Bharat Rakshak

The UN resolution on SL is not about SL but India.

One has to weigh pros and cons. What we did was in line with our stand on Sri Lanka. We do not want to infringe on the sovereignty of Sri Lanka but concerns should be expressed so that Tamil people can get justice and lead a life of dignity,"

I am amazed that the Gandhi family that holds the reins of the UPA have either forgotten his sacrifice so quickly,or are unable to manage a few opposition parties of dubious distinction!

India the founder of SAARC votes against Sri Lanka. Looks like Sardarji doesn't give 2 hoots of destroying India's credibility in neighbourhood as well.

Manmohan Singh commits foreign policy blunder

With Prime Minister Manmohan Singh deciding to place his interests as also those of the Congress above our national interest, India has committed one of its worst foreign policy blunders by voting for the US/EU-sponsored resolution against Sri Lanka at the United Nations Human Rights Council. Thursday’s vote marks a sharp departure from India’s long-standing principle of not voting in favour of country-specific resolutions at the UNHRC. On March 1, India abstained from voting on a resolution targeting Syria, a country in which we have little or no stake and where recent developments have been far less than happy.

Yet, Mr Singh decided to vote in favour of the anti-Sri Lanka resolution, ignoring the twin facts that this would further sour bilateral relations and push Colombo closer towards Beijing. His decision to break with past practice and deliver a body blow to New Delhi’s already shaky relations with Colombo have nothing to do with the alleged ‘plight’ of Sri Lankan Tamils. It’s a decision that has been entirely dictated by what he lamely describes as “coalition compulsion” — the DMK, which keeps the Congress in power and Mr Manmohan Singh in office, blackmailed him into voting for the resolution. In a sense, what was witnessed on Thursday was not India but Mr Singh voting against Sri Lanka: This is a vote that has shocked the overwhelming majority of Indians who believe the pursuit of national interest should shape the contours of our foreign policy; barring Tamil chauvinists and their political patrons, few, if any, including in Tamil Nadu, would want to associate themselves with Mr Singh’s shameful deed of abandoning Sri Lanka when that country needed us the most.

The US, of course, would be gladdened by Mr Singh’s flawed decision, not the least because it diminishes, though not for the first time ever since this Government came to office, the primacy of India’s national interest. Nothing would delight the US more than an isolated, friendless India which is despised, if not hated, by its neighbours. The Americans have succeeded in achieving that collateral objective through this resolution; Mr Singh is complicit in ensuring that success.

Strangely, Mr Singh claims that his decision to vote against Sri Lanka is aimed at helping Sri Lankan Tamils “get justice”. That’s balderdash. It’s a non-binding resolution which Sri Lanka will be entirely justified in spurning with the contempt it deserves. If the US and its EU allies decide to take the issue to the UN Security Council, that move will be blocked by China and Russia — both countries have wisely voted against the resolution at UNHRC, placing their own interests above those of Western countries which are desperately seeking relevance in international affairs.

Sri Lanka has rightly described the passage of the resolution as a move which will not foster reconciliation between the majority Sinhalese and minority Tamils but only serve to further polarise communities. That’s precisely what busybodies in the West want — to disturb the peace that has prevailed ever since the LTTE was decimated by Sri Lanka’s military, and then fish in the troubled waters. India should have tried its best to prevent that goal from being achieved. Instead, we must now live with the shame of not only letting down a friend but also supping with its enemies. For that, only Mr Singh can be blamed.

I think that the vote would have been the same if a NDA Govt. would have been in power. When the two parties which have ruled Tamil Nadu alternately for 25 years both strongly support the resolution, India has no option but to support the resolution. The bottom line is that the interests of 60 million Indian citizens are first, foremost and paramount over the interest of 20 million Sinhalese, who are foreigners, good friends though they may be.

Philp, Think a little bit more about why its about India and not SL!
I know you'll get it.

Tamils have equal rights in Srilanka PERIOD. Fedral system like the one in India is the only way

It has little to do with interests of Indian tamils,but something to do with tamizh national sentiments.And tamizh national sentiments cannot be wished away.

K. V. Prasad
Share · Comment · print · T+

India on Thursday underscored that any assistance from the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights or visits of UN Special Procedures to Sri Lanka should be in consultation with and concurrence of Colombo.

