Let’s call the Tamil Nadu bluff

Poor Manmohan Singh.  It looks like nothing he does (or does not do) wins him applause from Tamil Nadu.  Whether or not the Indian Prime Minister is concerned about the growing Chinese footprint in Sri Lanka, he will be (as he as) harassed to the point of tears by the likes of Jayalalithaa and Karunanidhi, Tamil Nadu Chief Minister and ex-Chief Minister (and Chief Minister aspirant) respectively. 

The virulent and irrational sentiments expressed by these Tamil Nadu politicians don’t really ruffle any feathers here in Sri Lanka. In fact the aforementioned two are trustworthy suppliers for those who pen funny captions.  The latest is a cartoon doing the rounds on Facebook and Twitter where the Indian Cricket Board is urged to include a ‘tournament clause’ prohibiting Lasith Malinga from yorking Murali Vijay ‘because it might hurt Tamil sentiments’. 

Earlier, the Board submitted to pressure from this racist and xenophobic leaders by determining that Sri Lankan crickets taking part in the Indian Premier League tournament will not play in Tamil Nadu.  Sri Lanka pilgrims including both the clergy and lay persons, government officials, business persons and tourists have been targeted and attacked on numerous occasions in that state, which was also used as an operational base by the LTTE terrorists, who also enjoyed the largess of successive Indian governments by way of training, funds and weapons. 

Now, these eccentric politicians demand that India pass a resolution against Sri Lanka in the Parliament.  They urge Delhi to declare that Sri Lanka is not a friendly country.  For now, Delhi has resisted, but one cannot tell when electoral prerogatives pertaining to coalition needs make the Government do a re-think on this issue. 

The argument can be made that India has never been Sri Lanka’s friend.  There is very little left for Delhi (never mind Tamil Nadu) to do by way of affirming the fact, and we are not talking about its anti-Sri Lanka position in Geneva.  But there are things that Jayalalithaa and Karunanidhi can insist that Delhi do immediately.

First of all, they can insist that Manmohan Singh issue a directive prohibiting Indians from making use of dual-citizenship facilities proposed by the Sri Lankan Government.   Not because this would allow all kinds of racketeers and terrorist-lovers from South India from setting up base here, altering ethnic composition leading to further wrecking of the reconciliation process, fermenting insurgency and robbing Sri Lankans of jobs (as is alleged in Divulapitiya where an Indian company robs groundwater and has reneged on pledges to employ over a 1000 locals in favor of Indians because ‘there’s a language problem’) and such; because Sri Lanka ‘is a bad place’ and Sri Lankans, especially Sinhalese are ‘bad people’.

Secondly, then can insist that India withdraws from bidding for oil exploration in Sri Lankan waters: ‘Sri Lanka is bad, Sri Lankans are bad and we don’t even want their oil!’  Thirdly, they must prevail upon Delhi to get its spotlessly clean hands off the dirty thing called ‘Sampur’.  Fourthly India should give up the oil tanks: ‘we shall have no truck with Sri Lanka, in whatever form, in whatever deal, whatever business’.  Fifthly, they can tell Delhi to issue a travel advisory stopping Indians from visiting Sri Lanka, whether for business or pleasure.  Sixth, they can ask Delhi to demand that Indian companies (for example Airtel) to cease operations in Sri Lanka: ‘Sri Lanka won’t see another Mahendra Jeep or Maruti Car and they will have to develop their own pharmaceutical industry but who cares?’  Sixthly, IOC can close shop: ‘Let Ceypetco run the petrol sheds!’  The oil tanks must be abandoned forthwith, they can add.

It is unlikely that Delhi will do anything of the kind and not just because of China.  On the other hand, because of China, India will want to retain at least a toe-hold in a country that already has a huge Chinese footprint.  Perhaps it is time for Sri Lanka to call the Tamil Nadu bluff, i.e. preempt Tamil Nadu and save Manmohan Singh the blushes by facilitating all of the above. 

Let’s face it.  The question is not whether or not India should consider Sri Lanka a friend but whether we should or should not calling a spade a spade and call India what it is: Sri Lanka’s No 1 Enemy.  We can of course be nice and be photo-op ‘friends’ as is customary in the doctrine of ‘maintaining appearances’, but do what is best in our interest.  After all, there’s little to lose after all that India has done to cross off the ‘friendly’ adjective in the notion ‘Indo-Lanka relations’.  Now that would really stump Jayalalithaa and Karunanidhi.  Nothing trips trippers than the truth and these two have happily tripped along for far too long. 

