“Modi Waveâ€: Some Foreign Policy Dimensions
Posted on May 25th, 2014
By Bandu de Silva
Commentaries which have appeared in the Sri Lankan media so far on the future policies that India under Modi government might follow have to be considered more speculative than analytical. There is a good reason for this. One does not have analytical material placed under a prism to judge analytically which way the future might follow under the Modi administration. Analysts have to go by the past performance. Here one has on the one hand, evidence of what BJP basically stood for with its Rashtriya Swayam Sewaka Sangh and other Hindutva associated past, despite, also the presence of powerful moderating influences, and on the other hand, the past performance by the BJP government which saw a deviation from the past policies India had followed under the traditional rule of the Congress government.
While this situation may seem to provide a reasonable background to base an analytical framework in assessing the future direction of the Modi government, this need not be so. The circumstances which brought Modi into limelight and his final overwhelming success at the recently concluded elections are far more complex than what appears on the surface. In a country so divided by geography, racial/tribal, language and religious affiliations and where other divisive electoral forces are at work, some even tending to show, as was the two cases of West Bengal and Tamil Nadu demonstrated at the recent elections by selecting completely different issues in electing members to the Lok Sabha, the “Modi wave” this time has to be considered as something extraordinary. Very few indeed expected a clear margin of victory for the BJP alone to form a government of its own without the support of the coalition NDA and some thought the NDA might have to look for support from the two regional/state parties dominating West Bengal and AIDDMK led Tamil Nadu. If Modi had to depend on their support to form a fragile coalition, it could have gone to constrain the independence of the decision making process in New Delhi, which was a situation that the Manmohan Singh government was increasingly seen subjected to during its rule.
It is a relief to India’s neighbours to find that the Modi government does not have to carry any of this type of mill-stones round its neck in setting about in defining policy towards India’s neighbours. This is one positive factor emerging from the elections. The Indian electorate, considered in its totality, has voted against the growing tendency of regional/state hegemonies asserting greater influence in decision making at the Centre. This does not mean to say that Modi as pre-Prime ministerial personality was totally averse to a regional/state role in decision making at the Centre. This is an aspect I discussed in my previous articles as “St Gillan principle” working in India published in The island some years back.
Modi was seen speaking at times in favour of a role for the peripheral units but his position was different from that of West Bengal or Tamil Nadu in that it did not go to clash with interests of the neighbouring countries. As the long –standing Chief Minister of Gujarat, Modi was more concerned about the economic development of his state and invited foreign investments from neighbouring countries including China. Election -period and post-election discussions point to a contrary direction. That is better defining the role of the regions/states in policy making. Some critical analysts in India, perhaps, influenced by BJP’s think tanks seem to emphasie the Constitutional position of the Centre as the decision –making power while it tries to reach a compromise with earlier pre-election Modi attitudes by suggesting only a role of consultation to the regions/states in the matter of policy making by the Centre. That looks how the Centre vs. regions/states issue in policy making is going to be treated in the future. One can see it already happening over the Modi government’s decision to invite leaders of SAARC countries for the inauguration ceremony of the new Prime Minister, which is an innovation as far as Indian political culture goes. The way NDA coalition partner Vaiko’s serious objections to President Mahinda Rajapaksa, whom he calls “the greatest sinner” being invited to the ceremony and that of others in Tamil Nadu, though not so vociferously expressed, is already a pointer that the Modi government is confident enough by itself over which course is good for the country, notwithstanding the objections of its detractors.
New direction in foreign policy?
Besides, for the foreign policy observer the decision to invite the SAARC leaders to the inauguration ceremony breaking from tradition is an important early signal that the Modi government is keen to establish a new direction in the country’s foreign policy. There have been a variety of comments on this matter, some even seeing the move as one sending a terse message to India’s South Asian neighbours that India would now deal with them more sternly than before. That seems to be an exaggeration though the underlying principle in this seemingly symbolic innovative gesture remains the recognition of the need to develop close rapport with SAARC neighbours. How the BJP views the situation with regard to India’s standing in SAARC can be seen from even the remarks made by Dr.Subramanian Swamy defending the invitation to President Rajapaksa that all SAARC neigbours barring Bhutan had been hostile to India. (Asian Tribune). Though the idea of being hostile to India may need qualification, that remark by this respected BJP stalwart, who was once Minister of Justice, signals a critical point of view held in Indian circles how unfavourably India’s relations with SAARC had progressed under the previous government and therefore the need for an urgent course direction. As the bigger and dominant partner, India had much to gain from SAARC by way of a lead role, not amounting to a hegemonic one, had she used the opportunity diplomatically and to the better advancement of the region as whole. It in such a context that I see the significance of the invitation to SAARC leaders at Modi inauguration, not just a symbolic gesture, but one where the new BJP leadership under Modi could seize the opportunity for a new beginning. That would serve India’s interests best which is the primary principle which emerges out of the new Modi Wave. That would then serve a dual purpose. That is while serving India’s primary interests, it will allow India the new leadership role in the region. That would be then extending the self-interest principle to the arena of foreign policy itself.