Having voted with the U.S-backed resolution at the ongoing United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) in Geneva, India said that while subscribing to the broader message of the motion and the objectives it promoted, its emphasis was on concurrence and consultation.

“A democratic country like Sri Lanka has to be provided time and space to achieve the objectives of reconciliation and peace. In this Council we have the responsibility to ensure that our conclusions do contribute to this objective rather than hinder it,'' India said.

Informed sources said India played a role to incorporate two amendments to the resolution promoting reconciliation and accountability in Sri Lanka. Through one, it inserted in the preamble earlier Council resolutions 5/1 and 5/2 on institution building; and through the second, effectively made space for the country by insisting agreement of the Sri Lankan government, instead of the draft that said Colombo should “accept.” The sources characterised the thrust of the resolution as “non-intrusive.''

Through a formal statement, India said it believed that the primary responsibility for the promotion and protection of human rights lay with the states. Consequently, resolutions of this nature should fully respect the sovereign rights of states and contribute to Sri Lanka's own efforts in this regard.

It said that having welcomed the recommendations of Sri Lanka's Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) report, India believed that there was indeed a window of opportunity to forge a consensual way forward towards reconciliation through a political settlement respecting all the ethnic and religious groups inhabiting the nation. Colombo had committed itself to this in the UNHRC in 2009 and India noted that the dialogue with several parties, including the Tamil National Alliance, had started.

The LLRC report, it said, recognised that a political solution was imperative and that the Government of Sri Lanka should provide the leadership to this political process and also sets out several constructive recommendations, including those pertaining to missing persons, detainees, disappearances and abductions, promotion of a trilingual policy, reduction of high security zones, control of illegal armed groups' activities, return of private land and demilitarisation and restoration of civilian administration.

The Sri Lankan government, the statement noted, had also briefed the UNHRC in the ongoing session on the steps it had taken to implement the report and other measures

“We welcome these steps. We are confident that the implementation of the report will foster genuine reconciliation,'' the statement said adding that New Delhi was involved in both rehabilitation and resettlement efforts and the reconstruction process in Northern Sri Lanka and helped restore a degree of normality in the area.

India urged Colombo to take forward the process of broader dialogue and show concrete movement towards a meaningful devolution of powers, including the implementation of the 13th Amendment and beyond.

“We would also urge that Sri Lanka take forward the measures for accountability and to promote human rights that it has committed [itself] to. It is these steps, more than anything we declare in this Council, which would bring about genuine reconciliation between all the communities of Sri Lanka, including the minority Tamil community,'' the statement noted. As a neighbouring country with which it shared cordial relations for thousands of years, and with deep-rooted spiritual and cultural ties, India said it cannot remain untouched by developments in that country.

“We have been bound also by a shared quest for freedom and dignity. We will continue to remain engaged with the Government of Sri Lanka to take forward the process of reconciliation to secure for all its citizens a future marked by equality, dignity, justice and self-respect.'

: Terming the success of the resolution against Sri Lanka “a cynical negation of the purposes for which the Human Rights Council was established,” Sri Lankan Foreign Minister G.L. Peiris contended that “the most distressing feature” was that the voting was determined “not by the merits of a particular issue but by the strategic alliances and domestic political issues in other countries, which have nothing to do with the subject matter of the resolution.”

Despite Sri Lanka not making any progress on accountability or human rights issues — apart from the issue of granting political rights to the Tamils in the Northern Province, almost three years after the end of the war — Prof. Peiris chose to blame “domestic political issues” — a direct reference to the pressure applied by Tamil Nadu political parties — for the debacle at the HRC.

The Sri Lankan argument has been that the report of the committee that went into the causes of the war — the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission report — was submitted only in December last year and since then, Sri Lanka had appointed three committees to implement its recommendations.

Thanking countries that voted against the U.S. resolution, Prof. Peiris said that it was a “matter of great satisfaction” that they voted “despite the intensity of pressure, in a variety of forms, exerted on them.” He also thanked the eight countries “which, by abstaining, declined to support the resolution.”

Taking their absence as a positive vote, he said the final result was that 23 countries, out of a total of 47 members of the Council, did not support the resolution, while 24 supported it. “The margin was as narrow as this. Many countries which voted with Sri Lanka were acutely conscious of the danger of setting a precedent which enables ad hoc intervention by powerful countries in the internal affairs of other nations. This is a highly selective and arbitrary process not governed by objective norms or criteria of any kind. The implications of this were not lost on many countries,” he said.

