New
Delhi has lots to explain when Mohinder Rajpaksa was reelected as Sri
Lanka’s President for the second time. India had supplied him small arms
which he liberally used to kill the Tamils, the largest minority in
that country. He should have been tried for war crimes because he killed
40,000 Tamils in cold blood even after the surrender by what was then
called the LTTE, the militant face of Tamils in the Northern Sri Lanka.
That
he tried to woo both military and police chiefs to stay back even after
the defeat show. This shows how adroitly he led a democratic India up
to a garden path. Yet New Delhi should have known what
Kuldip Nayar
Kuldip Nayar is a veteran Indian journalist, human rights activist and a noted author.
was all over that
he ruled the country by force. His one brother was the Defence
secretary.
I can never forget his
role because the police harassed me at night; my only crime was to
observe that the now defunct LTTE should be fought politically, not
military. That night there was a knock at my door. The police did
nothing except to see my passport. The message was clear. I left the
country the following day and has never returned to Colombo.
Now
that the country has ousted the dictatorship it should implement the
old US-sponsored resolution, adopted by the UN Human Rights Council in
Geneva. The resolution said that Sri Lankan government should conduct an
“independent and credible” investigation into allegations of violations
of international human rights law and the untold atrocities committed
in the last phase of the war. Unfortunately, one message that came loud
and clear was that New Delhi tried it best to defend the Rajpaksa
government. But the 47-nation strong body, led by the US, not only
brushed aside the India objections but also refused to water down the
resolution. In protest to Delhi’s attitude, the DMK had withdrawn the
support at that time.
It is still
not too late to constitute the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation
Commission (LLRC) suggested by India at that time, to probe the whole
happening which would bring out the skeletons out of the Sri Lankan
cupboard. A similar attempt earlier proved to be futile because the Sri
Lankan government, the accused, held the probe itself. Naturally,
nothing worthwhile emerged from the investigation, which was a sham.
Indeed,
it is heartening to see Sri Lanka returning to the fold of democracy.
But it is unfortunate that in contrast, the Pakistan people are not
asserting themselves to have the real democracy back. The surrender of
politicians on the constitution of military courts is the recent
example. What it meant is an amendment in the constitution to provide
for trial of terror suspects by military courts for a period of two
years.
Unfortunately, the only
comment came from Genl Raheel Sharif, Pakistan’s military chief, who
said ‘special courts are not the desire of the army but need of
extraordinary times’. The timid politicians gave concurrence by their
silence.
Both Sri Lanka and Pakistan
are our neighbours. What happens there can have repercussions in India.
That the roots of democracy in our country are deep enough to withstand
such developments is heartening to see. Yet a dictatorship next door is
disconcerting. New Delhi cannot export democracy to other countries.
But it should do all it can to see the will of people prevailing in the
neighbourhood, without interfering in the internal affairs of the
countries.
Dictatorships get a
fillip when democracies falter. India committed this cardinal sin when
it abstained from voting at the UN Human Rights Council a few years ago.
A resolution was sought to be passed to seek an international,
transparent inquiry to find out whether Sri Lanka had killed in cold
blood 40,000 soldiers and others in the wake of hostilities against the
Liberation of Tamil Tigers Eelam (LTTE). Even after their surrendered
unconditionally.
India’s abstention
at that time reminded me of the words of Prime Minister Jawaharlal
Nehru: When aggression takes place or human rights are violated, we will
not and cannot remain neutral. Yet the Manmohan Singh government was
found placating the dictatorial government headed by Rajapaksa. New
Delhi did not bother the harm it would be doing to the cause of Tamils’
rights and their own say in governance.
My
hunch is that bureaucrats in the Ministry of External Affairs, with
their mindset, decided to stay absent what they thought was “in the
interest of the country”. The then hapless foreign minister Salman
Khurshid went along. He probably wanted the release of 100 fishermen who
had “strayed” into the waters claimed by Sri Lanka.
I
was not surprised to read the Rajapaksa government’s reaction: Thank
you. No doubt, New Delhi was under pressure from the democratic world,
led by America, that China and Pakistan, where democracy has been
reduced to a relative term, supported Colombo.
I
do not regret the obliteration of the LTTE which was largely a
terrorists’ organization. But as a humanist, I feel sad over the killing
of soldiers and their supporters after the surrender. The Sri Lankan
army, obviously with the blessings of President Rajapaksa and his
brother, Defence Minister Gotabhaya Rajapaksa, had no remorse over their
indulging in a blood bath.
The
world would not have known about the killings if the enterprising BBC
Channel 4 had not shown the documentary on the killings and atrocities
committed not only against the LTTE troops but also against the innocent
Tamils. Colombo’s own inquiry was eyewash, exonerating the army and
heaping the blame on the Tamils who wanted an equal say in the affairs
of Sri Lanka. Will they get it under the new regime is a test for its
democratic governance.
source:pakistantoday.com
No comments:
Post a Comment