The Indian political crisis

By Kumbakarna

A few weeks ago, the Bharatiya Janata Party govt. of India was defeated in a no-confidence vote in the Lok Sabha. With the failure of any grouping of parties to gather a majority, elections are scheduled to be held within a few months. Most political observers predict another 'hung' Parliament, resulting in another weak govt.

While the BJP govt.'s position in the Lok Sabha was weak by any assessment, its fall was triggered by a matter connected to the terrorist problem in Sri Lanka. Jayalalitha and Subramaniam Swamy, who were junior partners in the govt., wanted Defence Minister George Fernandes out of the administration. When Prime Minister Vajpayee refused this demand, the two withdrew from the governing coalition, precipitating its fall.

The reason for the demand for Fernandes ouster was the fact that he was involved with the LTTE, not merely as a sympathiser but as an active supporter. He is known to have led fund-raising efforts on behalf of the LTTE, provided protection for Rajiv Gandhi's killers, established contacts between the LTTE and arms-dealers and used his authority as Defence Minister to scale down Indian naval operations off the coast of Tamil Nadu, thereby making it easier for the LTTE to smuggle arms to the Mullaitivu coast. Fernandes went to the extent of dismissing the Indian navy commander when the latter cracked down on LTTE seaborne operations. There were also allegations of Fernandes' involvement with some of India's own separatist movements.

In view of all this, the fall of the BJP govt. in general and George Fernandes in particular would appear to have a positive effect on the stability of the entire South Asian region. Another fact which becomes clear is the extent to which the LTTE has been able to exploit Christian and Hindu fundamentalism for its own purposes.

The re-emergence of Hindu, fundamentalism can be seen as a reaction to the secularisation of Indian political culture which took place during the 20th Century under figures such as Gandhi, Nehru and Patel. This re-emergence manifested itself in organisations such as the Rashtriya Svayang Sevak (RSS) and the even more militant Shiv Sena. Their slogan was "Hindi, Hindu, Hindustan," which referred to the language, the religion and the nation respectively. The influence of the ruling Brahmin caste increased proportionately.

The first reaction to this came from south India, in the form of Ramasamy Naikkar and his proposed "Dravidastan".

The prinicipal objective of the Dravida Kazhagam was the establishment of a Tamil state in south India and northern Sri Lanka. Next was Pakistan for the Muslims and Khalistan for the Sikhs.

These were followed by similar campaigns in Kashmir, Assam, Nagaland etc. Of all these, only Pakistan became a reality.

The conflict between Hindu fundamentalism and Tamil nationalism has always existed, if generally hidden just beneath the surface. When the Bharatiya Janata Party, whose power base is the Brahmin Hindu heartland of northern India, came into power, their ally in the south was the Brahmin-caste Jayalalitha. In the same context when the BJP started talking about the recreation of a 'Rama' kingdom, Karunanidhi immediately responded with a 'Ravana' kingdom. Tamil nationalists having recently decided that King Ravana was a Dravidian king.

A major aspect of Rajiv Gandhi's 'modernisation' of Indian politics was his efforts towards greater secularisation. As a reaction, its opposite extreme of religious fundamentalism emerged through the RSS and the Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP). This in turn resulted in the emergnence of separatist sentiments among the Muslims and other minorities. In the '90s, with central govt. power being shared amongst a host of regional parties, the Indian union began to look increasingly shaky.This of course was exactly what Tamil separatists both in India and in Sri Lanka wanted and the LTTE helped the process along by eliminating the unifying influence of the Gandhi name by murdering Rajiv.

In an attempt to counter this de-stabilisation and broaden its appeal, the BJP govt. was forced to present a less radical face. It is in this context that the relatively moderate Vajpayee was chosen to lead the govt. in preference to the more radical Lalu Krishan Adhvani. It is for the same reason that the devoutly Christian Fernandes was appointed Defence Minister.

Unfortunately for the BJP, the latter's efforts on behalf of Tamil separatism were carried too far.