Many of the comments on Modi election have tended to over –emphasise the fact Modi’s alleged role in Gujart riots of 2002 to support a thesis that new Modi government may not be minority-friendly. Ammen Izzadeen writing in Daily Mirror (Saturday 24 May 2014, observed that “India’s Muslims, who voted largely for parties other than the BJP, are beset with uncertainty over the Modi government’s policies towards minorities. … Adding to their fears is the fact that none of the 330 plus NDA parliamentarians is a Muslim”. The situation is far more complex than that. With India harbouring a Muslim population which is far greater than that of any Muslim country other than Indonesia, the Muslim minority issue in India cannot be viewed as an ordinary minority issue. It is an issue on which India’s claim to be a multi-cultural state dedicated to secular principles which is a basic assertion in India’s external image and claim to a cultural colossus depends. Modi government could be seen doing its utmost to protect this image notwithstanding the early affiliations of the BJP and of Modi himself with organisations such as Rastriya Swayam Sevak Sangh and other extreme Hindu groups.
Other Foreign Policy issues
As in the case of other Lok Sabah elections, foreign policy was not a key issue at all in the recent elections, though it may be different in the case of state elections like that of West Bengal and Tamil Nadu. But Modi did refer to the Congress administration’s handling of foreign policy as ineffective even suggesting it was “non-assertive”. In his speech in Arunachal Pradesh during the electoral round, Modi was seen making a strong assertive statement when he said that China should not be expansionist and that India would be “well defended”. This attracted a moderately word retort from Beijing, again by the same spokesperson in the Foreign Office, saying that China had no aggressive intent on her neighbours. Compaered to the responses that came out of China in the days of Mao-Dze –dong that Chinese response was very mild, indeed.
In my view, this statement which reflected more the influence of Modi advisors’ handiwork than how far Modi himself would have wanted to go, has made China to slip Modi from its comments during the post- election period. What has come out of Beijing so far is a low key statement by the spokesperson of the Chinese Foreign Ministry, but emphasing China’s willingness to develop cooperation in strategic matters. That too was not a voluntary expression but a reply to questions put to him.
The net result is that Modi did not receive a warm early response from China to his election which contrasts itself with the warm receptions he received in Beijing earlier during his four visits as Chief Minister. On his last visit he was received by the highest in the hierarchy in the Chinese Communist Party which even accorded him a reception in the Great Hall of the People in Beijing, an honour which is retained for state visitors. The issue of Arunachel Pradesh which China calls “Southern Tibet” is a very sensitive matter for the Chinese. I believe the present display of disinterest on the part of China in the “Modi wave” would be short –lived and the two sides would not allow the advancements made in cooperative sphere since the 1960s to wither away. Looking at Modi’s past interest in Chinese investment and participation in infrastructure building, it is doubtful if he would allow the expectations to be drowned by raising controversial issues though he may have expressed certain sentiments during the heat of the electoral campaign. I hope the two governments would overcome the minor [but sensitive] storm soon and a strong China policy of cooperation would emerge form part of India’s foreign policy under the new dispensation. Modi government being economic oriented, can be expected to build upon the cooperation which the previous government established by signing seven agreements with China during Premier Manmohan Singh’s visit to Beijing in 2013.
US –India relations
The emphasis in Barack Obama’s message to Prime Minister -elect Modi to the strategic cooperation between the two countries and of his wish that progress would be made on those lines cannot be missed. US could be seen bending over her back to maintain this security related partnership. It was not long ago that US announced India as a friendly country with whom she was engaging in developing the US’s Littoral Combatant Ships (LCS) project under her new” Indian Ocean bases and Strategic Rebalancing Plan toward Asia and Pacific (SRPAP). (Please see my article published in Ceylon Today of 8 May 2014and Asian Tribune of 9th May 2014) While this US plan basically targets China though not openly admitting so, one has to wait and see how the Modi administration would respond to it. It depends much on how India’s relations with China would progress under the new dispensation.
