The Indian Home Minister Palaniappan Chidambaram’s statement at a book release in the Nehru Auditorium recently reveals a lingering human side to policy making in Delhi. Chidambaram categorically ruled out ‘the use of the military to counter the Maoist threat..as there are ethical and electoral considerations involved’ (Hindustan Times 12 May 2010). This news went un-reported in the Hindu; the reasons for this are well known.
Chidambaram’s stance approximates the nuanced approach that drives policies towards non-jihardi insurgencies in the West in post Bush era. Chidambaram ‘Citing the example of Sri LANKA tackling the LTTE with the use of its military might was “when I was asked to do that in India, I said ‘no’. We cannot do that in India because there is an ethical (moral) consideration to it.. we ought not to use the Army or the Air Force to battle the Maoist threat in India’. Here Chidambaram only includes jihardism under the ‘terrorism’ label leaving out Maoist and Naxalite insurgencies.
Chidambaram allowing ethical (or moral or Dharmic) considerations in dealing with Maoist and Naxalite groups avoids the crude brutality embedded in Bush’s terrorism approach. SL is a pious devotee of the Bush doctrine. Observing the ethical dimension to non-jihardi insurgency policies would have saved the ignominious end of the leadership of the Tamil resistance leadership from the brutal Gothabhaya-Narayanan massacres in which tens of thousands civilians were also massacred; all serious crimes against humanity. In fact this rationale explains US’s attempt to ship out the Tamil resistance leaders to safety in May 2009 that Narayanan/Menon team ensured was defeated.
The timing of Chidambaram bringing to focus an important policy dimension though delayed is to avoid the policies of the past that would have taken India down the divisive road. But that delay enabled Narayanan Gothabhaya to successfully execute the May 2009 massacres in SL. Some analysts are of the view that Delhi delayed the application of Chidambaram’s ‘ethical’ dimension to accommodate Narayanan Gothabhaya mission to destroy the leadership of the Tamil resistance and quench the Sonia family’s thirst for revenge for the alleged killing of Rajiv by the Tamil resistance leadership.
Past policy making by the Narayanan/Menon South Block sidelined Chidambaram’s ‘ethical’ dimension in its SL policy to totally destroy the Tamil resistance with its entire leadership ignoring that the Tamil resistance was a non jihardi insurgency fighting a genocide.
And there now are encouraging signs that the ethical dimension is being given some consideration. The next vexed question is will this policy be followed through and implemented for the injustices of the South Block (Narayanan former NSA and his protégé Shivshankar Menon the present NSA) and the sufferings of Eelam Tamils to end. An analyst prophesied that ‘Dharmic India sooner than later will distance itself from SL with a noxious record of committing crimes against humanity with impunity’.
The Delhi South Block in over-appeasing SL partnered in the SL genocide since 2004 though proclaiming a hands-off policy. The South Block Delhi aided and abetted the SL genocide with critical and lethal intelligence, armed personnel in front line positions, cluster bombs, advice from Nambiars to Narayanans and Menons; all more covertly than overtly. This ended the de facto Tamil Eelam bringing a Buddhist Sinhala military occupation.
Under the South Block Narayanan/Menon spell Delhi also voted for the UNHRC May 2009 resolution to effectively applaud the SL massacres and kill off the war crimes initiatives against SL of the post Bush international community. Despite Chidambaram, the South Block still continues to use Nambiar to block progress on the appointment of an expert war crimes panel for SL that Ban suggested. The reach of the South Block aims to nail the nemesis of the Tamil cause and the very survival of the Tamils in SL. The absence of Chidambaram’s ethical dimension in Delhi’s SL policies since 2004 is significant; South Block anti-Tamil prejudice?
Delhi to please TN is funding relief works in the North and East SL perhaps to cleanse Delhi’s sins earned from partnering in the SL genocide. Delhi’s present Foreign Ministry is pushing for the thirteenth amendment plus constitutional (India’s power sharing) arrangements to redress the minor grievances of the Tamils but not guaranteeing Tamil lives from the marauding Buddhist Sinhala murderous regimes. Free of the Tamil resistance menace SL is bound to distance itself from Dharmic India ‘sooner than later’ over Delhi’s interest in the ‘power sharing ‘proposal. The signals coming out of Colombo on this are not likely to please Delhi.
Another hangover of the Narayanan/Menon policy legacy is the myth of preserving Sri Lanka as a ‘united’ entity. The Vaddukkoddai resolution called for a federal set-up on the Indian model. Is India under a federal set-up not a ‘united’ entity? Tamil Eelam and Buddhist Sinhala SL survived as distinct entities for centuries. It was the British who began administering Ceylon as one (not united) entity in 1833. Tamil Eelam was enjoined with Buddhist Sinhala SL constitutionally on Ceylon gaining independence in 1947. When the Buddhist Sinhalas ignored Chidambaram’s ethical dimension and ventured into destroying the Eelam Tamils as a distinct people the Tamil insurgency began in 1983 and established a de facto Tamil Eelam. Tamil Eelam and Buddhist Sinhala SL were constitutionally a single entity between 1947 and 1983, a brief period of 36 years in the many centuries of history of both Tamil Eelam and Buddhist Sinhala SL.
The South Block thinking that deliberately ignores the ethical dimension in the insurgency debate still causes embarrassment to the leadership of the TN state and inflicts humiliation on the Tamils generally and Eelam Tamils worldwide. Had Chidambaram’s ethical dimension been observed the visa bungle over Parvati, the mother of Prabhaharan would not have occurred? Rumours have it that Parvati was refused landing at Chennai airport though she held a proper visa issued in KL was a South Block bureaucrats’ action that SL Gothabhaya demanded; leaving an embarrassed Delhi over such a triviality. Furthermore the conditions attached to the new visa that Delhi approved for Parvati’s though an elder TN leader Karunanithi intervened was humiliating enough to hurt the sensitivities of all Tamilians. The remnants of the anti-Tamil prejudiced South Block bureaucracy still create embarrassing pin-pricks for Centre-state relations. Eelam Tamils the world over visit TN avoiding hostile SL for religious and social purposes. Indian visa offices routinely refer Eelam Tamils’ visa applications to Colombo for clearance. Should this practice continue now that the Tamil resistance is defeated and when some weight is being given to Chidambaram’s ‘ethical’ consideration?
Leave Your Comments