According to a statement issued by the U.S. embassy in Colombo, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the U.S., and the international community had “sent a strong signal that Sri Lanka will achieve lasting peace only through real reconciliation and accountability, and the international community stands ready to help. The next steps are clear.”

The U.S. wants Sri Lanka to implement the constructive recommendations of the LLRC and take measures to address accountability issues. “We are committed to working with the Sri Lankan government to help realise this goal, and I look forward to discussing future actions with Foreign Minister Peiris soon,” Ms. Clinton said.

Share · print · T+

Despite apprehensions, there were no untoward incidents soon after Sri Lanka lost the vote at the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva.

There was some fear among the Indian community that it could be targeted, but this turned out to be misplaced.

Several groups had organised protests in Colombo in the days leading to the vote, and the media were extremely critical of India in the last few days.

The first sign of normality was that a function slated for the evening and featuring almost all top officials of the Indian High Commission, the Secretary-General of the main party that heads the ruling UPFA coalition, the SLFP, Maithripala Sirisena, and over 300 Sri Lankan students was held as scheduled and with considerable bonhomie.

More than friends

Students recalled their stay in India and said that both countries were more than friends. Most students said they were as comfortable in India as they were in Sri Lanka. The Minister too highlighted the many levels of cooperation that existed between the two countries.

Restaurants and clubs did brisk business and it seemed business as usual in Colombo.

“India did a favour”

Foreign Minister G.L. Peiris issued a statement in Geneva which obliquely hinted at the Indian role. But a few others in Sri Lanka, who had studied the resolution, said that India had done Sri Lanka a favour by making sure that the wording was changed not to allow the inclusion of the ‘Trojan clause' – ‘technical assistance' from UNHRC to investigate human rights allegations.

“At the popular level there might be anger. But I am sure everyone in positions of authority knows how much India has helped,” an official said.

Thirteenth Amendment to Sri Lanka Constitution
- Devolution or Comic Opera [also in PDF]

Nadesan Satyendra, March 1988
[see also Text of 13th Amendment to Sri Lanka Constitution, 1987]

The writer acknowledges with gratitude his indebtedness to the reflections of Sri Aurobindo in an article entitled 'Comic Opera Reforms' in the Bande Mataram - written in 1907, some eighty years ago.
In August 1987, the Sri Lankan Parliament passed the 13th Amendment to the Constitution and the ancillary Provincial Councils Act. The Sri Lankan Government declared that the enactment of these laws fulfilled the promises made in the Accord, to 'devolve power' on the Tamil people.

The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, who (together with the other armed resistance groups) were recognized as 'combatants' by the Accord and who had emerged as the leaders of the Tamil national struggle, rejected the basic provisions of the 13th Amendment.

This Article examines the basic provisions of the 13th Amendment and the Provincial Councils Act and inquires whether these laws devolved power on the Tamil people or whether these laws amount to a constitutional script for a comic opera, with power continuing to reside in a Sinhala dominated Central government within the frame of an unitary constitution.

Contents

Constitutional trinity of marvels
Executive power exercised by a Provincial Governor appointed by the Sinhala President
The Provincial Governor will control the Provincial public service
What then, is the role of the Board of Ministers and the Chief Minister?
Chief Minister and the Board of Ministers are 'to aid and advice' the Provincial Governor
Those who are required to 'aid and advice' the ruler should not be left in doubt ..
President may dissolve the Provincial Council
Governor not bound to act on the advice of the Chief Minister
But subject to the direction and control of the President
Who will control the purse?
Withdrawal from the Provincial Fund subject to the sanction of the Governor
If Ministers do not agree with the Governor, President may take over
In sum elected Ministers without Ministerial power
And an appointed Governor with ministerial powers
Many subjects outside even the Governor's powers
Including police and public order
The Chief Minister is granted the privilege of being consulted!
Police and public order in the Province effectively in the hands of the President
Disposition of State land in the hands of the Sinhala President
The third of the constitutional trinity of marvels - the Provincial Council
'National policy' enables the central Parliament to legislate in respect of any matter
Provincial Council - a glorified Local Authority
Without control of finance
The powers of the Provincial Councils may be changed by a simple majority
13th Amendment: Constitutional sleight of hand
Fails to address central issues of the Tamil national struggle
Denies homeland to the Tamils of Eelam
And resorts to the subterfuge of a referendum
A Machievellian provision intended to secure that the merger is temporary
Refuses to recognise the political reality of the Tamil Nation
The Tamil Nation in Eelam is more than an idea
Thimpu Declaration was the joint and unanimous will of the Tamil people
Constitutional script for a comic opera