Relations with Sri Lanka
I would not join the speculative bandwagon to offer any ideas as to how the relationship between the two governments is likely to progress though there is much expectation both in positive and negative terms. I read an interesting article by my former diplomatic colleague, Izeth Hussein, in The Island today (24 May 2014). He projects Modi as a “dangerous man” to judge from his record and issues a warning to the Sri Lankan government not to expect the same type of response from him as from the Oxford educated Manmohan Singh to what he sums up as Sri Lanka’s vacillating responses to India. He observes thatthe fundamentals of Indian policy on Sri Lanka remain unchanged. These fundamentals, according to him are that Sri Lanka by itself can never be a serious threat to India but it could be if it gets together with some powerful foreign country against India, and except in that eventuality nothing would preclude total amity and co-operation without India wanting to dominate Sri Lanka or exercise undue influence in any way.
He traces how after a period of amicable relationship the picture changed when President JRJayewardene began courting the US and the West. Applying the same paradigm, one can see how Sri Lanka’s growing relationship with China has been blown up by interested parties, notably, the US, to create a similar or rather a greater scenario of thereat perception to India arising from the Sino-Sri Lanka link. It depends on how India perceives the situation. After all, there was not much of substance in the US –Sri Lanka link under the Jayewardene administration for India to take counter measures like promoting training, arming and financing of Sri Lankan Tamil terrorist groups. As I pointed out in earlier article, the China bogey comes up for discussion among Indian law makers from time to time. Even the former External affairs Minister Kurshid, was dragged into making a remark in Lok Sabha to the effect that India was keeping close watch on China’s infrastructure- building activities in the neighbourhood.
India’s concerns over her security is understandable. At times these get blown up to unwarranted proportions. When Sri Lanka purchased a Chinese boat for TAFFAI work in early 1960s after calling for international tenders, the subject became important to India to raise [low key] inquiries. I was the contact person used by the Indian High Commission. There was nothing sinister either in the purchase or even in the inquiry. My [daily] contact in the Indian High Commission, Second Secretary Raj Kumar was a very genial personality. It was transparent affair. Similarly, when Sri Lanka signed a Maritime Agreement with China around that time, the Most-Favoured -Nation Clause included in it caused a sensation. That it was a clause universally applied in international maritime agreements was ignored. Again when facilities at Iranwilla under the VOA agreement with US was being negotiated under the Jayewardene government, India intervened and sought modifications on grounds of India’s security interests. Again, when a US scientific foundations donated a Satellite tracking station for the Moratuwa University’s Arthur Clarke Centre, India was disturbed. Indian high Commission’s inquiries from the Sri Lankan Foreign Office ended with me as the one who was in touch with the Arthur Clarke project. I had to point out that this was no secret affair and the Indian High Commissioner was invited to the opening ceremony and was represented. That should indicate how information is built up. It is not that a country should be subservient but with a sensitive neighbor like India Sri Lanka could be seen transparent about her relationship with China so that misconceptions should not grow on that account.
One small point in Hussein’s article where he refers to Sri Lanka’s Rubber-rice Agreement to which India had no objection, his point that it had no military dimension might lead to an implication that it is military dimension that India objects to. The point needs some elaboration. India at the time of the first Rice –Rubber Pact (1952-57) was closely associated with China. It was the time of the “Indi-Chini Bhai-Bhai” days when the Indian Ambassador R.K. Nehru’s wife went round toasting to that “Bhai-Bhai” with every person she met at the diplomatic receptions so much so it became a topic of discussion at the time.
A new opening has presented itself to both countries to take a close look at bi-lateral relations untrammeled by former dilatory attitudes of India resulting from responding to Tamil Nadu aspirations and Sri Lankan government’s equal failure to strengthen trust –building. If the new opportunity is used diplomatically on both sides, it augurs well for both sides. It is too early for me to comment on prospects of both countries joining in reviving Nam and the IOPZ projects which saw the highest level cooperation between the two countries.
bandudes@gmail,com
24/5/2014
May 25th, 2014 at 1:01 pm
Unlike the Congress party the BJP has to date demonstrated that India will be led from New Delhi and not by regional powers. Regarding Sri Lanka and the Tamils it has been often commented by Indians that the Sri Lankan war against Tamil terrorism is an Indian issue because of the relationship between Tamil Nadu and the Sri Lankan Tamils.
Using that logic the same holds for India’s Muslims. Unlike the Indian Muslims Sri Lanka’s Jaffna Tamils have had an independent history that spans a thousand years, but unlike Sri Lankan Tamils the sub continent Muslims who number in total of half a Billion divided India to form Pakistan and later on Bangladesh mainly due to British meddling.
