Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 11

Indo-Pak tensions spillover into SL

Joint Opposition deplores govts servile foreign policy


Elaga Tamil and the succession stakes in the TNA

October 8, 2016, 6:44 pm


Speaking in parliament on Friday Foreign
Minister Mangala Samaraweera said that contrary to reports
published in the media, Sri Lanka had not pulled out of the SAARC
summit which was scheduled to be held in Islamabad on 9 and 10
November and that the Sri Lanka foreign ministry had put out a
statement saying that the environment in the region was not
conducive to holding the SAARC summit only after four other
nations had pulled out of the Summit and that according to the
SAARC charter, the summit could not be held even if one country
pulls out and by the time SL issued its statement the SAARC
summit could not be held anyway. Despite this explanation
offered by the foreign minister, the statement that the foreign
ministry issued did indicate a pullout without mentioning the
word.
What our foreign ministry statement said was that "Sri Lanka
regrets that the prevailing environment in the region is not
conducive for holding the 19th SAARC Summit in Islamabad on
9th and 10th November 2016. The General Provisions of the
SAARC Charter require that decisions at all levels shall be taken

on the basis of unanimity, and this applies to the convening of


meetings of Heads of State or Government of SAARC Member
States as well. As a founding member of SAARC, committed to
regional cooperation, Sri Lanka hopes that the steps required to
ensuring our region's peace and security will be taken to create
an environment that is conducive for the pursuit of regional
cooperation. Sri Lanka condemns terrorism in all its forms and
manifestations, and stresses in this regard, the need to deal with
the issue of terrorism in the region in a decisive manner."
The entire Indian press seemd to have interpreted the statement
by the Sri Lankan foreign ministry as a pullout and indeed the
wording of that statement could not be interpreted as anything
else. The latter sentences of that statement seemed to follow in
the lines of Indian interpretations of what was going on in the
border. It was a testimony to the effectiveness of the Indian
espionage agency RAW that none of the Muslim political parties in
Sri Lanka the SLMC or the ACMC expressed solidarity with
Pakistan. In this regard, India has come a long way since a decade
ago when they were complaining that Pakistan was infiltrating
South India using Tamil speaking Muslims from Sri Lanka.
The only Muslim organisation that put out a statement in favour
Pakistan was the Progressive Muslim Front which said that the
government boycott of the SAARC conference to be held in
Islamabad, Pakistan is a sad reflection on the foreign policy of the
government. The Muslim Progressive Front said "The fact also
must be emphasized that Pakistan is a very friendly country of
ours. It had in the past steadfastly stood by us in all our trials and
travails. The role played by Pakistan to combat and completely
eradicate terrorism from our country is a fact that would be ever
remembered by a grateful nation,.." the statement had said
further that in every International forum and particularly in
Geneva, Pakistan stood by us and also lobbied other Islamic
nations to support us.

Perhaps what really left a bad taste was not so much the
statement issued by the foreign ministry but the PMs visit to
India last week which looked for all the world like an expression of
solidarity with India at this moment. The Prime Ministers
announcement that ETCA would be signed before the end of this
year was another indication that Sri Lanka was now firmly in the
Indian orbit. The Joint Opposition also reacted with outrage at
what they saw as a case of selling a firm friend of Sri Lanka down
the river. Speaking to The Sunday Island, Prof G.L.Peiris said
"There was no need whatsoever for us to issue that statement.
Four other nations had announced that they were not attending.
Which meant that the SAARC summit which was to be held on 9
and 10 November could not be held. The foreign ministry issued
this statement at 3.30 in the afternoon. The Pakistan government
announced at 6.00 pm that the summit was postponed." What
Peiris implied was that Sri Lanka could have kept quiet without
making any announcement at all.
Prof Peiris, a former External Affairs Minister added that this
statement was "a deliberate slap in the face for Pakistan and a
complete failure of diplomacy. It is an act of gross ingratitude. We
wont have friends if there is no reciprocity. Apart from the fact
that Pakistan supported us with logistical support during the war,
when we were being relentlessly pursued in Geneva, with
resolutions in three consecutive years, 2012, 2013 and 2014,
Pakistan worked round the clock to help us together with the
other Muslim countries. They worked with Saudi Arabia, UAE both
of which were members of the Human Rights Council. Pakistan
also helped us through the Organisation of Islamic States. Now for
us to have issued that statement was like a kick in the teeth for
Pakistan. This is also not going to go down well with the Muslim
countries."