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Constitutional trinity of marvels

It is difficult to discuss the provisions of the 13th Amendment to the Sri Lanka Constitution seriously - they are so impossibly burlesque and farcical. Yet, they have a serious aspect. They show that Sinhala chauvinism, like all chauvinisms in the same predicament, has made the time honoured, ineffectual effort to evade a settlement of the real question by throwing belated and unacceptable sops to Demogorgon.

Let us, therefore, take one by one the precious and inestimable boons granted to the Tamil people by the 13th Amendment. The boons are three in number, a trinity of marvels: a Provincial Governor, a Provincial Board of Ministers with a Chief Minister, and a Provincial Council.

At the head of this constitutional Trinity stands the Provincial Governor. Who will select and ordain him? Who else, but the President of Sri Lanka. But that is not all. The Provincial Governor will hold office 'during the pleasure of the President'. When the President is no longer pleased with the Governor the President may dismiss him. And what is the constitutional reason for this provision that the Governor shall hold office during the pleasure of the President? The 13th Amendment does not leave us in doubt as to that reason. It declares that the Governor 'shall hold office, in accordance with Article 4(b), during the pleasure of the President'.

It is a rather curiously phrased provision. What pray, is Article 4(b) of the Constitution? This is the Article which vests 'the executive power of the people' of Sri Lanka in the President. It is 'in accordance' with the provision of the Constitution which vests executive power in the President, that the Governor will hold office at the pleasure of the President. And so let us ask: wherein lies the constitutional link between the President being vested with executive power and the Governor holding office at the pleasure of the President - in what way is the latter 'in accordance' with the former?

The connection, ofcourse, lies in the character of the office of the Governor created by the 13th Amendment. The Governor is no mere figurehead. The 13th Amendment enacts that executive power in the Province in relation to those matters which are within the competence of the Provincial Council, shall be exercised by the Governor.

But if the Governor is to exercise executive power in provincial matters, then the Sri Lankan Constitution which vests executive power with respect to all matters in relation to the entirety of Sri Lanka, in the President, will be violated unless, ofcourse, such Governor holds office 'during the pleasure of the President' and is made subject to the control and direction of the President.

The reason for the curious wording of the 13th Amendment becomes clear. 'In accordance with Article 4(b)' of the Constitution which vests executive power in the President, the Provincial Governor shall hold office 'during the pleasure' of the President. The 13th Amendment reinforces the powers of the executive Presidency and secures that the executive power vested in the President by the Constitution will not be eroded in any way.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Executive power will be exercised by a Provincial Governor appointed by the Sinhala President

In sum, executive power in relation to provincial matters, will be exercised by a Governor who will be appointed by the President, who will hold office 'during the pleasure' of the President, and who will exercise his executive powers as the faithful and loyal servant of the Executive President of Sri Lanka. That is the naked political and constitutional reality of the character of a Provincial Governor under the 13th Amendment.

Perhaps, not surprisingly, in May 1988, two long standing Sinhala members of the ruling party who had served as Ministers in the Sri Lankan Cabinet resigned their offices and gratefully accepted appointment as Governors of the North Western and Uva Provinces, so that they may serve the President 'during his pleasure'. The circumstance that in early 1989, one of them resigned and accepted appointment as Prime Minister in President Premadasa's Cabinet serves to underline the close links that the Governors were intended to have with the Central government.

In June 1988, a Tamil who had served the Government of Sri Lanka with exemplary loyalty and acceptance as its Chief Justice for the past few years, was selected and appointed by the President as the Governor of the Western Province - a Province which has a Sinhala majority. It was an appointment which was, amongst other things, presumably intended to pave the way for the appointment of a Sinhala Governor for a Tamil Province.