Though the concept of India formed under the British Raj, it was the British that planted the seed of division in a land defined by her diversity that Muslims need their own homeland. The British created India during the Raj and help partition it when they left. Using the Tamil model, the half a billion Muslims that populate Pakistan, India and Bangladesh still have a role to play to undo what the British did. The notion that Tamil Nadu should champion the cause of Sri Lankan Tamils due to their ethnic and linguistic connections can be also used on the sub continent Muslims.
Jayalalithaa demands New Delhi bow to the sentiments of Indian Tamils regarding Colombo. If so shouldn’t the Indian Muslims do the same regarding New Delhi’s relationship with Pakistan and Bangladesh. The latter is even more the point since Bangladesh and West Bengal are only separated by politics and religion. Otherwise both West Bengal and Bangladesh speak the same language, are of the same ethnic group, and share a common culture and history.
Narendra Modi has is a sea change from the Congress party as he has not only invited President Rajapakse but also Nawaz Sharif of Pakistan. The significance of this cannot be overstated. In order for the region to develop rapidly all the major players of this region need to work together. To date the few political differences that separate India from Pakistan and Bangladesh has led to 3 wars and a regional cold war where the world powers have cashed in and even encouraged the division.
India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and for that matter Sri Lanka have more in common than the little political differences that are often hyped up. Europe went through 2 world wars, both caused by Germany and yet they were able to put aside their political differences in order to create a region of wealth and first world standards. If Europe can do this after the two bloodiest wars in known history so can the Sub continent which is the same size as Europe with more languages and people. The superficial reason for the creation of Pakistan as the homeland for all sub continent Muslims has been a failure since most sub continent Muslims do not live in Pakistan. But that minimal difference has been exploited by world powers and by both New Delhi and Islamabad that has kept the entire region not only beggared by this cold war but giving birth to even more secessionist movements.
If Modi succeeds then the first step is to lessen and eventually do away with any political differences between the major players of the Sub continent and capitalize on the many aspects that unite India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka to maximize economic growth, social mobility and above all regional security to such an extent that it is strong enough to push aside the US and other Western interests who have not only made these divisions worse but have gained leverage and money from it. A united region similar to Europe would stop the foreign interference and instead attract foreign investment.
May 25th, 2014 at 1:03 pm
Second comment: correction:
Using that logic the same holds for India’s Muslims. Unlike the Indian Muslims Sri Lanka’s Jaffna Tamils have had an independent history that spans a thousand years, but unlike Sri Lankan Tamils the sub continent Muslims who number in total of half a Billion divided India to form Pakistan and later on Bangladesh mainly due to British meddling and have been only separated for 66 years.
May 25th, 2014 at 2:03 pm
This is only SPECULATION. Endia has OWN INTERESTS. Working for a GOOD SL-Endia diplomacy is NOT an Endian interest!
Just because Moha was replaced by Modi, it doesn’t change ANYTHING in Endian INTERESTS.
Endia will want to EXPAND. ROB other nations’ resources. Bully other smaller nations.
This was how Endia ALWAYS was and will always be.
May 25th, 2014 at 3:09 pm
“Endia will want to EXPAND. ROB other nations’ resources. Bully other smaller nations.”
If Endia = Tamils, I agree with you. But clearly it is NOT. Many non-south Indians I know are fed up with Tamils and their racism, their continual defiance to unify Inida with Hinid language.
May 25th, 2014 at 4:34 pm
Last BJP govt. was ANTI-LTTE because FAT Jaya was part of it. FAT Jaya was always very strong anti-LTTE pro-Tamil Elam.
But the last BJP govt. BETRAYED SL by getting Norway to mediate in SL.
It also forced the CBK govt. to bring political solutions. How many political solutions she brought!! ALL defeated thanks MOSTLY to LTTE.
When CONGRESS won in 2004 many SLs were happy. They said Sonia will help SL get rid of LTTE for killing her hubby!
Now the same group is happy again for similar clumsy reasons. Endia will always remain SL’s enemy #1. The question is HOW Endia will do harm to SL.
May 25th, 2014 at 4:43 pm
Nanda,
Then how can you explain Endian INVASION of SL, south Tibet, Andaman, Nicobar, Lakshadeev Islands, etc.?
How can you explain the Endian economic INVASION of SL?
How can you explain the Endian heroin INVASION of SL?
How can you explain the Endian kallathoni INVASION of SL and REFUSING to take them back?
Endian national interests are AGAINST SL. It cannot change no matter who comes to power. That is the difference between Endian foreign policy (based on ENDIAN NATIONAL INTERESTS) and SL foreign policy (based on FRIENDSHIP).
May 25th, 2014 at 6:34 pm
Lorenzo,
You have provided the answer just a comment ago.
All other governments could not offend Tamils, because they were part of it or scared of election defeat.