Prof. Peris added that "When Pakistan was suspended from the
Commonwealth, President Mahinda Rajapaksa stood against that
saying that countries should not be suspended from membership
but that one must engage with those countries if there are
issues." Prof. Peris also said that The PMs visit to India at this
particular moment with all this going on over the line of control in
Kashmir was not appropriate and that even in the event where
the meeting had been scheduled much earlier, the circumstances
are compelling enough for a change to be made politely. Peiris
made the point that Mrs Sirima Bandaranaike was accepted as an
impartial mediator when conflicts broke out in the region. Mrs B
did not slavishly bow down to India. "But now we are just a lackey
of India. Then the statement to Nitin Gadkari that come what may
the ETCA would be signed by the end of the year shows that we
have simply become an acolyte of India. The basic problem in our
foreign policy is that we dont understand the difference between
friendship and servility. We are simply becoming an instrument for
the Washington Delhi axis".
The difference between servility and friendship
There was a point in what Prof Peris said. In 1971, when the war
between West and East Pakistan broke out, Mrs Bandaranaikes
government allowed Pakistani planes to refuel in flying between
the two countries. The Indians were very upset and a question
was asked in the Indian Lok Sabha on 25 November 1971 whether
Pakistani warplanes and naval vessels were re-fuelling in
Colombo. When the Indians asked the Sirima Bandaranaiake
government about Pakistani planes being allowed to refuel in
Colombo the answer given by the SL government was that no
planes or naval craft carrying arms, ammunition or military
personnel were being allowed to refuel in Colombo. And the Indian
government informed the Lok Sabha that they were satisfied with
that answer. It should be noted that Colombo had not denied that
Pakistani war planes and naval craft were re-fuelling in Colombo

all that was said was that these planes or naval craft did not carry
weapons, ammunition or armed forces personnel.
Later on 30 November 1971, Mrs Sirima Bandaranaike stated in
the Sri Lankan parliament that the policy of her government was
not to get involved in the war between the South Asian
neighbours or to take sides. Parliamentarian V Dharmalingam of
the ITAK had suggested that Sri Lanka should sever ties with
Pakistan because of the genocide that was being committed in
East Pakistan. Mrs Bandaranaike had chided Dharmalingam for
speaking like an Indian and not a Sri Lankan. Reacting to
Dharmalingams accusation that Sri Lanka had allowed arms and
ammunition to be ferried across her territory into East Pakistan,
Mrs B had asked angrily whether Dharmalingam had seen
weapons being transported and she also explained that only
planes moving from East Pakistan (Bangladesh) to West Pakistan
carrying evacuees had touched down in Colombo.
Yet when the JVP insurgency had broken out earlier that year in
April 1971 India was the first country to come to Sri Lankas aid
by sending emergency stocks of ammunition to quell the
insurgency. It was Anuruddha Ratwatte who had gone to
Bangalore to accept the ammunition given by India which was
transported in Indian planes to Sri Lanka because Sri Lanka didnt
have aircraft to transport the ammo to SL. However Pakistan too
had come to SLs aid by providing helicopters and the like. When
war broke out between India and Pakistan a few months later, Mrs
B took steps to ensure that that she remained neutral between
the two neighbours. One way she did that was not by asking India
whether to allow Pakistani planes to refuel in Colombo she made
that decision on her own as the leader of a sovereign nation. She
was a friend to both Pakistan and India and not servile to either.
Today however the situation is very different.