At that time, we could almost see in our minds eye those honourable and distinguished Sinhala gentlemen who the President of Sri Lanka would regard as being qualified to serve as the Governor of a Tamil Province. It was a vision which was later made real with the appointment of the Sinhala Major General Nalin Seneviratne, as the Governor of the Northern and Eastern Province. Major General Nalin Seneviratne had served as Commander in Chief of the Sri Lankan Army in the war against the Tamil militant movement and now that the war had been 'won', it was wholly appropriate that he should return to rule the Tamil people as their Governor.

Here, let us recognise that it matters not whether the Northern Province is joined with the Eastern Province or not. If the Northern and Eastern Provinces are joined together, the Tamils will have one Governor. If they are not joined together, then the Tamils will have the privilege of having two Governors.

Ofcourse, it is always possible that the Sri Lankan government, in a moment of great daring, at some future date, may even consider it safe to appoint a Tamil as a Governor for a Tamil Province - so long, that is, that such Tamil Governor will serve faithfully and loyally 'during the pleasure' of the President.

After all, there should be no better way of governing the Tamil people than through a Tamil Governor appointed by, and holding office during the pleasure of, a Sinhala President!

It would be an approach that would rival that of Hitler who sought to govern Norway in the 1940s through a Norwegian whose name was Quisling - and thereby made an everlasting contribution to the vocabulary of the English language. In the months ahead we shall know whether a Tamil Quisling will come forward to make a similar contribution to the richness of the Tamil language.

Government Minister Vinayagamoorthy Muralitharan alias “Karuna Amman” stated that Karunanidhi is using the Tamil People to stay afloat politically. “Karunanidhi and many of the Tamil Nadu politicians are today politically bankrupt.

Earlier Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu M. Karunanidhi speaking to Indian media said that the establishing of the Tamil Eelam is his only “unrealized dream”.

Muralitharan also stated that the government and his Ministry have taken constructive measures towards national integration. “The people in the Wanni for the first time in 30 years have electricity, the roads are being developed and there is massive investment on infrastructure. Livelihood development has been one of the key areas we are working on and these thing will all help build lasting peace and ethnic harmony among all communities living in the country” he said.

The former Eastern Commander of the LTTE who led the breakaway faction which ultimately resulted in the military weakening of the LTTE commended the TNA on its approach. “The TNA by not going to Geneva have done the right thing. They have a lot of responsibility though because they have to understand that if they encourage intervention it is the Tamil people who will suffer first” he said.

Geneva outcome 2012
March 23, 2012, 8:21 pm

By Dr. Dayan Jayatilleka

Let’s learn the right lessons from the Geneva outcome, not the wrong ones. It is not the case that a small country such as Sri Lanka cannot fight a diplomatic battle with the mighty USA and win. Minutes after the Sri Lanka vote at the HRC this time, the Cubans moved a resolution on the composition of the staff of the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, the opacity (code-named independence) of which the West regards as a holy of holies. The USA opposed the resolution. The Cuban resolution won with a massive 33 votes.

Last year the USA invested far more effort and political capital at a far higher political level than in the case of the Sri Lanka resolution in Geneva, to prevent Palestine from being granted full membership of the UNESCO in Paris. The US lost that battle, and besieged Palestine, an embryonic or proto-state (unlike Sri Lanka) won a two thirds majority. The battle was fought by a core quartet comprising two Palestinian diplomats —the impressive Left Bank intellectual Ambassador Elias Sanbar, his deputy Munir —and the Permanent Delegates of Egypt and Saudi Arabia. (The Palestinian Foreign Minister Riad Malki addressed the Council after the victory to thank the member states). I was privileged to be a participant in that historic struggle.

Even in the case of the Special Session on Sri Lanka in the UNHRC in Geneva in May 2009, we have confirmation from Wikileaks that the USA ‘led from behind’, with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton instructing the US Mission thus: "...the USG [US Govt] supports a special session on the human rights situation in Sri Lanka and related aspects of the humanitarian situation. Mission is further requested to provide assistance, as needed...in obtaining others signatures to support holding this session...Mission is also instructed to engage with HRC members to negotiate a resolution as an outcome of this special session, if held. Department believes a special session that does not result in a resolution would be hailed as a victory by the Government of Sri Lanka..."[Cable dated 4th May 2009 from Secretary of State (United States)] Sri Lanka won that battle, of course, with more votes than the sole superpower, the US, managed to secure this time.

