AT the annual meeting of the Geneva-based, 47-member United Nations Human Rights Council last week, India abstained from voting on a resolution, vigorously sponsored by the United States and the European Union, that not only denounced Sri Lanka’s record on human rights since the last phase of the ethnic civil war but also called for an “independent” international inquiry into Lanka’s alleged human rights abuses. This was the right thing to do for more reasons than one. No wonder it has been widely welcomed, except for some shouting against it in Tamil Nadu. Also, for this time around, this country was on the same side as all other Asian countries, which, with the sole exception of South Korea, either voted against the resolution or abstained from voting.
Notably, the West-sponsored resolution this year is different from those in 2012 and 2013 that India voted for, much to Sri Lanka’s annoyance and even criticism at home. In the previous two years, there was no mention of an “intrusive” investigation into a sovereign country’s internal affairs. This year, there is a clear demand for such an intrusive probe to be arranged by the Office of the Human Rights Commissioner, Navi Pillay. India has been totally and consistently opposed to any such international action for any reason, and the Indian ambassador to the UNHRC, Dilip Sinha, minced no words to drive this home to the assembled delegates.
This, however, is only a part of the story. There is a second and important reason why this country has changed, indeed corrected, its stand on Sri Lanka. The blunt truth is that Indian voting on the UNHRC resolutions previously was based not on the content or merit of the resolution as on the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance government’s political problems at home. It was virtually forced to vote against Sri Lanka under pressure from its coalition partner in Tamil Nadu at that time, the DMK.
Other Tamil political parties were of the same view. That was not all. The chauvinistic Tamil parties even compelled Manmohan Singh not to go to Colombo to attend the Commonwealth Heads of Governments Meeting.
Thankfully, that problem ended because the DMK walked out of the UPA for reasons of its own, and no other Tamil party has bothered to enter into an alliance with the Congress. South Block was therefore able to correct its past mistake and make a new start that should improve this country’s disturbed equation with the island republic that is our closest neighbour and the relationship
between the two countries dates back thousands of years. It is sad that a single state in the Indian Union should be able to compel the Indian state to forsake national interest.
Let me add that Tamil Nadu is not alone in adopting this dangerous and unacceptable approach. West Bengal’s mercurial chief minister, Mamata Banerjee, also has successively sabotaged Indian relations with Bangladesh by vetoing the agreement on Teesta waters.
To revert to Sri Lanka, the UNHRC resolution itself admits that the recommendations of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC), appointed by Colombo in 2010, are “constructive”. If so, should not the UN body confine itself to giving technical assistance to Sri Lankan institutions to give effect to those LLRC findings that haven’t yet been implemented and to investigate credibly alleged human rights violations?
Elections in Northern Provinces that have given this Tamil-majority region a popular government headed by Justice Vigneswaran were held under the 13th amendment of the Sri Lankan constitution. Time has therefore come for full enforcement of the 13th amendment so that the critically important issue of devolution of powers can be addressed. Too much time has already been lost. It is also pertinent to point out that the US and its allies that are all the time shedding crocodile tears over the human rights in Sri Lanka have done nothing to help the luckless victims who need relief, reconstruction and rehabilitation. By contrast India has made massive efforts – worth Rs, 7,800 crore of $1.3 billion – in this direction. This country has built 50,000 houses for those rendered homeless, and provided the material for the repair and restoration of 43, 000 damaged abodes. It has also built the infrastructure for a port and for an airport in Jaffna that had been rendered unusable by the civil war lasting nearly three decades.
All this could not have been done without cooperation between Indian and Sri Lankan governments.
Finally, the Indian refusal to go along with the US over human rights in Sri Lanka will add to the strains in the Indo-American relations underscored by the most deplorable, two-stage Devyani Khobragade episode. Things have evidently worsened now and have led to the resignation of the US ambassador to this country, Nancy Powell.
The new government in New Delhi, to be formed after the elections, would be burdened with too many urgent tasks.
It would do well, however, to ensure two things: First that its foreign policy can’t be taken hostage by one state government or another. Secondly, the US has to be told that it has to show greater sensitivity to our relations with such immediate neighbours as Sri Lanka and Bangladesh.
At Home And Abroad
Inder Malhotra
