India will only alienate Lanka if it tries to coerce it'

Written by:  Shubham Ghosh 

The Tamil issue has resurfaced recently affecting both India's domestic politics and foreign policy priorities. While there are calls to boycott Sri Lanka for overlooking Tamil sentiments, other quarters believe such measures would only affect India's foreign relations with the island state ruled by a powerful President. OneIndia News speaks to retired Military Intelligence officer of the Indian Army, Col R Hariharan on the issue.

Here is the full interview:

OneIndia: We are seeing protest in the Indian media about the Sri Lankan government's atrocities against the Tamils there. Tamil Nadu CM Jayalalithaa took a retaliatory stance against the island nation by driving out football teams and pilgrims.

There is a call for boycotting Sri Lanka from certain sections. India-Sri Lanka relations are not simplistic for besides the ethnic sentiments, a crucial strategic significance is also attached to them. Leaders like Jayalalithaa are actually endangering India's bilateral engagements with Sri Lanka in the name of 'shielding' ethnic nationalism.

If we turn belligerent towards them and do not show interest in a peace process, the Lankans can retaliate in their country against Indian sentiments as well. Do you think such coercive diplomacy will do India any favour? What is your takes on this?

Col Hariharan: Your have raised four separate but inter-related issues in your question. My views on these issues including ‘coercive diplomacy' (an oxymoron as diplomacy means skill and tact in dealing with people) are:

First, regarding Ms Jayalalitha's recent action in sending back Sri Lankan football teams and pilgrims, she has now clarified that it was a symbolic act to register her protest against the continued aberrations in Sri Lanka's handling of Tamils. Sri Lankan pilgrims and others are welcome to visit Tamil Nadu she has added wisely, as a lakh of people come to Chennai from Sri Lanka.

Second, her call to boycott trade with Sri Lanka comes at a time when Indo-Sri Lanka trade is flourishing; it's worth nearly four billion dollars now. Tamil Nadu has a lion's share of this trade. With global economic downturn shrinking trading volumes, it would be unwise to ban on trade with Sri Lanka. The chief minister's statement was probably a political rhetoric to upstage her rival M Karunanidhi, leader of the DMK, from exploiting the Sri Lanka Tamil issue. Of course, she is genuinely concerned about the plight of Sri Lanka Tamils.

Third, issues of Centre-state relationship are also behind Tamil Nadu's assertive call for New Delhi to act on what you call 'ethnic nationalism'. The chief minister's insistence on New Delhi to take serious notice of her concerns is her way of asserting her national presence. Other regional satraps like Ms Mamta Banerjee and Mulayam Singh are also doing the same. Comments on foreign policy issues by them does not mean belligerence. It is only a call for New Delhi to consider the state's sensitivities in policy making. We can expect more such calls from regional leaders in the coming years as national parties need them to form coalition government at the Centre.

Fourth, coercive diplomacy. The era of coercive diplomacy is over. The US, with all its might, has not been able to force a regime change in Syria. So there is no question of India forcing Sri Lanka to act according to its will. Cooperation, coordination and concern for each other with some carrots and a little stick can produce results in international relations.

India already enjoys enormous influence in shaping Sri Lanka's policy with its international status, and economic, cultural, religious and strategic clout. If we use this clout to 'coerce' a proud nation like Sri Lanka, we will only alienate it.

OneIndia: On the strategic significance issue, China has been showing a big interest in Sri Lanka. Some say, by getting closer to smaller countries like Nepal, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, Beijing is trying to contain and corner India in South Asia.

If China really sustains a long-term alliance with Sri Lanka, more due to the fact that New Delhi failed to capitalise on its historic linkage with the close southern neighbour, then will the strategic Indian Ocean zone turn into a perennial headache for India? For if China establishes itself strongly in this region, the US will not let itself fall behind. Doesn't India need to play the role of a balancer in terms of international (political and economic) relations?

Col Hariharan: I am not very clear on what you mean when you speak of "India playing the role of a "balancer" in terms of international political and economic relations." I presume you want to know how India should evolve its economic and political relations with Sri Lanka to counter China's efforts to establish a long term alliance (?) with Sri Lanka.

China has not established any short or long term alliance with any of the countries you have mentioned. Pakistan is the only country in South Asia having such an alliance with China. When we discuss China's entry in South Asia, we must recognise a few things. China has become a global economic power; PLA modernisation is well underway to safeguard China's global interests; it has become global manufacturing hub and in the bargain become world's largest consumer of resources; and it will not hesitate to use its economic and military clout to achieve its strategic aims.

Global economic downturn has affected China's growth rate; and it is now eyeing the huge untapped South Asian markets and natural resources. China knows that in South Asia, India is the dominant power and has geographic, historical and cultural advantages that China does not possess. China also knows that India would not give a free run for Chinese to thrive in South Asia at its cost. India would leverage its advantages to tackle China's entry into South Asia.

Considering this, both and China and India would use mix of economic and strategic power play to tackle each other as the two nations are too big to go for all out war. Just as China cannot wish away India, India also cannot stop China's forays in South Asia.

India has to adopt a holistic strategy combining its advantages to ensure China's growth is kept within manageable proportions. We should also note China has emerged as India's No. 1 trading partner and it will have its own impact on the policy perceptions in both nations. So how can we ask our neighbours to ignore China? It is not realistic.

As regards the Indian Ocean region, as China’s defence minister Liang Guanglei who visited Sri Lanka and India recently noted Indian navy is the dominant player. So it will take some time for Chinese naval power to flex its muscles in Indian Ocean. This is inevitable and we should be mentally and physically be prepared and take suitable counter measures.

