He was aware of India’s “religious texts that still summon the faithful to lives of dignity and discipline,” and the poets, who imagined a future “where the mind is without fear and the head is held high.” Mahatma Gandhi’s message of love and justice gave special meaning to him and he always found inspiration in the life of Gandhiji and in his simple and profound lesson to be the change we sought in the world. Just as he summoned Indians to seek their destiny, he influenced champions of equality in his own country, including young Martin Luther King. After making his pilgrimage to India half a century ago, Dr. King called Gandhi’s philosophy of non-violent resistance “the only logical and moral approach” in the struggle for justice and progress. He might not have been elected as the President of the United States, had it not been for Gandhi and the message he shared with America and the world.
He rminded the Indians of their ancient civilization of science and innovation and a fundamental faith in human progress. In despite of the sceptic’s prediction of doom that the country was simply too poor, too vast and too diverse to succeed, they had surmounted overwhelming odds and became a model to the world. They launched a Green Revolution that fed millions. Instead of becoming dependent on commodities and exports, they invested in science and technology and in their greatest resource, the Indian people. Instead of resisting the global economy, they became one of its engines-reforming the licensing raj and unleashing an economic marvel that has lifted tens of millions from poverty and created one of the world’s largest middle classes.
Instead of succumbing to division, they had shown that the strength of India by embracing all colours, castes and creeds. It showed the richness and diversity of faiths celebrated by a visitor to his hometown of Chicago more than a century ago - the renowned Swami Vivekananda. He said that, “holiness, purity and charity are not the exclusive possessions of any church in the world, and that every system has produced men and women of the most exalted character.”
He was full of praise for the institutions upon which true democracy in India depended on-free and fair elections, which enable citizens to choose their own leaders without recourse to arms; an independent judiciary and the rule of law, which allowed people to address their grievances; and a thriving free press and vibrant civil society which allowed every voice to be heard. India had succeeded, not in spite of democracy, but because of democracy.
The United States welcomed India not just as a rising global power, but also fervently supported it in its aspiration to become a permanent member. He valued India’s important role at Copenhagen, where, for the first time, all major economies committed to take action to confront climate change and to stand by those actions. He saluted India’s long history as a leading contributor to United Nations peacekeeping missions and he welcomed India as it prepared to take its seat on the United Nations Security Council.
If the Indians had expected the American president to wallow in India’s glorious past, they had tons of it. When he came to the harsh realities India had to confront today, the grin on their faces began to dim. What Barack Obama said came to them as a bombshell.
“Now, let me suggest that with increased power comes increased responsibility. The United Nations exists to fulfil its founding ideals of preserving peace and security, promoting global cooperation, and advancing human rights. These are the responsibilities of all nations, but especially those that seek to lead in the 21st century. And so we look forward to working with India-and other nations that aspire to Security Council membership-to ensure that the Security Council is effective; that resolutions are implemented and sanctions enforced; and that we strengthen the international norms which recognize the rights and responsibilities of all nations and individuals.
Every country will follow its own path. No one nation has a monopoly on wisdom, and no nation should ever try to impose its values on another. But when peaceful democratic movements are suppressed-as in Burma-then the democracies of the world cannot remain silent. For it is unacceptable to gun down peaceful protestors and incarcerate political prisoners decade after decade. It is unacceptable to hold the aspirations of an entire people hostage to the greed and paranoia of a bankrupt regime. It is unacceptable to steal an election, as the regime in Burma has done again for all the world to see.
Faced with such gross violations of human rights, it is the responsibility of the international community-especially leaders like the United States and India-to condemn it. If I can be frank, in international fora, India has often avoided these issues. But speaking up for those who cannot do so for themselves is not interfering in the affairs of other countries. It’s not violating the rights of sovereign nations. It’s staying true to our democratic principles. It’s giving meaning to the human rights that we say are universal. And it sustains the progress that in Asia and around the world has helped turn dictatorships into democracies and ultimately increased our security in the world.”
