“India can isolate Sri Lanka through boycott of CHOGM”

[Hafizzz]

http://www.thehindu.com/news/nation...a-through-boycott-of-chogm/article5318222.ece

India through its boycott of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) can isolate Sri Lanka and rope in friendly countries to vote against handing over the Commonwealth Chairperson-in-Office (CIO) to its President Mahinda Rajapaksa, said Viduthalai Chiruthaikal Katchi (VCK) leader Thol. Thirumavalavan.

Addressing a demonstration organised by his party against India’s participation, he said once Mr. Rajapaksa assumed the office of the Chairperson it would be extremely difficult to subject him to any international inquiry for his alleged war crimes against the Tamils.

Mr. Thirumavalavan described as an “exaggerated imagination” that India’s boycott would affect the bilateral ties between the two countries. “There are many differences between India and Pakistan and these differences never come in the way of bilateral relationship between the two nations.”

He said even senior Congress Ministers, including G.K. Vasan, Jayanthi Natarajan, V. Narayanasamy had expressed reservations over Prime Minister Manmohan Singh participating in CHOGM. Union Finance Minister P. Chidambaram had made it clear that no final decision had been taken on Prime Minister’s visit.

Mr. Thirumavalavan said BJP leaders, including Subramanian Swamy and Venkaiah Naidu, were insisting on India’s participation because they wanted to put pressure on the Congress in the State.

“Probably the Congress may take a decision in favour of Tamils if it can win more seats in Tamil Nadu in the Lok Sabha polls. But it cannot think of such a prospect in the near future,” he said.

The Dalit leader criticised External Affairs Minister Salman Kurshid for speaking in favour of attending the conference when the Prime Minister himself had not indicated his stand.

Asked about Sri Lanka’s Northern Province Chief Minister C.V. Wigneswaran’s invitation to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, Mr Thirumavalan said the Tamil leader had invited him to Tamil areas and not to the CHOGM.

Real issue

PMK leader S. Ramadoss on Tuesday said the debate whether Prime Minister Manmohan Singh should participate in CHOGM had deliberately been brought to the centre stage to overshadow the real issue concerning Sri Lankan Tamils and their rights.

“The debate is nothing but a diversionary tactics. The real issue is the crime against the Tamils in the last leg of the civil war and an international inquiry against Mr. Rajapaksa for his alleged role,” Dr Ramadoss said in a statement.

He said Tamils across the world was keen on a referendum to know the stand of Tamils on creation of a separate Tamil Eelam and their aspiration could be fulfilled through India’s boycott of CHOGM.

Dr. Ramadoss said Indian government had bailed out Sri Lankan government from every crisis in the past and now was seeking to create an impression that interests of Tamils would be served by Prime Minister staying away from the conference.

“Prime Minister’s absence is not enough. India should totally boycott the meeting and take steps to expel Sri Lanka from the Commonwealth,” he said.

 

[manlion]

Isolation, India is in cohort with Lanka, its an sinister attempt by Indians to legitimise Lankan war crimes

 

[manlion]

NEW DELHI, Nov 7 (Thomson Reuters Foundation) -

A boycott of a meeting of Commonwealth leaders this month in Sri Lanka could help pressure Colombo to address alleged war crimes against minority Tamils, South African peace campaigner and Nobel Laureate Archbishop Desmond Tutu said on Thursday.

 

[Gibbs]

A NECESSARY TRIP
- India should indicate that it values its ties with Sri Lanka


Popular interest in history and even contemporary politics is invariably enhanced by posing the vexed what-if question. To those terribly agitated over the Indian prime minister's participation in the Commonwealth heads of government meeting in Colombo later this month, there is a counterfactual question that is worth posing. Had the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam succeeded in their bid to carve an independent eelam out of the Northern and Eastern provinces of Sri Lanka, would its supremo, Velupillai Prabhakaran, have chosen to apply for membership of the Commonwealth?

