New Delhi must revive old ties with Colombo
It is no coincidence that Sri lanka announced it will release all 98 Indian fishermen in its custody exactly a day after India abstained from voting against the island nation at the United Nations. Though Colombo did not draw any direct links between the two issues, President Mahinda Rajapaksa's description of New Delhi’s move as a “goodwill gesture”, speaks volumes. This reciprocal move signals the resumption of the second round of fishermen's talks in Colombo that was cancelled reportedly after Tamil Nadu refused to send its delegation of fishermen unless those in Sri lanka's custody were released.
In recent years, frequent arrests of Indian fishermen by the Sri lankan Navy have become a drag on relations between the two countries. In this regard, the episode reiterates how, when it comes to matters involving its immediate neighbourhood, it is imperative for New Delhi to take a position that puts national interest first and is independent of the moorings that guide the West-led international community. The US and the European Union have no direct interests in Sri lanka, and this gives them the luxury of sponsoring and passing all sorts of resolutions such as the one approved by the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva on Thursday. Hardly worth the paper it is printed on, it aims to censure the Sri lankan Government for its ruthless suppression of the Tamil Tigers and its supposed failure to promote reconciliation between the country's Sinhala majority and Tamil minority. But, like its predecessors from 2009, 2012 and 2013, the resolution has only upset the Government in Colombo. India, on the other hand, has deep and tangible concerns — best addressed by the democratically elected Government there — with regard to Sri lanka, be it the fishermen’s issue today or the menace of the lTTE in yesteryears. The Tamil Tigers brought terrorism to India's shore and it was as much in New Delhi's interests as in Colombo's to see the militant outfit defeated. That the West now barely recognises Sri lanka as the only country in modern times to have militarily defeated a guerrilla terror network, is a pity.
Against this backdrop, India's decision to abstain from the anti-Sri lanka vote at the UN made sense. First, it was an important effort at course correction, as India had voted in favour of similar resolutions thrice in the past. This had dampened bilateral ties. Second, the resolution was more “intrusive” than its previous avatars in calling for an international probe into allegations of human rights violations. Third, it did not take into account the achievements of the Rajapaksa regime in promoting national reconciliation — such the conduct of free and fair elections in the Northern Province for the first time in decades or the implementation of the Trilingual Policy as recommended by the lessons learnt and Reconciliation Commission.
That this resolution and the ones before it were an excuse to beat up the Rajapaksa regime is clear. India should never have supported any of them. This time around, however, the Congress had little to gain from pandering to Tamil parties. Unsurprisingly then, party leaders who opposed the abstention are those that are struggling to protect their Tamil vote-bank, such as Mr P Chidambaram, whose son is making his national electoral debut in the upcoming lok Sabha election from the constituency that the Union Minister currently represents.
