Can Destabilising Sri Lanka Everbe Justified?
April 2nd, 2023By Shivanthi ranasinghe Courtesy Ceylon Today
The USD 2.9 billion IMF Extended Fund Facility (EFF) was obtained after a tedious process of satisfying a number of preconditions. Some of these prerequisites Sri Lanka had to agree to, such as privatisation of SOEs, tax hikes and subsidy strikes can be potentially political suicide. Indeed, over 47 Trade Unions from key industries such as health, education, Power & Energy, railway, the banking sector, ports and the Water Board are engaged in various Trade Union actions, in protest.
Conversely, India had given Sri Lanka USD 3.9 billion since the onset of the economic crisis. This support came without putting the Government up against the wall. In fact, India’s support helped the Sri Lankan Government face its citizens.
Yet, India’s support is not seen in the same league as IMF’s ‘bailout package’. This is indeed a curious situation when IMF is recognised as the savior, when it was India who did most of the saving, especially during the most crucial period.
Crux of the matter lies in trust – or rather, the lack of it. This is not to say that Sri Lankans trust the IMF, either. Considered as an arm of Western hegemony, the IMF too is viewed not too favourably. Nevertheless, as distasteful as IMF conditions may be, none of it are irreversible. Furthermore, even the most ardent protester would know somewhere in his conscience that drastic action, as stipulated by the IMF, is needed if we are to come out of this economic calamity. Afterwards, we would have the freedom to adapt the policies that make sense to us.
Enterprises, as done in the past, can always be taken under State control under the dubious label ‘nationalism’. Tax policies and utility rates can always be amended. Even if the incumbent President, Ranil Wickremesinghe, might never allow it, many of these activists are quite confident that life will be ‘returned to normal’ when our government” comes to power.
The Distasteful 13A
With regard to India, the people’s viewpoint is quite different. India, despite all the support and handholding, has been repeatedly making one demand. Eversince former President Gotabaya Rajapaksa assumed Office, India had been pushing Sri Lanka to implement the 13th Amendment to the Constitution (13A) in full. If Sri Lanka ever complied with India’s expectations, it could kill the Island nation.
The 13A is an extremely contentious subject in Sri Lanka. This Amendment is already incorporated into law and therefore can be enforced at any point. However, two of its clauses – powers pertaining to Land and Police – had never been enacted. Not only would these two divide the Island along ethnic lines, it has the potential to create a monster such as the LTTE.
The difference would be that the LTTE was an illegal entity, whereas Police powers granted by Parliament to a province created on ethnic grounds would be legitimate. This would make it difficult to counter the worst case scenario where a province’s Police force may arm and equip itself with more sophisticated weaponry than the other provinces’ Police forces to fight against other provinces.
As a province’s Police force is legally recognised entity, as created by the Constitution, matters involved would be confusing. From experience Sri Lankans know that confusion is the media that anti-national and geopolitically-motivated elements thrive on. Resolving those matters therefore would be complicated.
As it is, in the opinion of most Sri Lankans, the provincial councils created by the 13A have not delivered anything tangible and so are considered to be white elephants. Many would like to have these councils scrapped.
Politicians know this is not possible. Once this middle layer was created and power given to that layer, it is not possible to withdraw it without suffering politically. Likewise, to grant powers as potent as Land and Police powers would be irreversible acts.
Supporting Terrorism Backfires on India
Considering the 13A’s sordid past, every time India mentions it, a Pandora’s box of bad memories opens up. The hurtful events that dominated the 1980s decade are not easy to forget.
India’s excuse for aiding and abetting terrorism in Sri Lanka is the claim that her own national security was being compromised. According to India’s interpretation, Sri Lanka’s close association with the US was a threat to India.
This argument conveniently overlooks the fact that India began supporting and providing sanctuary to Tamil youth, egging them to take arms against the State of Sri Lanka at a time when the Sri Lankan Government of Sirima Bandaranaike was closer to India and Russia and on a collision course with the West. It is to counter or at least buffer the Indian threat that her successor, JR Jayewardene forged closer ties with the US.
At that time, the Indian Premier Indira Gandhi was fast losing her popularity. She thus needed to keep Tamil Nadu – a powerful vote base – anchored. Perhaps, PM Gandhi felt vindicated given the support her friend Sirima Bandaranaike rendered to Pakistan in 1971 when India and Pakistan were at war. Nevertheless, this was a serious miscalculation on her part as later events transpired.