How liberation movements conduct themselves after winning power depends on many imponderables. To that extent it is impossible to be certain about how a victorious LTTE would have conducted itself. However, one thing is certain: the philosophy, the methods and the overall orientation of the Tamil Tigers were always at odds with everything today’s Commonwealth stands for. The LTTE’s unwavering faith in a one-party State, its total intolerance of all dissent within the Tamil community, its targeted assassination of all those it considered its enemies and the ruthlessness with which it conducted its 20-year war against the Sri Lankan State set it apart from other similar movements in South Asia.

Regardless of the fact that a large number of LTTE supporters in the Tamil diaspora located in Europe, North America and Australasia were middle-class professionals and law-abiding citizens of their adopted countries, they bankrolled a vicious war machine that can only be compared with the Khmer Rouge of Cambodia. This apparent contradiction needs to be explained, if not politically, then by using the tools of social psychology.

Yet, whatever complex explanations may be proffered to explain this bizarre schizophrenia, one thing is very clear: the LTTE could not have been defeated with the rules devised by the Marquess of Queensberry. A ruthless and fanatical army that showed scant concern for collateral civilian casualties needed an equally determined response.

That the final months of the war led to unspeakable brutalities and what are called ‘human rights abuses’ is well known. Some of these transgressions have been documented by both propagandists and well-meaning human rights bodies. But it would be a travesty to believe, as is often the case these days, that the departures from a gentlemanly conduct of war was the prerogative of the Sri Lankan army alone. No history of the civil war will be complete if it ignores the fact that the responsibility of the non-State player was far, far greater.

What is interesting is that the whole world was aware of the true nature of the LTTE and quietly encouraged the Sri Lankan government to finish the job as quickly and efficiently as possible. This included New Delhi which, in spite of calling for a peaceful, negotiated settlement of the problem, wanted an end to the LTTE problem once and for all. This was not because there is some residual support for Sinhala chauvinism in South Block. The government of President Mahinda Rajapaksa was given the diplomatic and military space to go for broke precisely because there was a deep understanding of the long-term threat the LTTE posed to both countries. India’s present-day ambivalence has its roots in domestic politics and not in the diplomatic and military assessment of the rebellion.

Those who have mounted a sustained campaign to force the prime minister, Manmohan Singh, to skip the CHOGM in Colombo beginning November 15 have targeted Rajapaksa. This is understandable. Apart from being perceived as the victor of the civil war and the man who re-united the island, the Sri Lankan president has come across as a man who is not amenable to pressure, both domestic and international. A leader with a firm grip on the public pulse, the president is keenly aware that the psychological scars of a long-standing ethnic divide can only be healed by a combination of peace and prosperity. His blunt style and his insufficient personal commitment to a devolution package that was thrust on Sri Lanka by Rajiv Gandhi in 1987 has made him an object of suspicion for those who feel he is instigating Sinhala chauvinism. But his critics forget that governing Sri Lanka democratically calls for a deft balancing act and, in particular, being mindful of the deep Sinhala distrust of weakness. Translated into an ethnic mould, it implies being forever vigilant that the yearning for Tamil autonomy does not descend into a revival of separatism.

Actually, India has little reason to complain about Rajapaksa’s balancing act. Immediately after the civil war ended, New Delhi’s thrust was on the revival of ‘normal’ politics in the Tamil-majority areas through the devolution of power. Fears were expressed that the president would ride the crest of Sinhala triumphalism and dilute the 13th amendment — which New Delhi views as an article of faith solely because it was negotiated by Rajiv Gandhi. It was well known that Rajapaksa personally favoured district councils over provincial councils. However, notwthstanding his personal preference, the president has stuck to the commitment he made to India.

Likewise, fears were expressed that the elections to the provincial council in the Tamil-dominated Northern Province would be put off indefinitely and that any election would be unfair. The September election which produced a conclusive majority for the Tamil National Alliance and the election of a well-respected former judge of the supreme court as chief minister has put an end to these fears. Rajapaksa, it is clear, has stuck to his side of the bargain.