Later when Mrs Indira Gandhi visited Sri Lanka in April 1973
barely eighteen months after these events, there wasnt even a
hint of tension between Sri Lanka and India on this matter of the
re-fuelling. On the contrary the speeches made by both Mrs B and
Indira Gandhi were oozing with warmth and stressed the personal
friendship between their two families. Indira Gandhi did make a
reference to the war with Pakistan but that was to say that she
herself was keen to settle the problems between neighbours
amicably and she explained how any territory belonging to
Pakistan that India had overrun had been promptly handed back
to Pakistan and she went on to say that war and military tensions
between neighbours grappling with problems of poverty on the
scale seen in South Asia was a joke. Indira Gandhi was in so many
words, endorsing the equidistant posture taken by Sri Lanka
during the Indo-Pak tensions in 1971.
Elaga Tamil and the future of Tamil politics
A political activist in the north told this writer that there are three
views about the Elaga Tamil (Arise Tamils) movement which is
estimated to have a drawn the largest crowd in the north after the
end of the armed conflict. One such view has been given
expression to by Tamil Diaspora activist Brian Seneviratne, the
other by the Hindu Congress and another by Ahilan Kadirgamar.
Of these, Brian Seneviratnes piece in the Colombo Telegraph
unabashedly exulted at Wigneswarans rally. He referred to it as a
long overdue protest and had given his reasons for saying so at
great length. Seneviratne had said that the Tamil North and East
was under military occupation and that the change from
Rajapaksa to Sirisena has been just a name-change. The same
violations of human rights have gone on. He had said that the
white van disappearances have started again in the North and
East and he had also made allegations about the Buddhistization
and Sinhalisation of the Tamil areas and further that the armed

forces had flooded Jaffna with drugs (especially heroin) and


alcohol. Continuing Seneviratne said:
"There is a feeling among the Tamils in the North and East that
they have been abandoned by the International community,
including the USA, now that the US has achieved what it wanted
a regime change from the Rajapaksas who were close to China, to
Sirisena who prostrates himself in Washington. The USA is no
longer interested, nor is the new UN High Commissioner for
Human Rights, Zeid al Hassan. Those who expect the UN Human
Rights Council to do anything for the Tamils in March 2017, have
not done the necessary reading of the geopolitical situation to
know that nothing will be done. It is important to realize that this
is our problem and intentional powers will not help. Hence the
importance of the protest in Jaffna."
Seneviratne had also gleefully stated that the Tamil Peoples
Council (TPC) which organised the Elaga Tamil protest will make
the TNA irrelevant and that this protest was an excellent example
of people power, and was an indication of what is possible when
people decide to act. Seneviratne said that though the TNA had
opposed the rally claiming that they were in serious negotiations
with the Sri Lankan government and that a protest such as this
will have a negative impact on the negotiations, they have been
negotiating for years with nothing to show for it and that the
TNA is effectively part of the Government and are unconcerned
with the plight of the Tamil people. He also lamented that Sri
Lanka does not have a committed Tamil leader like
S.J.V.Chelvanayagam and that C.V. Wigneswaran, might be able
to fill the void.
The statement put out by the Hindu Congress was also a defence
of Wigneswaran but in a more moderate form. They held that
Wigneswarans speech had been misinterpreted and that he had

clearly declared that he is not acting against Sinhalese or


Buddhist or any other race or religion. The Hindu Congress was
also suggesting a federal constitution claiming that It was the late
Mr. S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike who first proposed federalism for this
country.
Ahilan Kadirgamar held a view different to the other two. What he
said was that the Elaga Tamil rally on September 24 in Jaffna was
nothing but the continuation of efforts to keep reactionary Tamil
nationalism mobilized after the defeat of the LTTE in May 2009
and that it has kindled ethno-nationalist emotions, and put people
on the streets without any realistic political path ahead. It seeks
to co-opt genuine peoples grievances into reactionary Tamil
nationalist ends. Said Kadirgamar adding further that The Eluga
Thamil protest and its demands claiming to articulate Tamil
grievances were grounded in reactionary assertions about the
Tamil homeland, nation and sovereignty, and that in this it is not
very different from its political twin, Sinhala Buddhist
nationalism.
Kadirgamar had pointed out that the flyer in Tamil that was
widely circulated before the protest was couched in anti-Sinhala
and anti-Buddhist rhetoric; it amplified the fears about Buddha
statutes and Sinhala colonization and stressed the need for an
international investigation for war crimes in bold print and only in
small print did it address issues such as land and political
prisoners. He said that historically, the Federal Party and the TULF
took a polarising path in the 1960s and 1970s culminating in the
Vaddukoddai resolution for a separate state and they paid for it
with their lives and that nationalist politics and eventually the
LTTEs suicidal politics have been devastating for the Tamil
community. He had warned that In the current context, if Sinhala
progressives deem it necessary to align with reactionary Tamil
nationalism, in order to oppose Sinhala-Buddhist chauvinism, it is
nothing but a sad reflection of their political inaptitude and folly.

