Sri Lankan Crisis – Time for an Active Role?

17 Aug, 2001    ·   545

Sarath Ramkumar brings out the intricacies of Indian stand on the volatile situation in Sri Lanka
The Foreign Secretary, Ms. Chokila Iyer, speaking in Colombo (August 10) after the SAARC Foreign Secretaries meeting said India “was opposed to both violence and terrorism”, replying to a question on why it did not condemn the LTTE attack on Katunayake (July 24). Earlier, the Sri Lankan government seemed unhappy with India ’s response to the LTTE’s attack. The MEA spokesperson (July 25) said “there was no room for violence and terrorism in order to achieve a political solution to the (Sri Lankan) conflict”. Sri Lanka’s President, Chandrika Kumaratunga, while conveying her gratitude to the US, UK and Russia, also said that she hoped that countries that had banned the LTTE now realized the correctness of their move, which was an oblique reference to India. More than a month back, India had criticized the Sri Lankan air raids on Jaffna (June 30) as “disappointing”, and asked Sri Lankan government to start the peace process. The Sri Lankan Foreign Minister, Kadiragamar, termed India ’s response as “unacceptable and unrealistic”. It is another matter that the air raids were stopped after negative reactions of India and the US , which had warned that “violence begets violence”. The general perception was that the air raids of June 30 were designed for shoring up the political fortunes of the beleaguered Chandrika government rather than to neutralize the LTTE bases.

 

 

India had urged the Sri Lankan government to start the peace process on more than two occasions in the last few months. Apparently, the MEA realized that the Chandrika government was as culpable as the LTTE regarding the failure to kick-start the peace process. President Chandrika had stated in an interview during her visit to India (February 2001) that at the “political level, we have arrived at an excellent point in Indo-Sri Lanka relations.” Sri Lankan Foreign Minister, in another interview (April 2001), after the UK ban on the LTTE, said that the “Government of India is very supportive of the Norwegian facilitated peace process”. The Norwegian sponsored peace process, which was going on for more than two years, has fallen into disarray after the LTTE attack on Katunayake. Earlier, the sidelining of the chief interlocutor Erik Solheim (June 6), by the Sri Lankan Government, and his replacement by the Norwegian Foreign Minister, Jagland, was criticized (June 8) by the LTTE, as a unilateral measure taken without consulting it. 

 

 

According to one report, it is for the first time in five years that India has not condemned an act of terrorism in Sri Lanka . Probably India feels that the Chandrika government has been insincere about the peace efforts, despite the nearly four months (Dec 24,2000- Apr 23, 2001) of unilateral ceasefire by the LTTE. It might be veering round to the view that by repeatedly carrying out air raids and operations against the LTTE, the Sri Lankan government has lost the chance to take the peace efforts forward despite Solheim’s efforts. The latest LTTE attack on Katunayake is the proverbial nail in the coffin of the Norwegian sponsored peace process. In this connection, it needs to be mentioned that the LTTE refrained from carrying out any major suicide/bomb attack in Colombo since November 2000. Further, with the ruling PA being reduced to a minority, and efforts to form a national government (by the PA and UNP) on one hand, and President Chandrika’s attempts to push constitutional changes by resorting to extra- constitutional means like the Referendum, on the other hand, New Delhi has probably decided that there are valid reasons to send out a strong signal to President Chandrika. If a national government of the PA and UNP is formed and constitutional changes are pushed through ignoring interests of the ethnic minorities, Sri Lanka would be pushed further into the quagmire of political instability, resulting in the eclipse of moderate Tamil opinion. 

 

 

However, for all the Indian support to the Norwegian sponsored peace process, India would only be too happy if such an effort in its neighbourhood, sponsored by “a third country” does not go too far. Last year, for the first time in many years, two top LTTE leaders, Anton Balasingham and S.P. Tamilchelvan, made positive references to India in separate media interviews. Balasingham said that “ India has a role to play”, but for the past ten years it had “has practically abandoned the Tamils”. He also added that until the ban on the LTTE is lifted, “ India cannot play an active role”. Does India believe the time is now ripe for a change in its policy towards its southern neighbour?  

 

 

 

POPULAR COMMENTARIES