From one blunder to another

India's foreign policy in the sub-continent has consistently suffered from an unacceptable degree of short-sightedness. New Delhi has exhibited a rare ignorance of its immediate surroundings,leading to repeated embarrassments in the region

That the plight of Sri Lanka’s Tamil minority, which until recently was neither a burning issue in the island nation nor a matter of high priority for Tamils in India, has now taken on such proportions so as to threaten the collapse of the Union Government here, is absurd, to say the least. On Tuesday, the DMK pulled its support to the ruling coalition in order to protest against New Delhi’s support for what it perceived to be a weak resolution against Colombo’s treatment of its Tamil citizens, at the upcoming Geneva session of the United Nation’s top human rights body. Even though that did not bring down the Congress-led UPA Government, which continues to hang by a thread nevertheless, it compelled New Delhi to the propose amendments to the US-sponsored UN resolution.

It is interesting to note in this regard that the proposed amendments come after the original resolution, criticising the Sri Lankan Government of committing war crimes in the final phase of its war against the Tamil terrorist group LTTE, has been significantly watered down. The new resolution which was tabled at the UN Human Rights Council on Monday tones down the international community’s supposed concerns for regarding human rights violations in Sri Lanka — not just during the war which ended in May 2009 but also in the four years since then. Moreover, three new paragraphs have also been added that support Sri Lanka and welcomes the Government’s announcement to hold elections to the Provincial Council in the Tamil-majority Northern Province in September 2013. Finally, the revised draft also refers to rebuilding infrastructure in Northern Sri Lanka and how the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission report can serve as the basis of national reconciliation. Many believe that these revisions are the handiwork of Indian diplomats who on the international stage have struggled to shield Sri Lanka from undeserved Western ire.

Unfortunately, it seems that even if India may have won the fight abroad, it is sure to lose at home — especially, if harsher amendments are re-introduced into the draft. And that is not all. The Government is also mulling over the DMK’s demand that India pass a parliamentary resolution condemning Sri Lanka. If such a resolution is indeed passed, little else could be more damaging to India’s national interests. Not only will such a resolution be in violation of principles that have formed the cornerstone of Indian foreign policy over the decades but it will also open the floodgates for other countries to pass similar resolutions against India. In fact, the manner in which the Pakistani National Assembly recently passed a resolution regarding Parliament attack convict Afzal Guru and how his hanging has adversely affected the law and order in Kashmir, already shows how vulnerable India is. At that time, India bristled at the thought of Pakistani intervention in its internal affairs, and rightly so.

But now, it must also understand that the treatment of Tamils in Sri Lanka — though it may be a matter of enormous concern for India — is India’s business to only a limited extent. The matter is entirely for that country’s Government, its Sinhala majority population and its Tamil minority community to sort out. New Delhi may at best, cajole and coax Colombo to do the right thing, but it cannot meddle in Sri Lanka’s internal affairs.

Besides, if India really has the best interests of Sri Lankan Tamils at heart, it must know that the Sri Lankan Government alone can further their cause. Towards that end, the sensible thing to do is work with the Government of President Mahinda Rajapaksa, not seek to isolate him — as this UN resolution seeks to do.

In fact, India should have strongly resisted the West’s efforts to humiliate Sri Lanka back in 2012 when a similar resolution was first passed in the UNHRC, especially at a time when that war-ravaged country was just about beginning to rebuild itself. Equally importantly, it should have called for a global acknowledgement of the fact that Sri Lanka is the only country in the world to have successfully defeated a terrorist organisation — a stellar achievement conspicuously ignored by the West that has been more keen to highlight the alleged war crimes committed by President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s men during the final phase of the war.

The decision to publicly censure Sri Lanka in 2012 was also a direct result of the Manmohan Singh Government giving in to the tantrums of the DMK, a powerful regional ally. Worse still, this was not the first time the Union Government had capitulated in a manner that would eventually hurt national interest. In September 2011, New Delhi caved before Kolkata as a result of which the Teesta water sharing agreement — supposed to be signed during Prime Minister Singh’s historic trip to Dhaka — fell through. This not only embarrassed the Prime Minister but also upset his counterpart in Dhaka, Sheikh Hasina.

The Bangladeshi Premier had already done more than her fair share to help the Indian Government when she handed over to New Delhi militants who had taken refuge in her country. But in turn she received next to nothing, even though she is facing a stiff re-election challenge and could well use the Teesta treaty to consolidate her position. Moreover, it is in India’s interest to support Prime Minister Hasina’s secular, democratic and strongly pro-India Government (as opposed to one that could potentially be led by her rival Khaleda Zia, who partners with Islamists and is not really a friend of New Delhi.)

Unfortunately, India’s foreign policy in the sub-continent has consistently suffered from an unacceptable degree of short-sightedness. In fact, even though India’s ties with almost all its neighbours go back several hundred years, New Delhi has exhibited a rare ignorance of its immediate surroundings, resulting in a sclerotic foreign policy in the region.