May 25th, 2014 at 6:35 pm
I am hopeful only, not happy. It is a change. We shall wait and see.
May 25th, 2014 at 6:35 pm
I wonder where is the evidence for Jaffna Tamils having a history spanning a thousand years? The verifiable history shows that the majority of Jaffna and Batticaloa Tamils are decedents of indented labour brought in from South India to tend the tobacco plantations in those areas. It is true that Tamil Chieftains ruled the Jaffna peninsula and adjacent areas, but they ruled over mostly Sinhalese, just like Elara and much later in history the Malabar Kings of Kandy.
If a particular ethnic group lives in a particular area they leave verifiable artefact of their presence – how they lived, their agriculture and irrigation works, their temples etc. Large majority of the present day Tamils do not have a very long history in Sri Lanka.
It is good to get the right history and not leave behind falsehoods for Eelamists to chew on!
May 25th, 2014 at 11:22 pm
Lorenzo,
Narendra Modi and other BJP leaders may have said those things against Sri Lanka in the heat of the Lok Sabha election campaign to attract Tamil Nadu votes.
What they do AFTER the election, and AFTER the people of Tamil Nadu have largely REJECTED the BJP and voted for the opposing AIADMK led by Jayalolitha, will have no relationship to what he said BEFORE to gain votes and support, ESPECIALLY now that he has won an overwhelming mandate from the people of India without assistance from Tamil Nadu.
The former UPA Govt led by the Congress Party never had an overwhelming majority since Rajiv Gandhi’s first term as Premier, and ALWAYS compromised India’s National Interest on the Sri Lankan Tamils issue by acting against Sri Lanka to curry favor with the Racist demagogues of Tamil Nadu in their quest to incorporate a part of Sri Lanka into a Greater Tamil Nadu.
The BJP under Narendra Modi’s leadership, given its overwhelming majority in the Lok Sabha, may not continue those past policies of the Indian Govt, and there are solid reasons and indications that he may not do so …. in India’s National Interest.
Sri Lanka has to HOPE for the BEST and reach out to Narendra Modi as President Mahinda Rajapaksa is now doing.
But, as I have ALWAYS MAINTAINED, Sri Lanka has to PREPARE for the WORST even if Modi adopts a positive attitude towards Sri Lanka during his tenure, because there is NO GUARANTEE that future Indian Govts will not reverse course. Tamil Nadu has always been, and will always be, a higher priority for India than Sri Lanka.
Therefore, Sri Lanka should take every possible action to PREVENT India from acquiring a DOMINANT POSITION in Sri Lanka’s internal affairs by reducing India’s involvement in Sri Lanka’s ECONOMY, POLITICS, LABOR FORCE, RECONSTRUCTION, and NATIONAL SECURITY, and REPEALING the 13th Amendment at the earliest possible opportunity.
May 26th, 2014 at 6:18 am
Agree with the LAST para.
What Modi and BJP said BEFORE the election is IMPORTANT. It shows their SCANT regard for SL.
They may show MR a kind face but to Endians they have promised to punish the small country.
Not even UK, Canada, US, etc. Tamil sympathizers had made such VILE threats against SL as Modi did.
Just calling a spade a spade.
May 26th, 2014 at 6:32 am
BBC has some interesting photos of Modi. Please check them out.
In one he is taking the HITLER oath with other RSS activists.
In another he is disguised as a Sikh to escape capture by Endian army when RSS was banned in 1970.
In another he is speaking at a RSS event. Looks like a JVP radical.
Modi’s early days somewhat like Weerawansa. Modi is a good model for Weerawansa to follow except riots.
May 26th, 2014 at 9:38 am
Lorenzo: quoting you “This was how Endia ALWAYS was and will always be.” Two fallacies with your ending comment. The firs mistake is that everything changes. That is why we have human evolution, the development of civilization, the changing nature of man. I am only limiting the issue of change in regards to humans. Nothing in human history “has always been and will always be”. If so humans would have never developed out of the age of cave dwellers.
Your second mistake is that you reach your conclusion by your perception of the past. Assuming your perception of India’s past is accurate, you still cannot predict the future based on that single issue. India like any other nation, region or person, changes due to personal issues (or in the case of India domestic issues) and external issues or foreign issues that are generally out of the control of India or Sri Lanka.
I leave you with my saying regarding the issue of past present and future. “the past makes men wise and the future makes men foolish”. It is very easy to judge a nation or come to a conclusion of the past because we have the luxury of deeds done and the concept of retrospection. It is almost impossible to base any opinion with true clarity of the future for due to the constant aspect of change that occurs in the present the future is most unpredictable. We can only guess and hope that guess is right.