In the fifties India was the moral voice of the world. India was the foremost champion fighting for the liberation of Africa and Asia. When the World War 2 allies signed a peace treaty with Japan, India refused to attest its signature to the treaty, as Okinawa Island was not returned to Japan. Nehru refused to have diplomatic relationship with General Franco of Spain, because he was a Fascist, who came to power by force of arms. Nehru vehemently opposed the apartheid policy of South Africa, and he advised Indian businessmen not to engage in business in South Africa. When Sri Lanka disfranchised in 1948 the million odd Indian Tamils who were domiciled in the country for more than 200 years, Nehru protested vigorously and refused to take back the victims.
Today India had not only lost its moral voice but engaged in activities that do not conform to international standards. It is no longer interested in the human rights violations anywhere, both at home and overseas. Myanmar would have been a natural ally of India, but for the short-sighted support India had given the Military Junta in the country in competition with China. India has maintained ties with the Myanmar junta as China stepped up its security, energy and strategic ties with the country. India in July hosted Myanmar's military leader Than Shwe for a state visit. It is now America’s turn to lecture a 5,000 year old civilization that such a policy is morally wrong.
Tamil circles were disappointed that President Obama had not highlighted the plight of Tamils in Sri Lanka. The President’s main aim in visiting India was to improve trade and secure and was seeking India’s cooperation in his fight against Al-Qaeda. Raising the Tamil problem during the visit would have been a diplomatic disaster.
However, the message should have been clear to India that if it aspires for a permanent seat in the UN it should refrain from supporting failed states like Myanmar. India not only supported the Sinhalese against the Tamils, but it also prevented America from saving the trapped 40,000 Tamils from instant death.
The most important message Obama delivered during his Indian visit was that the sovereignty of a nation is no longer a sacred cow when peaceful demonstrations are suppressed violently. This should be a source of solace to the Tamils and other similarly oppressed people.
In the wake of American involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, one may question Obama’s right to lecture the Indians on human rights or support for failed states. In the past few decades America had attacked states that were perceived as a threat to its security. Time and again it had stated that the Tamil Tigers were not a threat to anyone outside Sri Lanka. It had a specific motive - that is the liberation of Tamils in Sri Lanka. To be fair to America, it only wanted the LTTE to be weakened to force it to the negotiating table: it never wanted it to be defeated. American policy makers knew the nature of the Sri Lankan state; defeat for the Tigers would expose the Tamils to untold suffering. That was the reason why it wanted to save the 40,000 trapped Tamils in Mu’l’livaaikkaal in May 2009. Moreover, Americans had never attacked any community that had been traditionally friendly to them. India on the other hand had no such compulsions; Tamils who had for centuries looked upon Indian as a motherland are now facing annihilation.
India was not that naive to be unaware of the above considerations. They were hell bent on revenge – revenge for the murder of Rajiv Gandhi. The Jain Commission set up to investigate Rajiv’s murder had implicated Chandraswami, Subramaniam Swamy and many others. Why was Rajiv not provided with the Z plus security on that fatal night of his murder? Why none of the Congressmen was around him at the time of the explosion? The Jain Commission had recommended that these should be investigated, yet there was no follow up.
Another reason often sighted was that a separate state of Tamil Eelam would induce Tamil Nadu to break off from the Indian Republic. Such considerations were not prevalent when Bangladesh was created by the Indian Army. Tamil Eelam was supposed to be a threat to the southern flanks of India. On 17 December 2010 three academic-intelligence outfits of India based in Chennai are meeting at Hotel Savera, Chennai, to examine how to contain China’s inroads into Sri Lanka. Now they realise the Southern flanks are truly exposed.