The classic example of how to beat the US in a diplomatic battle is Cuba, which moves a resolution against the blockade every year at the UN General Assembly in New York and secures a mammoth victory of 190 votes in favour and 3 against.

The examples of Palestine (2011), Cuba and Sri Lanka (2009) have one thing in common: you can resist the West successfully only if you have built a sufficiently broad cross-regional coalition, a global united front. Such a counter-hegemonic bloc is predicated upon support in one’s own region, from among one’s own neighbours. India’s decision to support the US resolution came as a shock. Yet, it shouldn’t have. There can always be ‘black swan events’ but those are pretty much unpredictable. Other events can be anticipated if preceded by accurate analysis. The Indian turnaround was not only predictable; it was predicted and therefore preventable, and yet it wasn’t. I wrote the following, six months ago, ringing the alarm bell regarding the UN Human Rights Council when there was time enough to do something:

"If one has to identify a single critical or crucial variable for Sri Lanka, it is India, but our strategy cannot be reduced to Indian support...A few weeks after we fought and won our battle in Geneva in May 2009, Myanmar lost in the same forum though it had the votes of India, Russia and China. So the secret of our victory in 2009 was not simply and solely India...We will find it almost impossible to win without India’s support, and we cannot win if India ever turns against us, but we cannot win only with India’s support. We must always remember that many Asian, Middle Eastern, African and Latin American states will take their cue from India. India has a wide presence and is widely respected among Sri Lanka’s friends. We must rally our neighbourhood in our support. We must have the solid support of our continent, Asia. We must balance the South against hostile sections of the North, and the East against hostile sections of the West. India is pivotal in all these defensive moves and it is difficult to implement any of them if India is against or conspicuously on the sidelines. If, as some critical commentaries assert, India’s position has changed, or is changing, or might possibly change, from that of our May 2009 UN HRC victory, we must seek out the reasons and rectify them jointly.

We must certainly strive to countervail the mounting anti-Lankan opinion in Indian civil society and the media, militant opinion in Tamil Nadu and the lobbying of certain Western elements. We must secure Delhi’s support and swing Indian public and political opinion firmly over to Sri Lanka’s side. This cannot be done by purely verbal means but by policy reforms. As a UN based top official of Sri Lanka’s firmest, most powerful international friend told me once, ‘short of capitulating on or compromising its vital security interests, Sri Lanka must do what it takes to help its friends to help it’." (‘Defending and Protecting Sri Lanka’, Daily Mirror, September 29th, 2011, my emphasis, DJ)

My warning six months back was no one-off flash of foresight. The danger of an Indian shift and what should be done to forestall it was set out in cold print by me as long as three years ago. In an article that appeared exactly three months BEFORE the death of Prabhakaran, entitled ‘The Indian Reality in Sri Lanka’s Existence’ I wrote:

"...India cannot afford recrudescent Tamil Nadu separatism which thrives on the charge that New Delhi is insensitive to Tamil Nadu’s feelings for their ethnic kin in Northern Sri Lanka. Tamil Nadu... is an important and influential component of the Indian Union, and when push comes to shove, carries far more weight than Sri Lanka and the Sinhalese, in New Delhi, Washington, Moscow and Beijing. If faced with a serious strategic choice, Delhi will choose Chennai over Colombo. It is up to Sri Lanka to prevent matters coming to that...

Sri Lanka needs to countervail and neutralize the anti-Sinhala extremists in Tamil Nadu and the Diaspora...The balanced solution of fullest autonomy within a unitary framework may be opposed by smaller extremist forces among the Sinhala majority. The grim reality though, is that even at their most disruptive and violent, these forces can do much less harm to the Sri Lankan state than a decision by India, under mounting Tamil Nadu pressure, to tilt against Sri Lanka, and a corresponding decision by India’s partner the USA to mount economic pressure on Sri Lanka through multilateral institutions and agencies. Under the unlamented Bush administration there was daylight between the positions of the US and the EU. Under the new and universally welcomed Obama administration there may be no daylight between the positions of the US, EU and India." (‘The Indian Reality in Sri Lanka’s Existence’, The Island Feb 16, 2009)

I had quickly returned to the theme in the next month, again before the war was won, in a piece significantly entitled ‘Winning Locally, Winning Globally’:

"The Sinhalese and Tamils are in a Mexican standoff. Locally, the Sri Lankan armed forces have surrounded the Tigers...Meanwhile, globally, from the US Senate to the UN Security Council, from Ottawa to London, from Brussels to Pretoria, from Delhi to Dili, Sri Lanka is under pressure and scrutiny as never before. Are we being encircled globally just as we have encircled the Tigers locally...The Tigers have no exit from military defeat, but do the State and society have an exit from the crisis?" (‘Winning Locally, Winning Globally’, The Island Midweek, March 11, 2009)

In June–July 2009, in the immediate aftermath of the military victory and, more topically today, our diplomatic success in Geneva at the UN HRC, I repeatedly stressed the point in what turned out to be a polemical exchange.