Succession stakes in the north


The Joint Opposition had its own take on the Elaga Tamil rally.
What G.L. Peiris said bout this was that government ministers like
Mahinda Samarasinghe are now trying to use Wigneswarans
antics in the north as an excuse for not abolishing the executive
presidency. Samarasinghe had made two statements so far
obviously at the bidding of President Sirisena that these events in
the north give us cause for reflecting further on the desirability of
doing away with the executive presidency. The talk now is that
you need a strong centre to deal with tendencies of this kind. GLP
made the point very strongly that even without an executive
presidency, the Indian constitution has a variety of powers at the
centre which can be used in situations of this kind.
Peiris deplored the fact that there was no proper statement from
the President or the Prime Minister about Wigneswaran and if
there is no political will, all the powers incorporated into the
constitution will not serve us. (The prime minister did in fact make
an offhand remark in parliament on Friday saying that it was not
the Northern PC that decided on what to include in the
constitution and that the constitution would be drafted by
parliament and that they should go about that task without
bothering about what various people are saying.) GLP held
however that there has been total cowardice on the part fo the
government and that their inaction is a pay off for installing this
government in office. They are now reduced to silence and cannot
act against Wigneswaran.
GLP also berated the SLFP (Sirisena faction) for its own
pusillanimity in the face of Wigneswarans campaign and said that
minister Nimal Siripala de Silva was urging the TNA to hold a

disciplinary inquiry against Wigneswaran and said that nobody is


interested in maintaining discipline in the TNA and that this is a
matter which poses a threat to the Sri Lankan state. GLP also
warned that if this is the way the chief minister of the north is
behaving under the present constitution, just imagine how much
worse the problem would be if further powers are devolved.
Tamil politics in the north has always been unipolar ie. one major
political formation and one leader dominating the politics of the
north. There has never been two power centres in northern Tamil
politics the likes of which we see in Muslim politics with the SLMC
and the ACMC or among up country Tamils with Thondaman and
Digambaram vying of power. In the north the sole leader in the
years predating and following Independence was G.G.
Ponnambalam. Later the mantle fell to S.J.V Chelvanayagam and
after him for a brief priod to A.Amirthalingam followd by
Prabhakaran and now R. Sampanthan. We are now going through
a transition period when the struggle to succeed the ageing
Sampanthan is now coming to a head. All the political forces that
organized the Elaga Tamil rally are still members of the TNA.
Looking at the lineup that has joined Wigneswaran we see that
the political parties marginalized by the ITAK which dominates the
TNA have thrown in their lot with the new political formation. The
identification of the All Ceylon Hindu Congress with Wigneswaran
could be due to the succession stakes within the ITAK itself where
the probable successor to Sampanthan could be M.A.Sumanthiran
( a Tamil Christian) who has the language skills and the
sophistication to interact with the international community which
is considered indispensable for Tamil politics in this country. The
appointment of Mavai Senathirajah as the nominal leader of the
ITAK means very little as he has not been able to assert himself as
the possible successor to Sampanthan. All things considered, it is
not surprising that those who are not in favour of a Tamil Christian
becoming the leader of the Tamils will support Wigneswaran. He is

Hindu, English speaking and sophisticated enough to interact with


the international community. If the Wigneswaran camp wins this
power struggle, that may be the end of the era dominated by the
ITAK unless Senathirajah caves in and steps down in favour of
Wigneswaran.
Posted by Thavam

Вам также может понравиться