Under the circumstances, it makes no diplomatic sense for India to succumb to the extremist pressure of the Tamil diaspora and the regional parties of Tamil Nadu. A multilateral CHOGM is not the occasion for grandstanding. Neither is it the appropriate forum to raise new issues centred on the internal governance of Sri Lanka. These must await a more relevant occasion, if indeed they have to be pressed. India would have been happy to attend a CHOGM at, say, Islamabad, in spite of the deterioration of bilateral relations with Pakistan. Why should it be different for Sri Lanka?

For a small country that has only just come out of an extremely damaging civil war, the CHOGM is an opportunity to showcase the return to normalcy. For Sri Lanka, India is the big neighbour and Sri Lankans, cutting across the ethnic divide, look to India as a benign presence in the region. Manmohan Singh may not be the flavour of the season within India but he represents India internationally and is the symbol of India. His ungrudging presence will be a major signal to Sri Lanka that New Delhi values its deep ties with the island.

Boycotting the meet would be churlish. Such a short-sighted move will not weaken Rajapaksa politically. Instead, it will be regarded as an affront whose impact will be felt long after Manmohan Singh retires to a Lutyens’ bungalow to pen his memoirs. And, as for the cabinet ministers from Tamil Nadu who are urging New Delhi to be reckless, their unsafe Lok Sabha seats will not be made safe by an impulsive boycott.

For long, Manmohan Singh has been berated for yielding to the line of least resistance. Although rather late in the day and bereft of any wider electoral significance, he can afford to take a stand and do the right thing by travelling to Colombo.

A necessary trip

 

[MohitV]

just to gain tamil votes india guv. has ruined its friendship with a very important nation in this region

 

[Echo_419]

If we boycott the meet we will push Sri Lanka towards china & Pakistan
& loose influence on them
The best way to improve the lives of Tamils will be to cooperate with them is read of bashing them

 

[Gibbs]

‘The absence of the Indian PM [from CHOGM] would subtract from its space in Sri Lanka’

Dayan Jayatilleka is a former Sri Lankan ambassador to Geneva and Paris, an academic, former political activist, and former minister in the short-lived North-East Provincial Council. He is the author, most recently, of 'Long War, Cold Peace', written after the military victory. He was in the capital recently for an IDSA conference on South Asia and spoke to Seema Guha.


How important is the CHOGM for President Mahinda Rajapaksa and his administration?

The CHOGM is important in that it signals a breaking of an attempted blockade of Sri Lanka and the Rajapaksa administration by powerful elements in the Tamil diaspora, Tamil Nadu, the Western media and the international human rights community. However it is a mixed blessing, because there is also a spike in the criticism of Sri Lanka due to the holding of the meeting. Sri Lanka's higher profile has meant it is a bigger target.



If Prime Minister Manmohan Singh does not attend the meet mainly due to pressure from Tamil Nadu, what would be the reaction? Will it be a turning point in bilateral ties?

There are no irreversible setbacks or irreparable damage in diplomacy and international relations. That said, the absence of the Indian prime minister would subtract from the space that India has and can have in Sri Lanka and would certainly damage its standing among the Sinhalese. Such a glaring absence would also diminish the leverage that India can exercise with regard to the devolution process. India's capacity to help Sri Lanka's Tamils would not be enhanced by the PM's non-attendance.



What are the views of the Tamil community on this? Chief Minister Wigneswaran has written to the PM and invited Manmohan Singh to come to Jaffna when he visits Colombo. Is that a subtle hint that he should attend the CHOGM and also go north?