"...As the paradigmatic victory in Geneva showed, we can win against the Tiger Diaspora and the Western European bloc influenced by it, when we are supported by our neighbours, our continent and our natural constituency the developing world plus Russia. In this strategy the support of India is critical. Without India’s support, the rest will distance itself from us, leaving us wide open to Western pressure and coercion. China alone cannot carry the weight..." (‘13th Amendment: Why non-implementation is a non-option’, The Island, 13th June, 2009)

"..Sovereignty not only has to be asserted, it has to be defended and defensible. Sri Lanka cannot defend its sovereignty against all comers from all points of the compass, North and South, West and East. It can defend its sovereignty only by power balancing in a multi-polar world..." (‘The 13th Amendment, Indo-Lanka, Sovereignty’ The Island, June 27, 2009)

Sadly, this reality manifested itself in Geneva, on March 21st 2012.

Mervyn threatens to break limbs of journos
Friday, 23 March 2012

Minister of Public Relations Mervyn Silva warned that he will break the limbs of some journalists, who have gone abroad and made various statements against the country, if they dare to set foot in the country.

“I’m the one who chased one of those journalists ‘PoddalaJayantha’ out of this country. I will break the limbs of all these journalists, in public if they dare to set foot in the country” the Minster warned.

Speaking at a demonstration against the resolution against Sri Lanka at the UNHRC held in Kiribathgoda today Silva also said it is the only the President who can remove him from office.

He also said “Even if a Tsunami flow from Sigiriya I’m sure that no Tsunami will flow against me from President Mahinda Rajapaksa” . “Only Mahinda Rajapakshe can sack me, no other big shot can lay their hands on me until that happened I won’t leave Kelaniya. I know the sons of D.A. Rajapaksa from the time they were kids. The King of this country loves me, the King of this country trusts me” he said.

The Minister informed the public present at the meeting that his son, from this day, would be in the hands of the public. “I’m not afraid to die; two drug dealers from Colombo want to chase me away. But I’m not frightened to die, if something happens to my life, my wife and two children will still be there. From this day onwards my son will be in your hands” he said. (Lal. S. Kumara)

Jayanth Jacob, Hindustan Times
New Delhi, March 23, 2012
Email to Author

When India voted against Sri Lanka in the UN Human Rights Council, it took a calculated risk aimed at prodding the country towards moving faster on resolving Tamil issues, an official said.

It also worked hard to ensure that the issue of the country's “sovereignty” remained intact, going
by a stipulation of the resolution that any move would be made in “consultation or concurrence of the government of Sri Lanka”, he added.

The Sri Lankan issue has a huge bearing on India's domestic politics, especially in matters pertaining to Tamil Nadu and the Congress-led UPA government. Many in the country also think that Sri Lanka hasn’t done enough to address the Tamil ethnic issue, despite assurances made at various forums.

With 24 votes for, 15 against, and eight abstentions, the 47-member UN Human Rights Council adopted the resolution on promoting “reconciliation and accountability in Sri Lanka”.

The resolution also expresses concern that an internal inquiry report in Sri Lanka does not adequately address "serious allegations" of international law violations. Neighbouring states such as China, Bangladesh and Maldives, besides Russia, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Indonesia, were among the countries that voted against the resolution.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on Thursday said India's vote against Sri Lanka at the UNHCR was in line with its stand on the issue, and it only wanted to ensure that minority Tamils in the country received justice.

Stating that India does not intend to “infringe” on the sovereignty of Sri Lanka, Singh said, “One has to weigh the pros and cons. We do not want to infringe on the sovereignty of Sri Lanka, but concerns should be expressed so Tamil people can get justice and lead a life of dignity.”