From the perspective of a unified Sri Lanka, it is to be hoped that the Congress Party will emerge in a strong position after the forthcoming elections to the Lok Sabha. In view of past events, such an outcome is likely to have the greatest retarding effect on LTTE activity in India.

inside the glass house:

Toilet factor in the UN

By: thalif deen at the united nations

NEW YORK— When UN ambassadors and delegates congregate in the cavernous General Assembly hall at voting time, they have one of three options: either vote for, against, or abstain.

The most intriguing, however, is a fourth option: to be suddenly struck with an urge to rush to the toilet leaving the seat vacant.

Ambassador Francesco Paolo Fulci of Italy describes it as the "toilet factor" in UN voting.

Last year, he jokingly suggested that the only way to resolve the problem is to install portable toilets in the General Assembly hall so that delegates can still cast their votes while contemplating on their toilet seats. But for obvious reasons, there were no takers.

The frantic attempt to leave your seat vacant — and consequently your presence, ironically enough, recorded as "absent"— takes place whenever the issue in dispute is a political hot potato.

When delegates are unable to vote with their conscience— or don't want to incur the wrath of aid donors who are adept at twisting arms— they flee their seats.

Nearly every one of the 185 member states, including Sri Lanka, has resorted to this tactic at voting time — onetime or the other.

Last week was no exception, when the Russians introduced a resolution criticising the US and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) for the "environmental destruction" of Yugoslavia.

The highly controversial issue came before the 53-member UN Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) for a ruling. But Western nations, who were determined to block the Russian move, eventually succeeded in having the resolution thrown out of the CSD.

Using a procedural tactic, the 15-member European Union proposed that "no action" be taken on the Russian resolution on the ground that the issue was beyond the mandate of the CSD.

"The CSD discusses technical issues relating to oceans, fisheries, tourism and hazardous waste. There is no place in the CSD for a political issue like the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia," one Western European diplomat was quoted as saying.

The "no action motion" was adopted by 33 votes in favour, to four against (Russia, China, North Korea and Zimbabwe), with eight abstentions (India, Indonesia, Egypt, Sudan, Benin, Mexico, Sri Lanka and Venezuela).

The remaining eight (Algeria, Central African Republic, Djibouti, Iran, Mauritius, Mozambique, Nicaragua and Niger)were absent at voting time — either by accident or by design.

India, which has been one of the harshest critics of NATO bombing, went soft at voting time. While agreeing that the six-week-old aerial bombardment was destroying the environment in Yugoslavia, the Indian delegate went along with the Western argument that the resolution would only politicise a UN body dealing with environmental issues.

All of the Western nations in the CSD - including the US, Britain, Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Ireland, Netherlands, New Zealand, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland - predictably voted to block the Russian resolution.

The vote was a diplomatic victory for the United States which reasserted its political clout at the United Nations where it has been exerting pressure on member states to desist from raising any issue relating to the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia.

This was the second big defeat for Russia at the United Nations since the bombing of Yugoslavia began nearly six weeks ago.

At the end of March, the Security Council voted 12 to 3 rejecting a Russian-sponsored resolution to end the US-led NATO air strikes on Yugoslavia. Besides Russia, the only two countries to vote for the resolution in the Security Council were China and Namibia.

The Russian draft resolution, which failed to show up before the CSD, expressed grave concern over the "unfolding environmental crisis" in the Balkans, which is attributed to the destruction of chemical, oil and other industries which have come under heavy NATO air attacks.

Russian representative, Nikolai Tchoulkov expressed "deep regrets" that the CSD failed to even discuss the resolution.

Tchoulkov said it was symbolic that the resolution was voted on procedural grounds - not on substance. "We view it as a de facto recognition that the problem (of environment destruction) exists," he said.

Sri Lanka's decision to abstain did not come as a surprise. If it had voted with the US, it would have condoned military attacks on a sovereign state, without Security Council authorization.

Sri Lanka could not have voted with the Russians because it would have infuriated the Americans and the Europeans who have been cooperating with the government on anti-terrorism: one of Sri Lanka's high priorities.

Moreover, Sri Lanka is also beholden to the US for having declared the LTTE a terrorist organisation. A vote against the US could also wreck the chances of a proposed state visit to Washington and the White House by President Kumaratunga which is currently in the works.

Return to News/Comments Contents