It is unfortunate that her son, Rajiv Gandhi who took the mantle after her assassination continued down the same path she trod. Not only it led to his own assassination on Indian soil, this had other serious consequences.
For one thing, the LTTE cells in Tamil Nadu engaging in underworld activities became a threat to India’s own security. It is not a secret that Prabakaran’s exclusive homeland was not confined to the Northern and Eastern coast of Sri Lanka. As the LTTE strengthened, it began to revive in Tamil Nadu their own dream. Some thus analyse that Sri Lanka’s efforts to eradicate the LTTE also preserved India’s own territorial integrity.
Therefore, India’s argument that terrorism was supported to safeguard their national security is negated by its very consequences. To date, neither India nor Sri Lanka have been able to reset their relations properly. As a result, the entire bilateral relationship is viewed through the prism of appeasing Tamil Nadu. This has dealt the rest of India with an unfair blow.
Pulling Sri Lanka by the Ponytail for being Friends with China
By 2014, relations between the two countries were again deteriorating. This time the stated reason was Sri Lanka’s partnership with China. Ironically, India by this time had found common ground with the US.
Due to border issues, the troubled relations between China and India are rather historic. US did not take China’s rise to power too seriously until the 2008-9 global financial crash. It was then US realised that the ‘servant’ has become the ‘banker’.
Since then, the US had been on the warpath with China. It was on this basis, that India and the US see a partnership on security concerns. One objective of the 2015 ‘Regime Change’ operation was to install a government that would heed the West’s and India’s concerns over China’s rise as a superpower.
However, whether the US views India through the same strategic lens India views the US is questionable. This possible anomaly came to the forefront when the Hambantota Port was leased to China for 99 years.
The exact purpose of letting the strategic asset fall into China’s management is unclear. It was certainly not an ‘asset-for-debt swap’, as was claimed at the time. It might have been because the Yahapalana Government was cash strapped at the time.
However, the whole point for toppling Mahinda Rajapaksa from the presidency was his close association with China. Then, it does not make sense to allow China to park right in front of India – just 20 nautical miles away from the most strategic sea lanes.
The West, particularly the US, who has a comment for every sneeze and cough within Sri Lanka, maintained absolute silence over this lease agreement. This unusual silence was ground for speculation that the lease was with US’s blessings. The fact that the Yahapalana Government tried to give the adjacent Maththala airport to India indicates that Sri Lanka was sensitive to India’s discomfort.
The West’s silence amidst India’s obvious discomfort has led analysts to wonder if the Hambanthota Port was deliberately leased to China to make India insecure. There is sense in this logic. The more insecure India would feel over China’s presence, the greater India’s need would be to latch on to West’s anti-Chinese camp.
Conclusion
India in the recent past has been a generous friend. Yet India’s efforts are negated by the repeated calls to implement 13A in full. Resistance to the 13A stems from India’s unjustified interference and intervention in the 1980s decade. Though India claimed that their actions were based on concerns for India’s national security, the consequences of India’s actions actually challenged India’s national security.
Twenty-eight years later, India again miscalculates by allowing a nationalist such as Mahinda Rajapaksa to be toppled. Their justification again was concerns over national security.
During Mahinda Rajapaksa’s tenure, India’s irritation was the visiting Chinese submarines. The leasing of the Hambanthota Port by the Yahapalana Government however was a far worse scenario. The fact that their own partners may have encouraged the lease to manipulate India is not an easy pill to swallow.
Lesson before India is simple. Attempts to destabilise Sri Lanka to safeguard India’s interests have always backfired on India. In the 1970s decade, it was while enjoying good relations with Sri Lanka that India armed, trained and funded Tamil youth to terrorise Sri Lanka. Had India not taken this approach, how wonderfully different the histories of our two countries would be…
ranasingheshivanthi@gmail.com
(The views and opinions expressed in this column are writer’s own and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Ceylon Today)
BY Shivanthi Ranasinghe
Once a self-sufficient and prosperous nation in terms of food, Sri Lanka’s agriculture industry has now changed completely. The Green Revolution of the 1960s brought the widespread use of chemical inputs and fertilizers to the sector. Had chemical agriculture been sustainable, there would be no need to discuss food safety and food security as of now.