The Tamil political community and perhaps the Tamil community at large is divided on this issue. This division may reflect a divided Tamil collective self and a divided collective psyche. CM Wigneswaran has struck a constructive note by urging the Indian PM to visit Jaffna. This makes plenty of sense, given that India has implemented a mini-Marshall Plan to rehabilitate, reconstruct and uplift the people of the north. Now is hardly the logical moment for India to retrench in its interaction with Sri Lanka.



Your comments on the latest video being circulated of the Sri Lankan army's atrocities on civilians after the military victory.

I think these are horrors that must be exposed and the perpetrators punished sooner rather than later. It is, however, crucial that one has the right perspective. No fewer than 11,000 Tiger fighters who surrendered or were captured, were incarcerated, rehabilitated and released. If the general practice of the Sri Lankan armed forces was to execute captured Tiger cadres, then most of these captives would be dead. I am sure there were horrors perpetrated by individual soldiers or even groups of them, but the empirical evidence shows that these were aberrations, excesses, exceptions, rather than the rule. The horrors in the Channel 4 movies, authentic though they may be, tell one side of the end of a 30-year story replete with horror. Most countries in the world and every country in South Asia has some part of its modern history similarly darkened by blood and shadow. In Bangladesh, Cambodia, Brazil, Argentina, and Guatemala, it has taken roughly 40 years for the truth to be confronted. In Spain, 75 years after the civil war, no investigation is permitted. Meanwhile, the catharsis is best left to the artists and the historians. Truth will out some day as it must, and there will be a settling of accounts according to the law, but no imposition from outside can bring accountability, justice and reconciliation to a postcolonial society proud of its sovereignty and the durability of its admittedly battered democracy. Sri Lanka, a democratic state, will not submit to punishment for having liberated itself by winning a protracted civil war against one of the word's most monstrous terrorist formations.



If ties with India hit rock bottom, can India hope to have any leverage with the president?

Let me put it this way: if India abandons its soft power instruments in relation to Sri Lanka, it will be limited to the projection of hard power, which will diminish its soft power in the region and in Asia as a whole, to the benefit of its competitors.



Now that a government is in place in the north, do you think negotiations on the 13th amendment could speed up? Why have successive governments in Colombo been so reluctant to give a modicum of self-rule to the Tamils? Why does the political class feel threatened?

Negotiations on the implementation of the 13th amendment presuppose a dialogue between the Colombo government and the Northern Provincial council. Such a dialogue is not taking place. India can nudge Colombo in the right direction and shepherd the process. This is exactly the wrong time to disengage or engage at a lower level with Colombo. As for the reluctance to devolve, the clinging to a centralist, even hyper-centralist model stems from the insecurity of having a hostile Tamil Nadu next door, across a narrow strip of water. There is an understandable apprehension of irredentism and centrifugal tendencies. I would suggest that what is imperative is a reasonable sufficiency of authentic devolution to the provincial councils, which would correspond to a middle path as commended by the Buddha.



How do you see the issue of devolution and ethnic peace panning out? Are those opposed not worried that another armed conflict may be on the cards? What is the alternative vision they offer to the Tamils?

Those who are opposed to devolution do fear another secessionist surge, but fear that devolution itself would enable and encourage such a surge. I do not think they're too worried about another armed conflict, because they feel confident of their ability to handle it. Their fear of secessionism makes them maintain a panoptic presence in the Tamil majority areas. I think they are too narrowly focused, and fail to realise the lessons of history, namely that too little devolution can be just as much a stepping stone to secession as too much devolution. The alternative vision the Sinhala hardliners, in the establishment and outside, seem to offer the Tamils is an utterly unviable one of assimilation or subordinate integration. Pressure and hostility from Tamil Nadu and the Tamil diaspora will only retard the cause of devolution, not hasten it. Encouragement from influential friends of Sri Lanka such as Russia, China, Japan, South Africa, et al, can push devolution

‘The absence of the Indian PM [from CHOGM] would subtract from its space in Sri Lanka’ - Indian Express

 

[rio90]

india can hardly influence SL