In
1996 Sri Lanka won the Cricket World Cup. The internet was in its
infancy at the time. ‘Social media’ wasn’t a household term. There was
no Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and such. There was www.cricinfo.com
and, just as now, there was commentary. There was no room for outside
comment though. ‘Online’ comments were restricted to what now seems a
rudimentary facility called soc-culture.cricket which was where the
‘fandits’ pontificated and argued with one another.
India faced
Pakistan in a quarterfinal. Not surprisingly, the Pakistanis and Indians
in that forum who had for a long time argued over who was better, Sunil
Gavaskar or Zaheer Abbas, went at each other. The Sri Lankans observed.
India won and the Indians crowed. The Pakistanis went silent.
Next,
India had to face Sri Lanka in one of the semifinals. The Indians, by
dint of superior numbers drowned the Sri Lankans who anyway didn’t seem
interested in the prediction game. The Pakistanis, however, backed Sri
Lanka, possibly less on account of perceptions of relative strength than
the desire for a consolation prize. Sri Lanka won. The Sri Lankans were
obviously pleased. Some whooped. Most just looked ahead to the final
(against Australia). The Indians went silent. The Pakistanis were noisy.
Next, the final. Indians, Pakistanis and Sri Lankans all
discovered a common voice. They wanted Sri Lanka to win. Sri Lanka won.
Sri Lankans, Indians and Pakistanis rejoiced. Together.
Of
course it is dangerous to extrapolate from the above and come to
conclusions about general perceptions of the citizens of these
countries. As inappropriate would be to conclude that Pakistan and India
are sworn enemies, that the friendship between Sri Lanka and Pakistan
is way stronger than relations either country has with India.
We
see signs and we read them. We can but shouldn’t over read. On the other
hand, we have Imran Khan (first a cricketer loved by all cricket fans
regardless of nationality and now the Prime Minister of Pakistan)
visiting Sri Lanka even as a resolution on (read, ‘against’) Sri Lanka
is being debated at the 46th sessions of the UNHRC in Geneva. His visit
follows a straining of relations between Sri Lanka and India on account
of the East Container Terminal issue and multiple power projects with
Chinese involvement.
India, given its frayed relations with
Pakistan and with China, can’t be overjoyed. India can blame Sri Lanka,
but India would do well to reflect on her foreign policy prerogatives
and ask herself one question: having got cosy with the USA (the country
with the most horrendous human rights track record by the way), which
has taken a strong anti Sri Lanka position in Geneva, is it surprising
that Sri Lanka sees China as a better friend?
Now some believe
that the USA still loves Sri Lanka because Mike Pompeo visited Sri
Lanka. Pompeo was essentially on a whistle-stop tour in the middle of a
larger exercise — giving China the collective finger (the others in the
collective being India, Australia and Japan). Some think that India has
been amiable and that’s utter nonsense. India, which reneged on the
Indo-Lanka Accord has continued to talk of the 13th Amendment, a
document that has lost all credence. Indian leaders are back to using
‘Bhutanization’ rhetoric (the term was coined by Rajiv Gandhi). That’s
not amiable. That’s not being ‘amenable’. That’s bullish.
Some
talk of the ‘traditional status quo of Sri Lanka’s relations with the
West, especially America (sic)’ as though it was some kind of endless
honeymoon. It was not. It is not. There’s bullying. There’s little
outside of the USA (ab)using economic and military power to coerce
successive governments to bend and twist so that US strategic and
economic interests are obtained. As for EU largesse, it must be
remembered that despite US saber-rattling over the rise of China, the EU
has adapted to changing realities of global power balance. Sri Lanka
was an early bird, one might say, except that Sri Lanka had less choice
in the matter, thanks to the machinations of the USA, UK, some countries
in the EU and the foreign policy choices of India.
The bottom
line is Sri Lanka is not in Pick-and-Choose Land. It would be silly to
say Sri Lanka has picked China over India or China over the USA. Those
choices were made by India and the USA. They were also influenced by
global power balance realities. It is not that Sri Lanka alienated
herself from the USA and Europe. Only those who are oblivious to the
vexatious persecution of these powers can make such claims. We are not
seeing incorrigibility on the part of the government’s policy. Well, we
could say that if we buy the hogwash that the USA/Europe or the Quad is
made of virtue and nothing else or if ‘choosing the inhabit their
versions of Sri Lanka’s reality’ is deemed a virtue, but that’s just the
product of a mind with a penchant for acquiescence.
So, if we
return to the cricketing metaphor, Sri Lanka is batting on a pitch
viciously doctored AFTER the other side has bullied her on a flat track.
The umpires in the middle and those making DRS calls are co-opted
creatures bent on deciding against Sri Lanka regardless of what happened
in the middle.
Sri Lanka is essentially pushed out of the
ground. If that’s the case, then Sri Lanka has to play cricket somewhere
else. Imran Khan is a good cricketer and an astute politician. He knows
these things. He won't say 'your foreign policy is incorrigible.' He
won't say 'corrigible' because that assumes error. He might say 'well,
you have to read the pitch, read the opponent, play the percentages.' He
might say 'under the circumstances, you are not doing too badly,
brother.'
0 comments:
Post a Comment