New Delhi:
There is no nuance in stating that often strategic interests of nations get precedence and so called 'common people's concerns' including human rights-related issues only get diluted, or can even get lost in the din.
India's foreign policy is certainly guided by its geography, which is normally durable, another constant factor called history and of course the domestic and the international polity which keep changing.
There are more ways than one to look at India's latest stance on Sri Lanka vis-a-vis UN Human Rights Council vote. It is a measure of change that India wants to befriend Sri Lanka as a nation - which is run by Sinhalese - and at the same, New Delhi wants to take up some measures concerning Tamils - who had migrated to the neighbouring island nation in Indian Ocean long back.
In diplomatic and geo-strategic sense it is understood, India simply cannot allow China to make deep inroads in the island nation. Antagonizing Sri Lankan administration by Delhi could easily lead the nation into China's lap for increased economic dominance. This in turn would lead to strategic dominance of autocratic Beijing, something New Delhi can ill afford.
And hence the so-called 'balancing act'.
There is another vital aspect that needs to be looked into. The voting results and abstention at UNHRC finally show things were not merely confined to compulsion of domestic politics in India and Sri Lanka. What we have at stake is perhaps a bigger debate about China-India and Japan relations. Things are going to turn more competitive in days to come especially in the context of the Indian Ocean and the Indo Pacific interests.
Indian Ocean is not merely a large sea that belongs to India. There are several players engaged here. About 60-70 global trade movements take place through this region. Indonesia was an important catch which also abstained like India despite reports of China trying to improve its ties with Indonesia in recent past. Strategically, Indonesia has strong ‘antibodies’ to any hint of strong Chinese assertion.
Overall, there is a large scale division in the entire Asian spectrum. China being a strong ‘supporter’ and a key ‘stake holder’ in the Sri Lankan affairs, it voted against the resolution. Bangladesh, Pakistan and the Philippines also followed the same line and backed Sri Lanka.
Other important stakeholders India, Nepal, Japan and Indonesia abstained. Here come the complexities and also the crux of the strategic issues.
 |
| Blogger in a different mood |
This brings the focus on the so-called ‘China angle’. Thus the dividing lines – who are with Beijing and who are not.
Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga has confided in PM Modi during the 40-minute phone on March 9 – as an official statement from Tokyo claimed. The Japanese PM said China has emerged as a "serious concern regarding unilateral attempts to change the status quo in the East and South China Sea, China’s Coast Guard Law and the situation in Hong Kong and the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR).”
During the UNHRC voting, there were other abstentions also – like Bahrain, Cameron, Namibia and Libya.
It may not be wrong to say, - we will see more of such competitions and diplomatic acrobatics in Asia including both South Asia and South East Asia because of strategic competitions between two blocs – one led by the US which is anti-China and the other one led by China and its cronies.
There is another important facet. China’s propensity for befriending countries like Sri Lanka which is in Indian Ocean only highlights that there is much to it when India and Japan decided to abstain from voting at the UNHRC. As of now, going between India and Japan is very effective and most of this is guided by the China factor and economic relations.
For debate sake, if we move a bit from the South Asian spectrum to the South East Asian region, it is always important to note that Beijing has shown a tendency to ‘export’ its revolutionary pro-communists foreign policy to this region. In fact, this has been a hurdle in the past (including for Indonesia) to accept any effort of rapprochement from China.
The resolution, seventh since the Sri Lankan government- Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, LTTE, war ended in 2009, called for fixing 'accountability for war crimes and rights violations' by the authorities as well as the implementation of the 13th amendment on power devolution.
The resolution could have significant influence on common people including Tamil Christians in Sri Lanka. The demand for fixing accountability makes sense as hundreds of those, including Catholic priests, were killed or shown as 'disappeared' during the 26-year war. India which has a state with substantial Tamil population had decided to abstain from the vote provoking strong reactions from certain expected quarters.
Abstaining from voting could be an ambiguous statement, but those who back Indian government's stance insist the underlying message from New Delhi is quite emphatic and it reflects a long-term vision.
But most of it is guided by India's geo-political interests and the focus is hardly on human rights.
Please note the mild 'diplomatic' endorsement from Sri Lanka. Its foreign minister Dinesh Gunawardena tweeted to express gratitude to the abstaining countries including India. He also said, "Sri Lanka will continue to work in international arena, along pledges we placed and domestic mechanisms in accordance with Sri Lanka's constitution".
Giving reasons for India's abstention, Pawankumar Badhe, First Secretary, Permanent Mission of India, Geneva, said - “One is our support to the Tamils of Sri Lanka for equality, justice, dignity and peace. The other is in ensuring the unity, stability and territorial integrity of Sri Lanka. We have always believed that these two goals are mutually supportive".
However, in India, former federal home minister and a prominent Congress party leader, P Chidambaram said - India's decision to abstain from voting was "a gross betrayal of the Tamil people and their unanimous sentiment and desire". Incidentally, Indian government's decision to stay away from voting came when a Tamil Dr S Jaishankar is at the helm of affairs in Delhi's foreign ministry.
Chidambaram made a veiled reference: "If Dr Jaishankar was forced to instruct India’s representative to abstain from voting on the Sri Lanka Resolution in the UN Human Rights Council, he should resign in protest against the betrayal of Tamil interests".
But abstaining from voting in the UN has been a known strategy adopted by the Indian government numerous times in the past including under Congress. "Do you have the count how many times in UPA era we had abstained?," wrote one Abhijit Vasiṣṭha in a social media post.
The southern Indian state Tamil Nadu has just got over its election season. The BJP was hardly an important stakeholder in Tamil politics. But its alliance AIADMK has been.
The principal player in the polls DMK, which is favourite of poll pundits, is well known for taking stands in favour of Tamil population in Sri Lanka. DMK often 'sacrificed' its interests in the coalition political era of 1990s just because it did not want to compromise on its stance for Tamil citizenry in Sri Lanka.
DMK detractors also often said in the past Tamil Nadu was the 'popular destination' for the sleeper cells of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) and other 'Tamil separatist outfits'.
Out of 22 million population in Sri Lanka, about 7. per cent are Christians, and most are Roman Catholic. It is also important to note that in the island nation, there is a good mixing of religions and ethnic divisions.
Hence when Christians were targeted during Easter bombing in 2019, there were apprehensions that 'militant Buddhists' would get a booster to their stance that they had been right all along to see Muslims as a threat to the people of Sri Lanka including the Christians.
In all these, of course as a nation cherishing democracy - unlike communists China - Indian government has a responsibility and plays a role to ensure peace, calm and amity among various religious groups.
In all these, of course as a nation cherishing democracy - unlike communists China - Indian government has a responsibility and play a role to ensure peace, calm and amity among various religious groups.
India should thus carefully calculate the costs involved in befriending a pro-Sinhalese Sri Lankan government and also checkmate growing Chinese engagements there. Sri Lanka should also do perhaps same calculations and of course China must understand its implications of continuing to alienate India.
Finally, India and Sri Lanka, must to their own failure admit that there is need for much effective engagement keeping in mind the interests of Tamils in that nation including Christians.
It is time these two South Asian neighbours must take a leaf from Brazil and Argentina who despite differences on nuclear policy have long back signed a pact for mutual cooperation and better ties.
ends
No comments:
Post a Comment