May 27th, 2014 at 1:48 pm
Modi wants to devolve wide powers to the country’s Tamil-majority regions!
As I predicted. And as Mario quite eloquently put it. Before the election Modi and BJP demanded ONLY 13 amendment. Now going beyond.
Now may the Modi supporting “patriots” WEEP and HOWL like Tamil women did in May 2009. Or pretend it never happened (this is what they will do.)
Now lets see how MR will try to FOOL the people and do this. MR dare not devolve wide powers to Tamil-majority areas! If he does he will be flushed down the election toilet.
“Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has requested Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa to deliver on his promises to devolve wide powers to the country’s Tamil-majority regions — a formula called ‘Thirteen-Plus’ that was promised during diplomatic negotiations with former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki Moon in 2010.
“Early and full implementation of the 13th Amendment and going beyond would contribute to this process,” Foreign Secretary Sujata Singh quoted Mr. Modi as telling the Sri Lankan President.
‘Thirteen-Plus’ has never been precisely defined, but the 13th Amendment to Sri Lanka’s Constitution which created provincial councils and made both Tamil and Sinhala official languages.
Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa had boycotted Mr. Modi’s swearing-in ceremony on Monday, to protest against his invitation to Mr. Rajapaksa.”
Courtesy the Hindu
May 27th, 2014 at 1:58 pm
BW,
I AGREE the past is NO guide to the future.
But in the case of Endia the past seems to be an INFALLIBLE guide to the future. Except during Asoka’s time.
May 27th, 2014 at 4:56 pm
Lorenzo,
As a Sri Lankan patriot who supports Modi’s ascent to power in India, and wanted Sri Lanka to reach out to him, I still think it is too early for us to decide that Modi is bad for Sri Lanka.
EVERY Indian leader will want Sri Lanka to implement the 13th Amendment in full, as it is India’s baby shoved down Sri Lanka’s unwilling gagging throat, and it costs them NOTHING, if we SWALLOW it … without VOMITING it OUT.
As long as Sri Lanka DOES NOT OPPOSE IT, and CLEARLY CONVEY our REASONS for not wanting to Empower SEPARATISTS COMMITTED then and now to the utter destruction of Sri Lanka, India, Modi/BJP will CONTINUE to push the 13th Amendment as the UPA/Congress Party did.
The Sri Lanka Government has to STOP SAYING that we will implement the 13th Amendment.
Instead, The GOSL must say that we don’t want a Federal Govt in Sri Lanka, even if India feels comfortable with that type of Govt and is prepared to cope with secessionist movementin India (Kashmire, Assam, Nagaland, Tamil Naadu and elsewhere) FOREVER! We have BEEN THERE and DONE THAT …. and WE DON’T WANT TO DO IT!
The 13th Amendment was PUSHED DOWN Sri Lanka’s throat BY FORCE while India was OCCUPYING a large part of Sri Lanka. Such a Law is ILLEGAL under International Law, and Sovereign Sri Lanka is entitled to ABROGATE and REPEAL such a Law. Every sovereign nation is DUTY BOUND to its citizens to do so, as SOON as it can, just as Czechkoslovakia abrogated The Munich Agreement that partitioned it on the eve of World War II, under threat from Nazi Germany.
Until we POSE our OPPOSITION in India’s own CONTEXT, and get them to wear our shoes, for example by devolving autonomy to Kashmir Muslims and face the prospect of disintegration of their own country, they will CONTINUE to PUSH Sri Lanka to devolve power to Separatists. It removes no skin off their noses! As both Sri Lanka and India learned from the British Colonialist, what is mine is mine, what is yours is negotiable.
AFTER we do that, we have to evaluate what Modi/BJP will do, and take whatever steps are needed. But until then, as long as India believes it can FORCE Sri Lanka to commit harakiri, and we do not CATEGORICALLY REFUSE, they will ask Sri Lanka to devolve power and implement the 13th Amendment.
As I said before, we have to HOPE for the BEST, and PREPARE for the WORST. By reaching out to Modi/BJP we have LOST NOTHING, but there is a opportunity for gain that MUST BE TESTED.
Also, as I had said, in the LONGER TERM, Sri Lanka should DISCOURAGE ALL Indian Involvement in Sri Lanka, to wit:
in the ECONOMY, in LABOR, in BANKING, in CONSTRUCTION, in ENERGY, in OIL & GAS, in HEALTHCARE, in POLITICS, in DIPLOMATIC PRESENCE, in TOURISM, in AUTOS, TRUCKS, BUSES, in VISAS on Arrival for Indians …. EVERYTHING … because even if Modi/BJP favors SRi Lanka, there is NO GUARANTEE that future Indian Governments will not reverse that posture, given that TAmil Nadu will ALWAYS have HIGHER PRIORITY for India than Sri Lanka. ALWAYS! We have to ESCAPE the Indian Embrace, because it will INEVITABLY bite Sri Lanka SOMETIME in the future. That is a CERTAINTY!
