This is a question that is being debated not only in the UN
Human Rights Council meeting at Geneva or Sri Lanka, but in India as well. This
came about, typically the way Parliament responds to issues these days, after
members from Tamil Nadu stalled the crucial pre-budget parliamentary session,
says Colonel R Hariharan.
Clearly Indian government is trying to find its famous
"middle path" to make up its mind. And 'middle path' as per its
standard operative procedure is to buy time. So we see the hapless minister,
facing the flak from the media and other political parties, indulging in word
play rather than answering question squarely.
Allegations of Sri Lanka's war crimes which are now firmed
up in public mind -- both at home and abroad --cannot be wished away by anyone.
Regardless of the veracity of Channel 4 videos or reports of
holier-than-thou human rights activists or orchestrated propaganda by pro-Eelam
separatists, the issue now stands on the magnitude of the allegations.
They require serious investigation by Sri Lanka and the
country has failed to do this even after nearly three years of peace. If past
experience is any guide, Sri Lanka may never do better than what it is doing
now. It is going by the letter rather than spirit of national and international
obligations to the people and the world.
What are Sri Lanka's fears if it accepts to recognise the
issues raised by the resolution and promises to act on a time bound schedule?
Is the United States resolution a threat to Sri Lanka's
sovereignty of nations? Absolute hog wash. The US resolution has nothing to do
with sovereignty. Nor is it going to trigger international action as a follow
up if Sri Lanka adroitly manoeuvres the semantics of the resolution (countries
do it all the time in United Nations).
In fact, only if the issue hangs fire, Sri Lanka will
continue to walk the lobbies of UN and Geneva. The simple truth is Sri Lanka
does not appear to want the key concerns raised to be even discussed not only
in international forums but also nationally. Its propaganda machines are
working overtime to give it a strong, emotive colouring, as a threat to the
nation's dignity and self respect.
The US statement explaining how it worked carefully before
drafting the resolution shows it came as no surprise as Sri Lanka was provided
every opportunity to salvage the situation. One of the objectives of the US
draft resolution appears to be to leave the issue to Sri Lanka to resolve with
some face saving action.
Does India want Sri Lanka to carry on as before?
That is why the US resolution has been watered down (the US
style of the "middle path"), to soften its impact on Sri Lanka. And
the resolution is symbolic (rather than diabolic), and merely draws attention
to Sri Lanka's poor accountability.
So even if Sri Lanka accepts the essence of resolution, it
is doubtful whether its action stations would work overtime to get at the
truth. But Sri Lanka does not want even to do this, because it wants the issues
to be buried.
And that would be sad not only for the Tamils but Sinhalas
as well, who have been victims of gross human rights violations, before,
during, and after the war. Justice needs to be done to them because for too
long Sri Lanka had been wishing away its aberrations; a huge number of people
have vanished at times unwept.
Of course, no one can deny the Liberation Tigers of Tamil
Eelam had the dubious credit for many of these killings. But the state, which
is not a terrorist body, but an elected government has not fared any better.
It carries a huge baggage of guilt accrued during not only
counter insurgency operations against Tamils but during its anti-JVP
operations, and for unaccounted disappearances and killings of those demurred.
And this baggage has been collected not only during President Rajapaksa's
dispensation but during earlier regimes as well.
So time has come for Sri Lankans everywhere to call upon
their government to be more accountable. And a resolution at the UNHRC may well
be a wakeup call to them.
While this explains the context of the resolution, does
India's decision dependent upon it? I doubt. Nations handle issues at
international forums on many other considerations; so a few other questions on
a broader context may help clear the grey areas.
Does India want Sri Lanka to carry on as before, ignoring or
disowning promises its head of state had made to India on the very same issues
in the past with?
If not, India should vote for the resolution because not
voting would indicate that Sri Lanka can take India for granted. It would only
indicate India's influence with Sri Lanka is all words with no substance. And
it would reinforce the growing belief that Sri Lanka would go back on any
promise it makes to India.
India's help to Sri Lanka was not lost on China
Because India can be in Sri Lanka within 40 minutes of
commercial flight or three hours journey by boat. And China will always be
physically farther than India; China knows this. The strategic lessons from
India's almost real time response to provide succour to Sri Lanka when Tsunami
caused havoc, would not be lost on China.
A second aspect is regardless of India's stand on this
issue, China will continue to make further forays into Sri Lanka. It is part of
its ambitious global vision. And Sri Lanka is geo-strategically too important
for China to ignore in the Indian Ocean Region.
It is for these reasons that India should send a strong
message to Sri Lanka by voting for the resolution, lest ignoring Indian
concerns becomes a habit.
Lastly, time has come for the Indian government to show it
is guided by a value system, rather than Machiavellian backroom manoeuvres. I
am one of those who believe human rights consciousness is coming of age in this
country, despite a number of aberrations that continue to be committed.
People want the government to be more accountable than ever
before for such aberrations. And despite a lot of cynicism, the state machinery
has taken a number of measures to improve its performance.
Despite political machinations, a structural mechanism is in
place to question human rights violators. If India does not vote for the U.S.
resolution, it would put the clock back on the nation's long quest for
accountability and better human rights performance.
India is neither North Korea nor Myanmar
Allegations on human rights abuses are on many occasions
brought to settle scores by nations (to this extent Sri Lanka is correct; but
the issued has passed that stage in the case in point). So some argue India
would not vote for the resolution in its own interest. It could set a precedent
for others to put India on the dock for its human rights violations.
This is far from the reality; nations are brought before
international forums on human rights issues as a last resort. And India is
neither North Korea nor Myanmar to feel diffident about its record; it has been
striving to improve its human rights. So if accusations are made it should face
them squarely and confidently.
Moreover, India cannot prevent such allegations coming up in
the future by shying away from the issues.
Even after all these arguments, I wish I can confidently say
India would vote for the US resolution.
Dr Manmohan Singh's coalition government is doing tight rope
walking to survive another day thanks to the theatrics of its coalition
partners. But the Tamil parliamentarians protest in parliament may not turn out
an acid test for survival of his government.
The same Tamil members, who brought Parliament to a halt,
never took a single step to save the peace process 2002 from collapsing nor
made a concerted effort after war to dispassionately understand the problems of
Tamils in Sri Lanka (not Diaspora Tamils) and help them.
Their actions are mostly for political reasons and not for
improving the value systems. This is in keeping with the characteristic of
our parliamentarians. They had little time in the past to deliberate upon human
rights aberrations unless it had "vote-bank" considerations.
But people are different; they are watching what their politicians
do. Indians everywhere feel that time has come for the country to stand up
confidently and say it stands by a value system cherished by its founding
fathers. And the US resolution before the UNHRC could well be the litmus test
to show it.
That is why India should vote for the resolution. If it is
working to modify the resolution, it must have the confidence to say what it
would like to modify. Otherwise, India would be taking a step backward. And
that would be a pity.
Courtesy: www.rediff.com March 22, 2012
No comments:
Post a Comment