil homelands.)

How far will Indians go in seeing that its dislike for a carte blanche for Prabhakaran is seen to its logical conclusion? Congress leader Sonia Gandhi had lost her voicecampaigning in Gujarat and left her foreign affairs shadow minister Natwar Singh to meet the visiting PA delegation a fortnight back. To this delegation, Natwar Singh said: "As far as our (Congress) policy is concerned, we will catch Prabhakaran and hang him -- for the murder of Rajiv Gandhi."

Opinion makers of the Indian political elite reacted cautiously to the news that the"LTTE has used the F word.'' (Federalism.) This though seen as an unimaginable development (hence the 'F" exclamation) is now seen in the light of Indian apprehensions and India's constraints with regards to Sri Lanka's peace issue.

For instance, Foreign Secretary Sibal said that 'there are several legal constraints thatprevent India from further involvement in Sri Lanka's crisis.'' Though he did not open the entire can of worms, he did say that the messy issues of extradition and other legal complexities and nuances that are related to Prabhakaran's conviction in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination has kept India's hands relatively tied, in its approach to the current conflict resolution process.

This was the official Indian position but there was no doubt that there were other considerable irritants that contributed to the equation. In unexpected quarters the handlebar moustachioed Indian sandalwood smuggler and outlaw Veerappan for instance was not helping. Veerappan earlier this week turned from semi folk hero to outright villain in certain parts of Southern India after a body of a Karanataka politicianwas found earlier in the week. He had been abducted by Verrappan's brigands earlier.

Critics of both the Central and state governments pointed out the considerable connections that have been forged between Veerappan and Tamil extremist groups notably the Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka. But essentially it was convenient for Sibal to adopt a wait and see attitude instead of bringing India's doubts to the surface, hence his cautionary words in Colombo to the effect that the 'race has only started (for peace) but there is still a long way to go', the obvious inference being that there is plenty of time yet for India to rethink its position and adjust according to the prevailing political currents of the day.

From India's general stand and the Sibal statement it is clear that India doesn't want foreign interference in Sri Lanka, but is willing to support the peace process in order to please the GOSL and not to be the spoiler in the process. But the important point is that India is probably the resultant supporter - refer to the conditions India placed ( earlier part of this column) for their support.It is also interesting that Milinda Moragoda has been briefing Mr Mishra a close advisor and confidante of Prime Minister Vajpayee. But Mishra will be questioned why Moragoda did not brief him about the Norwegians sending aa large quantity of equipment to the Tigers for setting up of a radio transmission.

Mishra, a supporter of the UNF peace process has also taken the initiative to send -- twice now -- a special envoy, Shri Sinha, an attache in the Cabinet Office, to use some gentle perusasion on President Chandrika Kumaratunga to support the peace process. Bad enough he praised the LTTE, he also praised Prof. G. L. Peiris as an 'intellect'. The President will surely not see him again. What a raw thing to say to her.

Back to Columns