OneIndia: What can India ideally do to force the Sri Lankan government in the process of reconciliation of the Tamils? Irrespective of the Tamil politicians' fury, the fact is that Sri Lanka is an independent country and we have already paid a price of intervening in the late 1980s and early 1990s. India can only try to create pressure on Rajapaksa by means of canvassing international support. But then again, given the age-old relation that exists between the two countries, any unbalanced act can complicate the issue further.

Col Hariharan: Your own explanation of the question contains part of the answer. No nation - not even India or the U.S. - can really force Sri Lanka government to carry out the reconciliation process with Tamil minority. They are Sri Lanka nationals. As the strategic context now is different from 1987, India cannot exert the same type of pressure as it did in the past to speed up the reconciliation process.

India's efforts in the past on this issue resulted in the signing of India-Sri Lanka Agreement 1987. It provides for the creation of provincial councils with certain amount of autonomy. This was formalised by the 13th amendment to the Sri Lankan Constitution. Despite this, the powers enshrined there have not been fully extended to provincial councils due to various political reasons.

After winning the Eelam war, President Rajapaksa has emerged unchallenged leader and Tamils have limited political clout. With the LTTE no more there, Rajapaksa is going through the reconciliation process at his own speed. This has alienated not only the Tamil support but also some of the goodwill Sri Lana enjoyed in India, USA and EU countries.

However, Rajapaksa feels as a national leader it would be demeaning to be seen as bowing to external pressure on this issue. So he is taking his own time. India can only use the tools of diplomatic and economic pressure to push him into action.

OneIndia: With no LTTE around and an authoritarian president in power, is it possible to renew the movement to assert rights of the deprived Tamils? The vacuum created after decimation of the LTTE is being filled up forces like the 'wily' West and fragmented Tamil politicians in India but unless there is a strong reactionary voice emerging in Sri Lanka, it is difficult for the Tamils in distress to lead a life of dignity. The Palestinian problem has not been settled still and this also looks to go the same way.

Col Hariharan: Again you have partly answered your own question. Prabhakaran had an autocratic leadership style and the leadership vacuum left by the exit cannot be filled up by democratic leaders. It cannot be filled up by any Tamil politician from India or elsewhere because they are not accountable to Sri Lankan people.

Tamil leaders in Sri Lanka are experienced and quite capable; they are raising their voices in parliament strongly on key issues. Unfortunately, Indian media rarely considers them or their views as newsworthy and flashes only some ill informed or inflammatory statement from Tamil Nadu as important news.

Sri Lanka Tamil leaders have not gained the confidence of Tamil people as they are traumatised by war and are yet to resume normal life and live with confidence and dignity. Sri Lankan government has failed to give them the feeling of security and trust to improve their mindset.

OneIndia: We have found that many a times, India has followed a 'policy of toleration' towards neighbours who have not been democratic at all. Whether be it the monarchies in Nepal and Bhutan, a military dictatorship in Pakistan (Musharraf), an authoritarian president in Maldives or a military junta rule in Myanmar, India wanted these forces not to crumble so that instability did not affect them. Do you think India should follow the same policy vis-a-vis the authoritarian presidential rule of Rajapaksa so that no anti-India sentiments gain strong ground?

Col Hariharan: Sri Lanka, unlike the examples you quoted, has an elected democratic government in which Tamil minority also voted. So it is not in the same class as military dictatorships or monarchies. President Mahinda Rajapaksha has been elected twice as President by popular vote. He is an executive president unlike the President of India, who is only the head of state and prime minister wields the executive powers.

Rajapaksa as President wields enormous powers which he does not hesitate to use, frequently in authoritarian style. This has naturally caused its own reaction. In spite of this, there is no question of India adopting "a policy of toleration" because he enjoys the confidence of the majority of Sri Lankans.

He considers relations with India as "brotherly" and crucial to further Sri Lanka's interests. He has consulted India in all major issues and has worked hard to build close relations with India. We should understand that he would act only on what he considers as Sri Lanka's national interest. We should respect that as he is accountable to his people; however, we should start using our influence a little more boldly to give his regime a more humane face.

OneIndia: The Sri Lankan case shows the typical majority-minority problem in a post-colonial state. Do you think military power is at all any solution to such sensitive issues? India is one of those rare non-western states which succeeded in addressing such issue politically, to a large extent. Sri Lanka can also back its military success with reconstruction and devolution of power. That will be a big success for the Rajapaksa regime.

Col Hariharan: Not only in post colonial states but even in Western states there are there majority-minority problems. A good example is Belgium, a tiny state by Asian standards, where the French and Flemish speaking people get into log jam.

Though India has been trying to address it politically, it has not succeeded fully; the Bodos, Nagas and Meiteis took to arms because of the minority syndrome. Not only India and other Western nations but even other political parties of Sri Lanka have been suggesting the need to carry out devolution of power to minorities side by side with reconstruction.

However, Sri Lanka leadership believes in the war torn zones, reconstruction of habitats and infrastructure would improve the life style of the people and devolution being a political process can be progressed at its own pace. So we have a lopsided picture in post-war Sri Lanka where massive development projects and restoration of infrastructure have not won over people who had been struggling for equitable rights on par with Sinhala majority.

Published: Thursday, September 20, 2012, 12:12 [IST] 

http://news.oneindia.in/feature/2012/indi-will-only-alienate-lanka-if-tries-to-coerce-it-1-1073254.html