(This article was published in the op-ed section of The Pioneer on March 21, 2013.)

Yes to tolerance, no to Islamists

President Pranab Mukherjee’s recent trip to Bangladesh came in the backdrop of the ongoing Shahbagh Square protests in Dhaka where people are demanding stringent punishment to the 1971 war criminals and a ban on fundamentalists. The visit is a message of support

Given the present situation in Bangladesh where Islamists are on a rampage and more than 70 people have already lost their lives, it comes as no surprise that President Pranab Mukherjee was advised against visiting Dhaka earlier this week. But by sticking to his schedule nevertheless and going ahead with the visit, which on hindsight can be termed as hugely successful, Mr Mukherjee did more to strengthen India’s relationship with Bangladesh than any other leader has possibly done in recent time.

For one, the visit was his first one abroad after taking over as President, and the soft diplomatic appeal of India’s first Bengali President choosing Bangladesh for his first foreign trip was simply irresistible. More importantly, the visit was the key to expressing India’s solidarity with the people of Bangladesh at a time when they are struggling to right historic wrongs and eventually redefine their future as a secular, democratic country.

From a political point of view, it was of course a huge show of support for Bangladeshi Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina and her Awami League-led Government that have consistently been good friends to India. Indeed, by not cowering before the goons of the Jamaat-e-Islami who have unleashed mayhem in that country, Mr Mukherjee has sent out a strong message against fundamentalist elements in Bangladesh and for democratic movements.

Of course, some experts have criticised his trip for being ill-timed and partisan; they have argued that the President should have postponed the visit so that it would allow him to distance himself from the ongoing internal turmoil in Bangladesh as well as leave enough diplomatic space for New Delhi to work with a Government that could well be formed by today’s Opposition parties.

This line of argument gained traction particularly after Opposition leader and chief of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party Khaleda Zia cancelled her meeting with Mr Mukherjee, prompting some to wrongly suggest that the President was unnecessarily polarising the situation for New Delhi. There was absolutely no reason why Mr Mukherjee should have played safe and chickened out just because Begum Zia was too petty a politician to rise above partisan politics and honour her commitment to a visiting head of state.

But then again, perhaps it is a bit too much to expect any better from someone like Begum Zia who, less than a week ago, had publicly supported the rioting Jamaatis that unsurprisingly form her most important electoral ally. Instead of trying to rein them in, the two-time former Prime Minister of Bangladesh accused the Awami League Government of running a hate campaign against the Jamaat-e-Islami whose top leaders are currently on trial for committing crimes against humanity during the 1971 War of Liberation. At that time, the Jamaatis colluded with the Pakistani Army to perpetrate the genocide of Bengalis, in which three million were killed and 10 million became refugees. It was the Army-Jamaatis’ desperate bid to suppress the nationalist movement that would eventually lead to the birth of sovereign Bangladesh.

Yet, even if they failed in their efforts to keep the Bengali people chained to their masters in Pakistan at that time, the Jamaatis never really gave up on their ways or their old agenda. In the four decades since the War of Liberation, the Jamaat-e-Islami has effectively functioned as a front organisation for its Pakistani patrons, while the party’s leaders have persisted with their efforts to inject into the Bangladeshi mainstream the most retrograde version of political Islam.

It comes as no surprise then that in the days since the International War Crimes Tribunal sentenced to death the most senior of Jamaati leaders Delwar Hossein Sayeedi, the Islamists have not only clashed with protesters and police but also attacked Hindu minorities. Temples have been razed to the ground and Hindu villages targeted — much like they were four decades ago by the razakars of those days. Clearly, things have not really changed in the intervening years, and even as Bangladesh tries to heal the wounds of its bloody past, it seems like the ghosts of 1971 may return to haunt the nation again.

Against this backdrop, it is imperative that India plays a more active role in ensuring that the situation in Bangladesh does not boil over onto its own borders. It must urge the Sheikh Hasina Government to deal with the Jamaatis with a firm hand so that they do not rear their ugly head again, especially in the event of a pro-Islamist Government coming to power.

In fact, the ongoing protests at Dhaka’s Shahbagh Square are essentially a response to this fear. Of course, the central theme of the protests is still about bringing to justice the 1971 war criminals and ensuring they get the punishment they deserve, but let us not forget that one of the other key demands of the protesters is a ban on the Jamaat-e-Islami and its brand of virile Islamist politics.

What is happening in Bangladesh is a historic development, as it marks the first time since Turkey decided to go secular that a Muslim-majority nation has chosen a secular identity for itself over its allegiance to a universal ummah. That India must support the right-thinking Bangladeshi people in securing these aspirations goes without saying, especially since they remain threatened by the devious designs of the Jamaatis.

(This article was published in the op-ed section of The Pioneer on March 7, 2013.)