The Indian cooperation in passing the resolution on Sri Lanka at the UNHRC has in fact facilitated possibilities of stalemate in acting on the resolution. It is well known that India was behind the change in the tabled resolution that the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) has to function “in consultation with and with the concurrence” of the SL government in implementing the LLRC recommendations and also in addressing alleged violations on international law. Writing on the resolution on Saturday, Prof V. Suryanarayan says, “What will be the consequence, if the Government of Sri Lanka refuses to accept the recommendations of the UN High Commissioner? A political stalemate will follow. How will this stalemate be resolved? The resolution is silent on the subject.”
Further observations by a new generation Tamil politician in the island follow:
Writing in South Asia Analysis Group (SAAG) on 7 March, Prof Ramu Manivannan of the Madras University pointed out at the dilemma of New Delhi caught between its complicity guilt in the war and its need to keep its feet in the island.
“The world knows little more than what India wants the world to believe about its role in the brutal military resolution of the ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka. Above all the complicity factor stares us more than supporting the resolution while absentation would help to keep our feet inside the Sri Lankan politics,” Manivannan wrote.
The mandarins of New Delhi found out a way on both through the ‘amendment’: hoodwinking Tamils and the world by voting for the resolution, and at the same time saving genocidal Colombo, its own skin in the complicity factor and its feet in the future maneuverings in the island in competition with the US as well as China.
Once again the beneficiary in the Indo-US competition – this time camouflaged in ‘cooperation’ – is genocidal Sri Lanka. The achievement is also camouflaged through its public pretensions.
While the US helped in confining solutions as well as the polity of the ‘articulating’ sections of Eezham Tamils to implementing Sri Lanka’s LLRC recommendations, India helped removing any international impediments in the way Sri Lanka wants to implement the recommendations aiming at the structural genocide of the nation of Eezham Tamils in the island.
Eezham Tamils know for ages, and the world also knows in recent times, about moving even an iota towards anything ‘positive’ to Eezham Tamils, with the ‘concurrence’ of genocidal Colombo.
* * *
Writing in the same South Asia Analysis Group on Saturday, V. Suryanarayan’s article “Hesitant but Welcome Change in India’s Sri Lanka Policy,” begins saying: “Human Rights organizations and Sri Lankan Tamil diaspora have valid reasons to be jubilant” about the UNHRC proceedings passing the resolution.
Of course, the HR organizations can be happy about getting infinite business at the task of getting fibre out of stone and Eezham Tamils can have a sigh of relief at India’s ‘cooperation’ paving way for the invalidation and exposure of a bogus resolution in the future proceedings of the UNHRC.
* * *
Suryanarayan in his article cited “the highly respected, soft spoken Christian priest, Fr. SJ Emmanuel, President of the Global Tamil Forum,” hailing the UN resolution as the “first step in seeking justice” and thanking the government and people of India.
No Indian academic or policy ‘think tank’ has so far questioned why Fr. SJ Emmanuel is denied landing in India.
After 1983, India as a part of its agenda of highlighting human rights violations in the island permitted the Tamil Information Centre (TIC) to open branches in Chennai and Madurai, writes Suryanarayan in the SAAG article.
Recently a member of a former Tamil militant organization EROS has said that the founder of the TIC, Mr. Kandasamy was abducted (and later found dead) during IPKF times at the orders of an Indian intelligence official who is now running the SAAG. According to the ex-EROS member Mr. Kandasamy was suspected working for the CIA.
Suryanarayan’s article that talks of a long human rights commitment of India in South Africa, former East Pakistan (Bangladesh), Fiji and in post-1983 Sri Lanka, and laments that Rajiv assassination made the pendulum to swing to the other extreme to the extent of not recognizing the Vanni War degenerating into a war against Tamil civilians, had nothing to say on the IPKF mission of 1987 degenerating in the same way ending up with grave human rights violations committed against Eezham Tamil civilians.
“India cannot afford to follow a foreign policy of cynicism and opportunism,” Suryanarayan said. But the voting pattern of India’s neighbours, the Maldives, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Indonesia at the UNHRC was not merely because these countries have skeletons in their cupboard as Suryanarayan wrote. It only shows the growing influence of China-Sri Lanka axis in the neighbourhood, especially in the Maldives despite its regime change.
* * *
Suryanarayan, citing Indian Foreign Secretary Ranjan Mathai, wrote on New Delhi becoming more sensitive to the foreign policy requisites of the federal states. What is then the explanation to Ranjan Mathai’s stand at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meet, 6 months back? Does it mean Tamil Nadu was not showing enough teeth at that time?
India voting in favour of the US-resolution at the UNHRC is a marked welcome change in India’s Sri Lanka policy, argues the SAAG writer.
But in the same article he concedes that New Delhi’s unhappiness with Colombo is confined only to the latter’s failure in fulfilling promises relating to the implementation of the 13th Amendment of 1987.
In what ways it is change towards the fundamental aspirations of Eezham Tamils?
“India’s Sri Lanka policy, as Prime Minister Man Mohan Singh has pointed out, stems from two inter-related principles; first, the unity and territorial integrity of Sri Lanka and second, the Tamils should be provided with an opportunity to enjoy justice and human dignity,” writes Suryanarayan, whose personal outlook too is confined to a ‘united’ Sri Lanka of a new political system (non-descript to him so far), “where a Tamil can be a Tamil, while being a Sri Lankan,” as he concludes the article.
Experience tells us that the “inter-related principles” in India’s Sri Lanka policy and in Suryanarayan’s own outlook upheld for decades, could never go together and would always remain as ‘binary oppositions’.
Everybody knows that it is the very stand of adamantly upholding Sri Lanka’s unity and territorial integrity that encourages genocidal Sri Lanka and eternally nullifies the other ‘principle’ related to Eezham Tamils.
If there is no preparedness to alternative thinking despite decades of failure and if the thinking goes that the binary opposition is to India’s advantage, then there will be no new policies, unless new ground realities twist at the arms.
* * *
The USA and its mouthpiece organizations, equally keen in the unity of State in the island, are nowadays highly concerned about any renewal of violence even though the Eezham Tamils have no idea from where it is going to come.
However, their repeatedly expressed concern at least tells us that to what extent they are anxious at upholding a challenge-free Sinhala military to facilitate their inroads into the island, but at the same time are anxious that their current policies may not meet the requirements.
Eezham Tamils of a small, stateless, and military-deprived nation, whether in the island or in the diaspora, and Tamils in Tamil Nadu, can’t afford to waste their energy in taking sides with the powers or in working for the agendas of their mouthpiece organizations, to get carried away from the cause.
In the given context, their precious energies have to be concentrated on sticking to the cause, its fundamentals, and in telling the world in unison their determination to achieve what they think is righteous.