May 27th, 2014 at 5:09 pm
Lorenzo,
As a Sri Lankan patriot who supports Modi’s ascent to power in India, and wanted Sri Lanka to reach out to him, I still think it is too early for us to decide that Modi is bad for Sri Lanka.
EVERY Indian leader will want Sri Lanka to implement the 13th Amendment in full, as it is India’s baby shoved down unwilling Sri Lanka’s gagging throat, and it costs them NOTHING, if we SWALLOW it … without VOMITING it OUT.
As long as Sri Lanka DOES NOT OPPOSE IT, and DOES NOT CLEARLY CONVEY our REASONS for not wanting to Empower SEPARATISTS COMMITTED then and now to the utter destruction of Sri Lanka, India, Modi/BJP will CONTINUE to push the 13th Amendment just as the UPA/Congress Party did. They are doing favors for their Tamil citizens at Sri Lanka’s expense!
The Sri Lanka Government has to STOP SAYING that we will implement the 13th Amendment.
Instead, The GOSL must say that we don’t want a Federal Govt in Sri Lanka, even if India feels comfortable with that type of Govt and is prepared to cope with secessionist movements in India (Kashmir, Assam, Nagaland, Tamil Nadu and elsewhere) FOREVER! We have BEEN THERE and DONE THAT …. and WE DON’T WANT TO DO IT!
The 13th Amendment was PUSHED DOWN Sri Lanka’s throat BY FORCE while India was OCCUPYING a large part of Sri Lanka. Such a Law is ILLEGAL under International Law, and Sovereign Sri Lanka is entitled to ABROGATE and REPEAL such a Law. Every sovereign nation is DUTY BOUND to its citizens to do so, as SOON as it can, just as Czechkoslovakia abrogated The Munich Agreement that partitioned it on the eve of World War II, under threat from Nazi Germany. The VICTIM is NEVER DUTY BOUND to honor an agreement it is forced into by an AGGRESSOR, UNDER DURESS! NEVER!
Until we POSE our OPPOSITION in India’s own CONTEXT, and get them to wear our shoes, for example by devolving autonomy to Kashmir Muslims and face the prospect of disintegration of their own country, they will CONTINUE to PUSH Sri Lanka to devolve power to Separatists. It removes no skin off their noses! As both Sri Lanka and India learned from the British Colonialist, what is mine is mine, what is yours is negotiable.
AFTER we do that, we have to evaluate what Modi/BJP will do, and take whatever steps are needed. But until then, as long as India believes it can FORCE Sri Lanka to commit harakiri, and we DO NOT CATEGORICALLY REFUSE, they will ask Sri Lanka to devolve power and implement the 13th Amendment.
As I said before, we have to HOPE for the BEST, and PREPARE for the WORST. By reaching out to Modi/BJP we have LOST NOTHING, but there is a opportunity for gain that MUST BE TESTED.
Also, as I had said, in the LONGER TERM, Sri Lanka should DISCOURAGE ALL Indian Involvement in Sri Lanka, to wit:
in the ECONOMY, in LABOR, in BANKING, in CONSTRUCTION, in ENERGY, in OIL & GAS, in HEALTHCARE, in POLITICS, in AUTOS, TRUCKS, BUSES, in VISAS on Arrival for Indians, in TOURISM, in DIPLOMATIC PRESENCE, …. EVERYTHING … because even if Modi/BJP favors Sri Lanka, there is NO GUARANTEE that future Indian Governments will not reverse that posture, given that Tamil Nadu will ALWAYS have HIGHER PRIORITY for India than Sri Lanka. ALWAYS! We have to ESCAPE this DEADLY Indian Embrace, because it will INEVITABLY bite Sri Lanka SOMETIME in the future. That is an ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY!
May 27th, 2014 at 5:13 pm
“Until we POSE our OPPOSITION in India’s own CONTEXT, and get them to wear our shoes, for example by devolving autonomy to Kashmir Muslims and face the prospect of disintegration of their own country, they will CONTINUE to PUSH Sri Lanka to devolve power to Separatists. It removes no skin off their noses! As both Sri Lanka and India learned from the British Colonialist, what is mine is mine, what is yours is negotiable.”
Correct. But will our buggers ridden with so much self enrichment motives and power greed ever stand up to Endia to say so ? They can, if they clean the house first.