Presuming that Prabhakaran was the sole culprit in the murder of Rajiv, is it fair to help a genocidal racist regime to slaughter 40,000 Tamils in a single week and expose the Tamil Homeland to Sinhalese colonisation? Eighteen months after the end of the war, the Tamils are still languishing in camps and are not allowed to return to their villages. The war widows, numbering 89,000, are without any form of livelihood. Rape murder and disappearances are rampant. The Western powers have expressed their displeasure at these developments, but there was not a single murmur from India. All these developments lead one to conclude the Indian policy is to eradicate all the remnants of LTTE and the Tamils supporting it and extinguish the Tamil aspiration for liberation once and for all.
The main winners of this Indian policy were not only the Sinhalese, but also the Chinese. China had surrounded India with military bases often referred to as a ‘string of pearls’. Only in the south they had no base. Now they have built a harbour at Hambantotoa in Sri Lanka. They are heavily involved in the infrastructure development of north and the east where Tamils predominate. That completes the encirclement.
At last it had dawned in the trusting minds of the Indian policy makers that the Sinhalese are playing into the hands of the Chinese. To counter this they are already resorting to Indian style of appeasement; that is barter away Eelam Tamil interest to lure the Sinhalese away from the Chinese. Five thousand years of Cosmic civilisation had not taught them that the Sinhalese, who had hated India for more than a thousand years, are not going to fall in love with them overnight, just because they had helped them to defeat the Tigers.
A four member Indian team of linguistic specialists, headed by language bureau chief of Human Resources Development ministry, Anita Bhatnagar Jain, is currently touring Sri Lanka and meeting academics and bureaucrats. “We are cast in the role of consultants and will advice and aid (Sri Lanka) in the harmonious development of languages (Sinhalese and Tamil), said Prof.Rajesh Sachdeva, a member of the team. This is one of the methods of appeasement. The Sinhalese welcomed the team with open arms, as this is one of the surest ways of destroying the Tamil language. With the Tamil Homeland colonised and the language devastated, 2,500 years of Tamil presence in Sri Lanka will come to an end. Indian aid will go a long way to help President Rajapaksa’s dream of converting Sri Lanka into a Sinhalese state.
In Geneva on 26 May, 2009, 17 countries on a 47-member Human Rights Council called for an extraordinary session to discuss the Sri Lankan situation. UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, spoke for an “independent and credible international investigation” into the reports of violations of human rights and international humanitarian law on both sides of the civil war.
Sri Lanka’s supporters, including India, presented a counter proposal congratulating Sri Lanka for “putting an end” to the armed conflict and supporting “Sri Lanka’s sovereign right to fight terrorism and separatism within its undisputed borders.” When put to a vote 29 countries, including India, supported the motion, 12 were against and 6 abstained, thus effectively blocking a Commission of Inquiry and hijacking the aim of the extraordinary session. The 12 countries voting against this resolution were all from the West and the 29 who voted for the motion were from the East and Non-aligned countries. So it was a battle of Western values verses Eastern decadence.
Aspiring to become a permanent member in the UN Security Council has its price. India has to put its house in order and get back to its ancient morality before it takes its seat in the Security Council. The first thing it has to do is to make amends to the genocide it had supported in Sri Lanka. Barak Obama’s visit to India cannot be described as a success. India has no other choice but to comply with Obama’s expectations; whether it will get a permanent seat in the Security Council is a mute question.
Strategic affairs analyst Bharat Karnad said, "The platitudes in the oratory were soaring. Mr Obama was supposed to be pressing the right buttons. But how hard did he want the buttons pushed?"
Good question. For when it came down to the bare essentials of the speech, the euphoria waned a bit. A leading journalist MJ Akbar said: "His heart was not in [India's] membership. But it's an improvement from saying nothing."
Most felt that Obama "rapped India's knuckle" by saying that entry to the Security Council came with the essential caveats of responsibility, and the fact that all members have to abide by all resolutions, including on Iran and nuclear proliferation. China walked into the Security Council with dignity and its head held high, but India will have to crawl its way in.
No comments:
Post a Comment