Read more

Peace: whose business is it anyway?

It has been reported that US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton and Indian Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh have ‘agreed to work closely in expediting the Sri Lankan peace process (sic)’.  That ‘decision’ had been taken when the former visited the latter in New Delhi on Tuesday.

Interesting.

First of all, neither Clinton nor Singh are representatives elected by the people of Sri Lanka.  Nor were these individuals mandated to ‘expedite’ any process that concerns Sri Lanka.  Neither of them have bothered to explain what ‘peace process’ means.  Most importantly, neither of them has the moral authority to pass judgment, forward proposal or even comment on things Sri Lankan.  Let us explain.

In March this year, the USA sponsored a resolution on Sri Lanka at the UN Human Rights Council.  It was a resolution that Sri Lanka objected to, vehemently, and perforce was one roundly seen as an unfriendly move on the part of the USA.  It was a resolution that India supported, thereby dispelling all illusions about that country’s friendship claims. 

If one were to go back further in history, then we can talk of how India ‘expedited’ the ‘peace process’ in Sri Lanka by funding, arming, training and giving refuge to terrorists.  We can talk of how India PREVENTED the vanquishing of the fascist LTTE organization in 1987, postponing that eventuality by 22 years and thereby facilitating that many years worth of carnage. That act of thuggery also helped unleash an insurrection that left 60,000 dead in less than 2 years. 

The USA, for all its anti-terrorist rhetoric, actively sought (through its local representative, Robert O Blake) to throw a lifeline to the fascists in the last days of the conflict, showing generosity of a kind that was and is patently absent in how that country dealt with its armed detractors in Afghanistan, most notably al Qaeda and Taliban operatives including Osama bin Laden.    

Both countries were very active in supporting a largely pro-terrorist Ceasefire Agreement signed in 2002.  There was no ‘expediting’ of anything other than destabilization, chaos, anarchy and separatist drives. 

Despite all these spokes in the wheels, Sri Lanka did defeat fascism.  Sri Lanka opened the doors that the LTTE had closed to peace, normalcy and reconciliation.  Singh and Clinton may have their own definitions of ‘peace’, and they are more than welcome to apply them to themselves, Singh in Kashmir and Clinton in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and other places where massive crimes against humanity are perpetrated in the name of democracy. 

Sri Lanka, however, is not another state of either India or the USA. Guns, bucks and inflated egos do prompt people to be presumptuous, that’s human of course.  But this without-any-by-your-leave attitude will not help heal strained relations between these countries and Sri Lanka.        

There is reference to a ‘stalled peace process’.  The wording is telling.  There was a stumbling block to peace in Sri Lanka: the LTTE fascists.  That obstacle was removed.  There are unresolved grievances, yes.  Not all of them are Tamil-specific.  Not all of the articulated ‘grievances’ are myth-free.  Neither are they un-tainted by ‘aspiration’.  There’s nothing among these ‘grievances’ that come even close to the suffering of certain communities in India and the USA.  Indeed if there has been ‘stalling’ it is because of the TNA’s intransigence, its long history of supporting LTTE fascism and its absolute reluctance to come to terms with political realities and historical facts.   

In May 2009, Sri Lanka closed a chapter, the long and bloody story of fascism, spawned by chauvinism of all kinds but especially that of the likes of Ponnambalam Ramanathan, S.J.V. Chelvanayakam and G.G. Ponnambalam, and nurtured by the evil designs of Indira Gandhi and her son Rajiv.  The meddling of the likes of Blake didn’t help at all.  Singh and Clinton can walk that path.  They have the power to push Sri Lanka back into those terrible times.  That’s not helping ‘peace’. 

Given their histories and their abilities to rupture old wounds, if they really want to help, it’s best they keep their distance.  Rebuilding is easy and is happening. Curing a nation of old suspicions and animosities that are naturally birthed by conflict takes longer.  If Singh and Clinton are impatient, hard luck! They can look at their own examples if they really want to know about ‘inability to resolve’ and ‘insufferable delays’.  This is Sri Lanka.  It is a country that has its own pace.  Own way.  Those who prescribed, dished out bad medicine.  When that happens, such physicians are not re-visited.    

Dr. Singh and Ms. Clinton are not citizens of ‘peaceful’ countries.  They are both leaders of countries at war; at war with other countries and peoples and at war with their own people.  They are hardly in a position to prescribe solutions to others. 

Peace in Sri Lanka is the business of people who live in Sri Lanka.  They can’t find fault with anyone who says ‘Thank you, but no!’  

Read more