Release the drug trafficking Endian fishermen as ordered by self assumed Maha Raja ? how can this bugger interfere with law and order of the country and offer such a foolish “goodwill gesture” ? Even the police doesn’t know what to do now.
Where is our moral fear and moral shame ( hiri and ottappa) gone ?
Mathat Thitha OR Mathata Hitha ?
May 27th, 2014 at 5:53 pm
Ananda,
“Until we POSE our OPPOSITION in India’s own CONTEXT, and get them to wear our shoes, for example by devolving autonomy to Kashmir Muslims and face the prospect of disintegration of their own country, they will CONTINUE to PUSH Sri Lanka to devolve power to Separatists.”
Even after we OPPOSE it they will CONTINUE to do it. It is a PROMISE of BOTH congress and BJP to Endians (Tamils).
As you say it was forced upon JR. He NEVER liked it. The coutnry OPPOSED it. But still it was pushed down JR’s throat by Endia. So there are TWO culprits here not one. MR opening his legs and Modi thrusting his Tamil sivalingam through them. BOTH at fault. You can’t praise Modi and blame MR on 13 amendment.
We MUST expect Endia (SL’s PERENNIAL ENEMY #1) to disrupt SL, support Tamil racist demands and ROB whatever SL has. We must not in anyway praise or support ANY Endian PM or govt. UNTIL they prove they support UNITARY SINHELA BUDDHIST SL.
Modi has not done it (to say the least). That seals who Modi is.
The Endia ruled by Asoka is LONG DEAD. It will NEVER EVER come to life again. The sooner we accept this NOBLE UNIVERSAL TRUTH the better.
1. anicca
2. anaatma
3. dukkha
4. paticca samuppada
5. Endia and Tamils are the enemies of SL (extremely FEW exceptions).
May 27th, 2014 at 6:06 pm
Nanda,
You ONLY blame Modaya but praise Modi. BOTH at fault.
Modaya and Modi had XES and Modi had a baby. And you blame only Modaya. It is Modi’s fault as well.
PLEASE don’t feel shy to accept your earler praise of Modi was WRONG. I have been WRONG on many occassions and I CONCEDED. Nothing personal.
May 27th, 2014 at 8:31 pm
Lorenzo,
Yes nothing personal. But I prefer Modi to our bugger if he can deliver for Endia as he spoke that day. If he could get rid of corruption, lead by example.
In an exactly same manner I supported and defended our bugger for 7 years as we must give those words a chance. By the way I have a reason to support him. It doesn’t mean we belive what ANY politikko saying, but we have to be optimistic.
So don’t be mistaken. Even now I don’t blame Modi has not done any foolish work yet. It is all talk only. Our bugger should stand firm and take control. This is why we voted him to power for.
May 27th, 2014 at 11:43 pm
Lorenzo,
Come off it .. Modi has barely sat in the saddle to ride the Bharat horse. Give him some time before you crucify him!
May 28th, 2014 at 12:21 am
Ananda,
Why should we crucify a good man ? If he could get rid of India’s corruption he will be a good man, we hail him for that.
We must crucify our bugger first.
Modi has done his job. It is up to our bugger now. It is not Modi who asked for 13 ++, it was out bugger who “penala dunna ” few years ago. We will see his( our bugger’s) true colour soon.
No need to jump the gun, we shall wait and see what our bugger is doing.
Let us give both buggers some time.
At least if Modi makes India a good place, we can go there and eat his kevum.
May 28th, 2014 at 8:58 am
Nanda,
Did I address that comment to you? I don’t think so; it was addressed to Lorenzo. Did I miss something, or are you Lorenzo’s defense attorney?
May 28th, 2014 at 1:33 pm
Not sure why we keep referring to people as “buggers”.
On a lighter note may I share with you an event that I was party to with reference to the word “bugger” which still chuckles me and I trust you will find amusing.
It was in the early 1990 (before emails, internet and depended on telex messaging) I was working for Lever Bros (Unilever) when I was transferred to London (Unilever House). I was subsequently seconded to Unilever, Kuwait just prior to the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq. My Boss from London a Mr Stephen Beggar was visiting me in Kuwait and was given strict instructions that upon his arrival a telex was to be sent to Unilever House on his safe arrival due to the conflict.
Dutifully, I instructed a local Kuwaiti worker to send the telex to London on his safe arrival.
On receiving a copy of the telex I noticed it read “Bugger has arrived safely”.
An hour later I was given copies of the telex message exchanges
Unilever House, London replied – “What’s the buggers name?”
Unilever, Kuwait replied – “Buggers name is Beggar”
To this day I have copies of the exchange of telexs.